www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils under the Pope?

Here's what de fide means, [en.wikipedia.org] and I'm not sure why you think it's legalistic.

The Catholic Church does not act like the Balamand Statement is de fide. If she did, it would be in the depositum fidei and to deny it would be heresy.

So, Stuart, do you see it as a "doctrinal change"? You seem to be saying so. Do you think doctrine can change in such a way that it contradicts itself?

Alexis

I know perfectly well what de fide means. I wonder sometimes if the Catholic Church does, since looking back on a great many of the second millennium councils in the West, the term is applied to all sorts of minutiae that are anything but essential. So the term is pretty much meaningless these days. Progressives and traditionalists both use it to deny things with which they do not agree.

"So, Stuart, do you see it as a "doctrinal change"? You seem to be saying so. Do you think doctrine can change in such a way that it contradicts itself?"

Well, that seems pretty plain, doesn't it? Happens all the time. I'm an historian, I could give you examples from now until doomsday, but what is the point. I am more interested in why you so oppose something of which the Holy See obviously approves, and which has the potential to bring closer the unity of all Churches.

I knew, based on your expressed theological erudition, that you knew what de fide meant. But you played like you didn't, seemingly in order to get a cheap shot in at "legalism," whatever you meant by that.

As you rightly know, not everything the Holy See does or endorses makes it necessarily right or good. I, like you, could give examples from now until doomsday (but what's the point?). But first, to be clear, what are you saying I oppose that the Holy See obviously approves and could bring the Churches closer together? I want to make sure I understand specifically what you mean before I answer.

Alexis

I'm happy to answer here. :-)

Basically I view Trent as teaching the Catholic Faith, and I have no objections at all with what is taught there (the Faith of Trent is shared by all Apostolic traditions, though the language and approach was decidedly Latin). My reason for not viewing it as Ecumenical is simply that it wasn't remotely ecumenical; it was not a Council involving the whole Church, regardless of the titles applied to it.

The teachings reflect the Catholic Faith, but it was most definitely a "Western Council" in every sense. I believe that the teachings of Trent are binding on all Christians, but not because of Trent itself; they are binding based on the Creed and Apostolic Tradition. I view Trent as the Apostolic response to Protestantism, a Western event and phenomena. Trent should be looked to for dealing with Protestantism, but mostly because it was the most coherent and general response to the crop of heresies that arose with the Reformation.

So, in short, I totally accept Trent, but I accept it as a Western Apostolic solution to a Western class of heresies, free from error, but not truly "ecumenical".

All that said, it's perhaps worth while to explain my approach to the question of "Ecumenical Councils". I commemorate Liturgically the Councils upheld by my Church, which is seven, but I don't believe that Ecumenical Councils themselves are necessarily the "cornerstone of the Faith". I believe that they are protected by the Holy Spirit, but that is because they theoretically represent the voice of the Bishops together with the Pope, and therefore they can't teach error. I believe that they are the clearest representation of the combined teaching authority of the Episcopacy, but they're not a magical formula for settling all disputes.

Ecumenical Councils are infallible for the same reason that the Pope is infallible: the Holy Spirit protects the Church from utterly falling to error, and it is because of this promise to the Church as a whole that the Pope and the Ecumenical Councils (which guide and inform the whole Church) are infallible. If the ship is sure to sail well, then the captain can't tragically tip it over.

So for me the number of Ecumenical Councils is not very critical. I'm happy to commemorate the ones that are commemorated in my Church, but that doesn't mean that I confine the Truth to those Councils, nor does it mean that I think they represent some peculiar class of gathering beyond the fact that the Church Itself speaks to the "whole world" at times through such Councils, and the Church Itself does not err.

I do believe that the acceptance by the Pope is critical to a Council truly speaking as the Church, and not just because he's another Patriarch. I believe that the confirmation of the Bishop of Rome specifically is necessary for a Council to be said to speak for the Church, while it is not necessary that any other specific Patriarch confirms it. At the same time I don't think that the Pope simply saying that a Council is Ecumenical makes it so; the Council must still represent, or attempt to represent, the various traditions and try to call them together. For this reason I'd have no problem calling Vatican I and II Ecumenical (the Orthodox were invited to Vatican I, but they rejected the invitation, which I feel was a missed opportunity), even though I have issues with Trent being labelled that way.

Peace and God bless!

"My reason for not viewing it as Ecumenical is simply that it wasn't remotely ecumenical; it was not a Council involving the whole Church, regardless of the titles applied to it."

This is the key point. Trent was a reaction to the Reformation, and practically everything covered by Trent has to be understood in relation to that. The Churches of the East figured into its thinking not at all. Some of what Trent did merely reaffirmed that which had been taught from the beginning of the Church, but other aspects were reflexive rejections of Protestant doctrines, even when those doctrines themselves were not heretical and in fact were reforms, including things later accepted by the Catholic Church itself.

