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

Fitting that this would make us Nestorians, no?

Yes, indeed!

Gordo, who quite enjoyed that one over his coffee this morning

CHRIST IS RISEN!

Khrystos Voskres!

For some reason I'm not getting these quips. Was my tea not strong enough this morning?

On another part of the Melkite web site, Bishop John Elya has this to say:

(see: http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm )

View of the Post-Schism Councils: Must we Eastern Catholics consider the post-schism General Councils of the Roman Church Ecumenical like the Seven of the First Millennium?

Bishop John's Answer: Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour occupied the Melkite throne of Antioch for thirty-three years (1864-1897). At Vatican I, the Patriarch gave an impassioned plea to the assembled bishops in defense of the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs. He said: "The Eastern Church attributes the highest and most complete power to the Pope, but in such a way that the fullness of his power is in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees. (Mansi 52,cols. 133-137). Patriarch Gregory finally signed the document Pastor aeternus but only after adding the phrase made famous at the earlier Council of Florence that expressed his reservations. He added: "salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum". {saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs}.

While the first seven ecumenical councils enjoy a place of prominence, especially in the East, both the Churches of the East and West have experienced local councils and synods throughout their rich histories. The early ecumenical councils met to resolve and articulate important Christological doctrines. The Melkite Church participated fully in Vatican I and Patriarch Gregory spoke clearly to his affirmation of the fullness of power enjoyed by the Petrine Office. The Patriarch was very concerned that the exercise of papal powers be "in harmony with the rights of the other Patriarchal Sees." The second Vatican Council is seen to have completed the unfinished business of Vatican I with its special emphasis on ecclesiology, specifically on the nature of the Church.

Recent theological speculation has developed the concept of "communion of churches" with promising results for ecumenism and rapprochement with the Orthodox. It would be a simple rekindling of the old controversy of conciliarism to suggest that some councils are less ecumenical than others. With the promulgation of the Holy Father, the doctrinal content of the various councils is a part of the sacred magisterial teaching of the Church to which Melkites in full communion with the See of Rome give wholehearted assent.

Gordo mentioned that three is a Divine number, but that we could be Monophysites if we only accepted three Councils, since it was the Council of Chalcedon (Fourth Ecumenical Council) that officially condemned Monophysitism (of course the non-Chalcedonians are not Monophysites, but take the joke for what it's worth).

You brought up the two natures of Christ as a good number, and I realized how funny that was since it was the Third Council that condemned Nestorianism. The funny thing is that Nestorius, who accepted only the first Two Councils, came to his heresy by over-emphasizing the two natures of Christ

That help?

Christos Anesti!

I get it now, I've been to Church and have had lunch.

Besides myself, does anyone find this statement disturbing?

In the context in which I found it, I find it most comforting.

But then I very often agree with Bishop John, or have found myself agreeing with him over the years.

Why is it disturbing to you, in the context in which we find this asstertion?

Mary

Speaking for myself, not especially, Peter. Why do you?

In ICXC,

Gordo

Gordo,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

I think that, when you really come down to it, I just don't belong on this message board.

-Peter.

Peter,

Why in the world would you say that?

You asked a question - "is anyone else disturbed...". I said, speaking for myself - "No" and then asked "Why are you (disturbed by this)?"

I wanted you to explain your thinking or to "make an argument" for a position, not just criticize a bishop. I apologize if that came across as abrupt or unwelcoming. It was certainly not my intention.

God bless and stay dry!

Gordo

Dear Gordo,

I think you're reading far too much into what I said.

I don't think that anyone is being unwelcoming or abrupt. This is a very nice discussion forum -- I just don't think it is for me.

(I guess you could say that my "I just don't belong on this message board" statement was meant to express my lack of surprise at the responses I got.)

With the benefit of hindsight, that ought to have been:

Peter,

If I felt that way everytime my posts were ignored on this forum, I would have left many times in the past several years.

I guess the question is: what sort of response were you expecting?

Gordo