www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Go West [Not So] Young Man

Father Robert Bishop, CMF is an excellent biritual priest and is very devout.

Francis, I'm not sure I do see a difference. The entire Catholic Church took part in the last fourteen ecumenical councils. The Catholic Church and all those sui iuris Churches in Communion with Rome constitute the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Schismatic bishops and Churches presence would, naturally, not be a requirement for a council to be considered ecumenical.

I mean, if that's the case, then why are the fourth-through-seventh "ecuemnical" councils ecumenical, in your opinion? The Oriental Orthodox were not invited to those and did not take part in any of them, and yet you recognize them as ecumenical.

I will, of course, let you speak for yourself, but to me it seems that you are operating under the same principles as I in one respect (in regards to ECs #4-7) and yet not so in another (in regards to ECs #8-21).

Alexis

this becomes a question of ecclesiology. If we believe that the Great Schism has never been complete, and that in some sense Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism are fundamentally one church, then an "ecumenical council" to which one side or the other is exclusively invited is not an ecumenical council.

If it will make anyone feel any better, the Orthodox were invited to Vatican I, and declined to attend.

On the other hand, the Anglican bishops of the period were invited to Trent and declined to attend - and I certainly would not say that the Anglicans stood in the same relationship as the Orthodox do to Rome, or vice versa.

In the case of Vatican II, the first Eastern Catholic to say that this was not an authentic ecumenical council was none other than Metropolitan Elias (Zoghby), of thrice-blessed memory. Nobody attempted to push him out. On the other hand, it's a moot point, since Vatican II of set purpose did not define dogma, but rather was a pastoral council.

Fr. Serge

I found one of my earlier posts which provides a quote from then Cardinal Ratzinger on precisely this point, what was intended and its subsequent misinterpretation.


I for one accept the (then) good Cardinal's analysis. Presumably this has not changed since becoming the Vicar of Peter.

God bless,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

To say that a Council of the Western Church is not precisely the equivalent of one of the Seven Councils is not to say that a Council of the Western Church is not authoritative.

Fr. Serge

Alexis,

How dare you find the weakness in my argument!

Seriously, I think you bring up a good point about ECs #4-7.

On the one hand, I do not think that "the entire Catholic Church took part in the last fourteen ecumenical councils", as the Catholic Church itself recognizes the validity of the Orthodox Churches as "Churches" (not just "ecclesial communities" like the Protestant groups). If they are truly "churches", then they must be in some way part of the "entire Catholic Church", even if imperfectly. Thus, I think the argument can be made that the Western Councils were just that - Western Councils and not ecumenical.

However, the problem is with the fact that apostolic churches split after the 3rd council, so why doesn't my argument apply to them as well, as you wonder?

I think because of the difference between the various schisms. In the case of the schisms after the 3rd and 4th councils, we have a clear case of churches breaking off from the Great Church due to perceived doctrinal reasons declared by a legitimate council of bishops. The Great Schism however, had no such break. There was no rejection of the others dogmas until after a long period apart, and the "schism" itself was not really a formally declared schism. Thus, as Fr. Serge stated, the Schism was never really completed, and therefore both Catholicism and Orthodoxy are part of the full "Catholic Church" and needed to call a true ecumenical council.

Fr. Deacon Daniel,

Yes, I don't think you can take Cardinal Ratzinger's words further than he intended. I doubt he questions the ecumenical status of the General Councils of the West.

However, his willingness to let the Orthodox maintain the legitimacy of their own developments of the 2nd millennium, without recourse to the Western Councils, does seem to necessitate putting the 7 Great Councils on a different level than the Western Councils. What exactly this means, I do not know, but I think it is something to contemplate.

Father Serge,

Father Louis Bouyer argued the same thing in his treatise on the Church.

I have often thought, as a Byzantine especially, that one should ascribe a "primacy of honor" to the first seven, who also seem to have something of a hierarchy within themselves (the first 4 - compared by St. Gregory the Great to the "Four Gospels"). The later councils addressed themselves principally (but not exclusively in certain cases) to matters of interest and necessity in the West and therefore have little application to the East. I think whatever their authoritative nature (and I do hold to them as ecumenical), their value is in defining certain doctrinal or dogmatic boundaries that most of us within the East would not even consider crossing.

In ICXC,

Fr. Deacon Daniel

Francis,

Thank you for making a distinction. While I understand parts of your reasoning, I still have trouble with other areas.
First of all, no one can in good conscience any more deny that the Catholic Church defines itself as THE definitive Church of Christ. While others separated from Her have elements of the True Church, sometimes so many elements that they themselves can legitimately be called Churches (the EOs, OOs, Assyrians, etc.), it has been consistently taught (and recently clarified in a much-delayed official Vatican explanation of what, exactly "subsistit in" means) that, to put it in a mathematical forumula, the Catholic Church = the One, Undivided, Church of Christ.