The worst aspect of Trent, from an ecumenical perspective, was the ecclesiology it assumed; i.e., that the Church of Rome and the Catholic Church were coterminous. There was only one true Church, it was the Church of Rome, and outside of it there could only be aggregations of heretics and schismatics.

The implications for the Eastern Churches were profound. As late as the Council of Florence, it was possible for the Church of Constantinople to meet with the Church of Rome as "Sister Churches"; they may not be in communion, but each recognized the other has being a true Church, with all the marks of the Church. The objective of Florence, was, ostensibly, restoration of communion and not assimilation of one Church into the other.

After Trent, that changed, and the greatest impact can be seen in how Rome received the Treaty of Brest. This was negotiated by a group of bishops in the Metropolitanate of Kyiv who needed protection from the civic and economic disabilities imposed by the Kingdom of Poland and the Hapsburg Emperors. With Constantinople under Turkish domination, and Moscow a perpetual enemy of Poland, the logical place to turn was the Holy See. The terms negotiated in 1596 were essentially similar to those of the Union of Florence, and involved the reestablishment of communion between one Church and another Church.

However, between 1439 and 1596, the Council of Trent changed everything. A 1598 Bull, Magnus Dominus, effectively rejected the terms of Brest by stating that there was only one true Church, the Church of Rome, and thus no other group of Christians had the standing to negotiate with her; nor could Rome recognize any other group of Christians has having ecclesial status. Therefore, the "Ruteni" could not be received as a "Church", but only as an aggregation of individual repentant schismatics, who, as a pastoral matter, could be allowed to retain their liturgy and other customs through the dispensation of the Holy See, as a "rite" of the Roman Catholic Church. Thus, "uniatism", the view that Eastern Catholics were merely a ritual adjunct of the Latin Church, came into existence, and remained the doctrine of the Catholic Church until the Second Vatican Council (whose own ecclesiology, recognizing the existence of other true Churches both inside and outside of communion with Rome represents a direct refutation of Trent for everybody willing to view the matter objectively).

"I do believe that the acceptance by the Pope is critical to a Council truly speaking as the Church, and not just because he's another Patriarch. "

So long as it is also recognized that this acceptance can be "de facto" and may occur years or even decades after the fact.

"Forgive me for being so blunt, but this merely seems like hand-waving and double standards. The fact is that even with the very recent joint-statements, the Councils themselves are still rejected, and certainly not commemorated. "

When the Melkites, the Antiochian Orthodox and the Syrian Church of Antioch all had to get together to have a common catechism to use in Syria, they of course fell into disagreement over how to present teachings on the nature(s) of Christ. The issue looked like a show stopper, until Kyr Elias (Zoghby) cut through the Gordian Knot thus:

"Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ was truly a man?
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is ONE?

This is the teaching of the Church. Everything else is philosophy."

That the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Chalcedonian Churches believe and teach the same things about Jesus Christ is indisputable. That the Orientals still feel unable or unwilling to accept the Chalcedonian formula is simply evidence of the dead weight of history, which cannot be ignored. If in fact Chalcedon is not "diphysite", then what of all those anathemas that were hurled about? What of all those martyrs who are venerated? What of all the time we spent over the last fourteen centuries denouncing each other?

But then, we really do get called put aside our antipathies and recognize Truth wherever it is found, even if this means abandoning some of our most dearly held prejudices. If there is to be unity among all Christians, everybody is going to have to undergo the kind of kenosis that Christ did when he took on the form of a slave.

And, I guess, nobody is really going to like that, regardless of how many councils they recognize.

Stuart, may I ask you how you square Vatican II teaching doctrines directly opposed to the doctrines taught by Trent?

Alexis

Trent said the Catholic Church IS the Church of God. By its actions, the Church of Rome defined the Catholic Church as being congruent with the Church of Rome. The ecclesiology of Trent is exclusive: there is only one Church, the Church of Rome. The Church of Rome IS the Catholic Church IS the Church of God, ergo, the Church of Rome IS the Church of God--there are no other Churches, whether IN or OUT of communion with Rome. Inside the Church of Rome there can exist multiple rites by dispensation; outside the Church of Rome there are only heretics and schismatics. And thus it remained until the Second Vatican Council. Not all the clarifications in the world can square the circle.

Or, as they say at the Central Intelligence Agency, "We may not always be right, but we are NEVER wrong".

One of these prejudices that may have to be abandoned is the notion that Chalcedon and the subsequent Councils were truly Ecumenical. I do believe that Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians share the same Faith, but I won't presume to tell the non-Chalcedonians that they have "received" Chalcedon in any way.

