www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West How Many Ecumenical Councils?

This from the official web site [melkite.org] of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Eparchy of Newton (in communion with Rome).

8 How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils

9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council � no participation from the Orthodox

The source [melkite.org]

Strange considering the remarkable involvement of the Melkite Patriarchate in the Second Vatican Council.

Everything I have seen from the Melkites indicates that the Patriarchs since Vatican II regard the council as ecumenical.

The Melkites tend to label the Councils differently.

The 1st Seven as Ecumenical.
The rest as General Councils, mainly dealing the West.

Michael,

Anything official on that?

I've read the opposite from various Melkite Greek-Catholic Patriarchs...

Gordo

nothing official, just what I've heard from someone's someone somewhere...

Can I quote you on that?

A blessed Holy Week...

Gordo

I don't have official documentation, but for what it's worth Michael_Thoma's statement reflects what was told to me personally by Sayedna Cyril Bustros, namely that the validity of the later Councils isn't the question, but the universality of them. He said they should be called "General Synods of the West", a title first used by a Pope incidently (and you can find the presence of the term used even in the typically ultra-Latin Catholic Encyclopedia entry on General Councils, though it labels the later Councils as Ecumenical in its list, despite them falling into the category of General Council of the West according to their own definition).

Sayedna Zoghby has dissented from this view, but I don't know if any of the Melkite Patriarchs have. The Melkite Patriarch at Vatican II certainly spoke positively of the authority of Vatican I.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

Pope Paul VI was known on at least one occasion to refer to the councils following the first seven as "General Councils/Synods of the West".

I suppose it depends upon how one defines "universality". To be sure, apart from Vatican II, the other councils certainly operated within a purely Western framework. In that sense, I agree that they were far from "universal" in their treatment of doctrinal issues. With that said, none of this undermines their irreformability in the Catholic canonical tradition. Does that mean things were said in the right way, at the right time? Certainly not.

For my part, I see the first seven councils exercising a primacy of honor and authority within the Great Tradition - especially the Byzantine tradition. The first four even more so - one could say a hyper-primacy, like the four Gospels in relationship to the whole New Testament canon.

The other councils, including Vatican II, are still referred to as ecumenical by both Papal magisterium, the Latin Catholic and all Eastern Cathoic churches. To be sure, all hierarchs at Vatican II - Eastern and Western - regarded the council as truly ecumenical. Given the large degree of participation - more so than any other council in history - one wonders what the threshold would be for a council to be called "ecumenical".

God bless,

Gordo

PS: With that said, I know that Yves Congar, O.P. did some research on the idea of canonical "reception" and ecumenicity. I wonder if this model might be a way of understanding the nature of the authority of the later councils. Is it sufficient for a council to be received by Rome alone as the criterion for universality? It is a legitimate question, IMHO.

I agree, and while I don't know if Sayedna Bustros would use the same terminology (simply because we didn't go into it), when I asked him if it was permissable to believe that these "General Councils" taught heresy he said certainly not. He seemed a little shocked at my question, to be honest

Now that isn't going so far as to say that they're completely irreformable and absolutely definitive in all ways, but I think such a categorical rejection of the notion of them being in heretical error falls puts those Councils into the camp of "true representations of the Catholic Faith", even if they're viewed as having a uniquely Latin "flavor" and context. That of course is just my assumption based on my conversation with Sayedna Cyril, and not his words directly (again, we simply didn't go into such detail), so take it for its little worth

He also brought up the important point that the earlier Councils dealt with issues that are very central to the Faith, such as Christology, and therefore hold a preeminent place regardless. The later Latin Councils, with the exception of Trent, didn't tend to deal with such central doctrines, and Trent was really more of a restatement of the Apostolic Faith against the hydra-like body of heresies arising from the Reformation, rather than truly defining much that was utterly new and central.

Peace and God bless!

The number 7 is a divine number.

Therefore, when discussing divine things, the answer is:

Seven!

In Christ,

Michael

The number 3 is also a divine number...but that would make us all Monophysites!

Gordo

I thought the number 3 was man, 6 the devil, and 7 God. Doing things thrice meant really, really, really. Thus, 666 is the Devil and we are called to forgive 77x7 times. I don't have a clue where that comes from, it is one of those trivia facts that's always been there.

Actually, 3 is the number of perfection...it is also obviously Trinitarian. 6 is man's number because it was the day of his creation along with the beasts...but his dignity was the 7th day (the Shabbat) the day of the Covenant. When man violates the covenant the, he acts like a beast (recall Pascal's comment "Man is both angel and beast. It is a shame that he who would act like the angel often acts like the beast."). The anti-Christ of Revelation is given the number "666" and referred to as "the Beast" because he is the perfection of beastliness.

8 is the number of eternity...it is the number of the Lord's Day - Sunday - since it is one day beyond the 7th (the Old Covenant is superceded and fulfilled by the New) and it is also the 1st Day of the New Creation because of the Resurrection AND because of Pentecost. SO...Sunday is technically the 1st Day of the week, although we tend to view it as the last day.That gives us a whole new orientation to ourwork week, does it not? our first labor is liturgy...for the Lord. Secondarily, it is our labor in the marketplace.

One other point - the call to forgiveness is 70x7..which represents, I believe, an infinite number of times. (7x10)7. 10 is also a sacred number in Jewish numerology, but I am unsure as to why.

12 is also significant as is 40.

2 Natures of Christ.