I do not hate or despise people who disagree, but by my conscience and by the clear teaching of the Church I am bound to believe that they are in serious error and denying a truth of the Faith. I can't see how those who would attempt to come at the issue honestly could disagree, but there you have it. I believe that some people *want* something so badly, that they will stop at nothing to believe in it, official pronouncements, clarifications, etc. having little to no affect. I'm not saying that's what's happening with you, but I think it happens to many people on a variety of issues.

Ok, enough of beating that dead horse...moving on...
You make the argument that since the Eastern Orthodox Churches are "truly 'churches'," that they must be part of the entire Catholic Church, and since they didn't take part in the last 14 "Western" councils, that these councils cannot be deemed ecumenical.

Huh?

Aren't the Oriental Orthodox Churches "truly churches" as well, according to Catholic teaching, just as much so as the Eastern Orthodox? The answer, of course, is yes. How then, in light of the reasons you have posited, can "ecumenical councils" #4-7 still be considered ecumenical? Despite however a departure occurred (in the case of the OO, rejecting what they saw to be a false, non-ecumenical council trying to force on them unOrthodox terminology, and in another case a gradual, but clear ecclesial rupture between the EO and the Catholic Church), the fact of the matter remains that for those councils, four through seven, "true Churches" are not participating in any way in these ecumenical councils.

Now, that's not a problem for me, in the least. But it seems to be for you, at least in regards to the last 14 councils.
What, in this respect, is the difference for you?

Alexis

I agree very much. But I never said that any of the councils were "precise equivalents" of each other.

Alexis

Alexis,

Just to be clear: I do believe that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. I have no dispute with this, and I accept that all other Churches have some type of imperfection in their communion with that one Church.

However, I still am troubled by equating the later Western Councils with the original seven of the undivided Church. Clearly some type of breach occurred in the Church after the 11th century. In the old days, we would have just said, "the schismatics left us, and too bad for them". That is clearly not acceptable in light of recent Catholic teaching. This breach has had an impact not only on the Orthodox, but also upon us - we are missing something constitutive to our being as the Body of Christ. Because of this, it is difficult for me to see how we can simply look upon the councils after the Great Schism as being on the same level of the first seven. As I said previously, I'm not sure what this means as regards to the exact authoritativeness of the Western Councils.

Regarding the difference between #4-7 and #8-21, my only explanation is the one I gave before. I do think the circumstances of the breaches make a difference - in the case of the breaches after #3 and #4, we have churches leaving over doctrinal issues and after conciliar debates (while maintaining apostolic succession). But in the case of the Great Schism, we have no actual event that causes the schism. To paraphrase Fr. Congar, we simply woke up one day estranged from each other. To use a crude analogy, the first two schisms were divorces, but the Great Schism has been more of a separation. Because of this, it seems to me that for a council to be truly ecumenical, it needs both the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches participating.

Francis,

I think I understand your position, although I do not agree with it. But there are worse things than a friendly disagreement!

Just to make sure I have understood, while you maintain, I imagine, that the Oriental Orthodox Churches are true Church and "part of the entire Catholic Church," they are not so much as to affect the "ecumenicity" of Councils 4-7? Because of the way these true Churches separated?

Because although the separations were differed, the fact remains that you hold that ecumenical councils can be held without true Churches having any part in them whatsoever (which is, by the way, the position that I also hold).

Alexis

Well said. That would bring our number of Ecumenical Councils to three. Alexandria was, after all, an Apostolic See of genuine apostolic origin, whereas Constantinople cannot nearly make as clear a claim.

The Orthodox criteria for designating a council as ecumenical is actually not very well defined. (Metropolitan Kallistos Ware says as much in his very informative and insightful, The Orthodox Church.) Evidently some canonists believe that the faithful must give their consent (although the manner and numerical composition of this consent is entirely unclear - a simple majority, for instance? An absolute majority? Do we put up councils for a vote of all the laity? What does that say about the nature of apostolic teaching authority?) in order for a council to be received as authoritative. This may have been a late addition to what defines a council as ecumenical in order to justify the rejection of what was ratified authoritatively at Florence, but later rejected through popular uprising and the instigation of Bishop Mark of Ephesus.

I agree with Francis who is echoing Congar and Meyendorff as well: the importance of 1054 is altogether exaggerated in the popular mind and functions more as a symbolic date than anything else.

God bless,

FDD

francis,

I'm not so sure that analogy really works.

In the case of EC #3, the "Nestorian" churches didn't actually break away for quite a number of years after the council, and even then the reasons were largely political.

In the case of 1054, the charges of heresy that had been made by Patriarch Photius were still an important part of the mix.


Peace,
Deacon Richard

Alexis,


Quite honestly, I'm not sure what position I hold! I'm mostly thinking out loud, and I appreciate your criticisms, as they make me think more deeply. But, yes, you describe my position accurately.