My point remains that the notion of "reception" making a Council Ecumenical doesn't hold, since Chalcedon and Ephesus have not been received by the Oriental Orthodox or the Church of the East. The bottom line is that while reception is a nice indicator of an Ecumenical Council, it can't be the determining factor without limiting the number of Ecumenical Councils to two or three. Anything less would be doing precisely what you accuse the Roman Church of doing with Trent (and let me just say that I'm sympathetic to the accusation), namely disregarding the status of Churches not in Communion and treating them as adjuncts or hang-ons to be assimilated. It is the height of arrogance to justify a belief in "reception" by saying that the non-Chalcedonian Churches actually do accept Chalcedon as a valid Council, despite their claims not to. It is actually less arrogant to say that an Ecumenical Council is simply determined by the Pope (not a belief I subscribe to, despite believing that the Pope is the keystone in the matter), because it does not "put words in the mouth" of the non-Chalcedonians.

If an Ecumenical Council is not determined simply by "reception" by the whole Church, however, then there is no need to inadvertantly reduce the status of the Oriental Churches in order to call Chalcedon Ecumenical. At the same time there is no need to force its commemoration, or its precise technical language on Oriental Churches, despite its substance being recognized as truly "ecumenical" and representative of the whole Faith. We can recognize the doctrine as "ecumenical" and binding on the grounds of Apostolic Faith (just as we can with Trent, disregarding questions of ecclesiology) without negating the status and relevance of non-Chalcedonians, who have grievances with Chalcedon the Council, if not with the underlying doctrines (again, see Trent).

All that said, I don't think we're too far off from one another in our understanding of Ecumenical Councils. I'm simply trying to point out that what's good for the goose is good for the gander, and therefore the "reception" approach, at least as stated so far, is unworkable and self-contradictory.

Peace and God bless!

Stuart,

Thank you. But I'm still not sure I see how you (or any of us), as a Catholic, can reconcile Trent and Vatican II. Your methods for doing so, or not doing so, are what I'm inquiring about.

Alexis

I make no attempt to reconcile Trent with Vatican II, just as I make no attempt to reconcile any two councils that contradict each other. That councils contradict each other is just a fact of life. The notion that the Church never errs in its doctrinal formulations and never contradicts itself is just fallacious, and to my mind, a crutch to those weak in faith who need certitude in their lives. Christ promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church. That does not mean that the Church rides a rail in a straight line from the Resurrection to the Parousia. The Church is composed of fallible men who, over the course of ages, have made mistakes and will continue to make mistakes. Through the divine grace of the Holy Spirit, these errors are corrected, sooner or later. The Church wanders off course from time to time, but always returns to the true path. Thus, in the end, no matter what transient errors afflict it, the Church will prevail over Satan; the divine plan of salvation cannot be gainsaid. God is sovereign, and will triumph over the enemy. And we, in our fumbling, faulty way, help out from time to time.

"One of these prejudices that may have to be abandoned is the notion that Chalcedon and the subsequent Councils were truly Ecumenical. I do believe that Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians share the same Faith, but I won't presume to tell the non-Chalcedonians that they have "received" Chalcedon in any way."

If you believe what Chalcedon taught, whether you credit Chalcedon or not, then Chalcedon has been received. It does not require a blue ribbon stamp of approval, it does not require the signature of any Patriarch or Catholikos or Pope. Truth is, as Fr. Serge said, "self-authenticating": it is true, whether everyone acknowledges it, or nobody does. It does not matter who ratifies a document, even the Pope himself, if the document is not true. It does not matter who fails to ratify a document, if the document is true. You believe that Jesus Christ is true God. You believe that Jesus Christ is true man. You believe that Jesus Christ is one. All philosophy stripped aside, you believe the faith of Chalcedon.

The question at hand, indeed the topic of this thread, is not whether a teaching is true, but what makes an Ecumenical Council. You said that reception makes a Council Ecumenical, and I've pointed out why I think that's a flawed and inadequate approach. We are not dealing with whether or not the teaching of Chalcedon is True, but whether or not it is an Ecumenical Council. The Council of Orange is True, but it is not an Ecumenical Council. The Palamite Councils are True, but they are not Ecumenical Councils.

Let's not change the topic to whether or not the teaching of Chalcedon is Truth.

Peace and God bless!

Stuart,

Thanks for your response! I'll now have to read up on the definition of what is and is not the Church as defined by Trent and Vatican II, and whether that amounts to some doctrinal about-face, but I find such a blatant alleged contradiction to be somewhat unlikely, I have to admit.

Your response, although very much appreciated, bears a striking resemblance to Thirty Nine Articles (notably Nineteen and Twenty One).

Alexis

"The Palamite Councils are True, but they are not Ecumenical Councils."

Because the Palamite councils involve matters that are specific only to a particular family of Churches. One can be Christian without being Palamite. One cannot be Christian without being Nicene, or, for that matter, implicitly Chalcedonian.