www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West The Nature of Dogma

1. In what explicit way did pre-VC II ecclesiology dismiss the Churches of the East as "non-Churches"?

2.As I asked in a previous post: Why limit it ["ecumenicity of these councils"] then to only the councils held in the West? As noted a number of times, has not the absence of Nestorians and especially non-Calcedonian churches also "rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term"?

Another source of misunderstanding of the role of the Pope in an ecumenical Council is the notion that only the Pope grants an Ecumenical Council its Ecumenical status. Both monarchial papists and anti-papal non-Catholics derive this misconception from the teaching that an Ecumenical Council is not Ecumenical unless the Pope confirms it or at least recognizes it as such. Personally, I don't see the word "only" in the definition.

42. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.

An excellent question...

It ought to be enough for the Alexandrians to admit that Chalcedon is not heretical, and for the Chalcedonians to admit that the Alexandrians are not heretics for their failure to receive Chalcedon.

Trullo has nothing to do with the Seventh Council, which is why it is called the Quinisextunct (Fifth-Sixth): it was intended to provide a canonical addendum to the Second and Third Councils of Constantinople. Pope Benedict wrote in his book Reflections on the Liturgy that the West did not fully receive the Second Council of Nicaea because it did not understand or accept the Christological foundations for the doctrine of sacred images. The Latin Church opposed iconoclasm, but did so on the grounds that images were part of the Depositum Fidei, and that they were necessary for the catechesis of the illiterate. In other words, it took a purely pragmatic and didactic approach to images, and did not really comprehend the arguments made by John Damascene and Theodore Studites. As a result, a "canon" of sacred art did not emerge in the Latin West, and images are not integral to Western worship as they are in the Byzantine East.

Rome retained what can best be called "Paleo-Nicene" theology, and did not accept the Cappodocian or "Neo-Nicene" theology of Constantinople I until the Council of Ephesus in 431. That's a fifty year gap. But, now that you mention it, Rome wasn't particularly happy with Chalcedon, either, mainly because of its famous Canon 28, and the exact time that Rome accepted the acts of Chalcedon remains in dispute.

That is the key example. But we can also look at the ambivalent relationship between the Councils of Constance and Florence-Ferrara.

These were decisively rebutted by Francis Dvornik in his monumental The Photian Schism, on which all subsequent scholars have relied since. There is near universal consensus among Catholic, Orthodox and secular historians that the Synod of 879-880 did indeed revoke the decrees of the Synod of 869-870, and that John VIII did indeed ratify the Synod. The fact that the Synod remained in collections of Roman canons through the eleventh century indicates it was accepted. There was no second Photian Schism.

And the Holy Spirit, being the anarchist contingent of the Trinity, cannot be bound by a priori canonical criteria defining what is and is not an ecumenical council.

... the Holy Spirit, being the anarchist contingent of the Trinity ...

The Ravenna Document, metioned previously, touches on this: link [vatican.va]

What!

Has there been a revolution I hadn't heard about?

See the Papal Bull Magnus Dominus (1598), which clarified the status of the Ruthenian (Ukrainian) uniates in light of the ecclesiology of Trent. ...

1. In what explicit way did pre-VC II ecclesiology dismiss the Churches of the East as "non-Churches"? That is a very strong term. How did that ecclesiology differ regarding the churches of the East and the West in that they are "authentic local Churches with authentic bishops"?

I agree with Father Kimel and brother StuartK that there was a period when Rome did not regard the other Churches as true Churches, but merely as schismatics that needed to come back into the fold, and that the Latin Church was the only true Church.

So it's almost understandable that the Medieval Catholic Church (which was basically the Latin Church) could claim to be able to hold Ecumenical Councils.

Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church “subsists in the Catholic Church” (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

EXTRA ECCLESIAM ROMANAM NULLA SALUS

A strictly confessionalist interpretation of the ancient axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus was adopted in the official teaching of the medieval Latin Church. The IV Lateran Council (1215) stated generally: "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one whatever is saved."4 Pope Boniface VIII in his bull Unam Sanctam (1302) stressed not only the necessity of the Church for salvation, but linked it very closely with the subordination to the Bishop of Rome: "We declare, define and pronounce that for every human creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff is simply a necessity of salvation."5 The same reference to the Pope is also evident in the statement of Clement VI (1351), for whom "the Roman Church" (Ecclesia Romana) is "the only one Catholic Church" (quae una sola catholica est); consequently "being outside the faith of the same Church and the obedience of the Roman Pontiffs, no man among the pilgrims can finally be saved."6

Quoting St. Fulgentius of Ruspe, the Council of Florence uttered the same conviction in the Decree for the Jacobites:

No people who do not exist within the Catholic Church can be participants in eternal life, not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics (...). Nobody can be saved, whatever alms he would give, even if he had shed his blood for Christ’s name, unless he remains in the bosom and the unity of the Catholic Church.7

The quotation of Fulgentius played an important role in this ecclesiological conception. A long tradition ascribed this text, although unjustly, to St. Augustine, whose authority contributed greatly to its significance and application.

A famous Jesuit, Antonio Possevino who unsuccessfully tried to convert Tsar Ivan the Terrible, makes in his book Moscovia (1586) a clear reference to the same teaching: "If somebody reads very attentively the canons of the Council of Florence (...), he will come to know the truest and the only faith, without which nobody can achieve the glory of heaven" (sine qua nemini unquam ad coelestem gloriam aditus patebit).8 And, significantly, he adds:

But among all errors, the most obvious and the greatest is the opinion of the Greeks and the Ruthenians that they may achieve salvation (aeternam se posse salutem adipisci) outside the Roman Catholic Church. (...) In fact, if somebody denied that Christ the Lord gave Peter power and primacy on earth (potestatem ac primatum in terris) or, deceived fraudulently, thought the power which should never be overcome by the gates of hell had become extinct - he has already been condemned, even if he believes in all other truths (iam condemnatus est, etiamsi pleraque alia omnia credit).9

Similar views were also shared by another well-known Jesuit theologian of that time, Peter Skarga.10 In his letter of November 12, 1594 Cardinal I. Aldobrandini expressed quite clearly his theological opinions while speaking about those Ruthenian Bishops who had been ready to acknowledge the primacy of the Roman See:

(...) Se li vescovi di Russia (...) si mostreranno saldi nel proposito di riconoscere l’autorità et il primato di questa Santa Sede, sarà cosa non solo per se stessa utilissima et salutare ad infinite anime che vanno miseramente dannate, ma sarà argomento che la divina Providentia, toccando cosí li cuori degli huomini, voglia lasciar placare l’ira sua, per esserci poi nelle cominciate imprese più propitia.11

Here again we can see "infinite souls going miserably to be condemned" because they live outside the true Church. Those who are ready to acknowledge the authority and the primacy of the Pope can consequently be seen as a sign of the divine Providence touching human hearts to appease the wrath of God.

THE ROMAN DENIAL OF THE ECCLESIOLOGY OF SISTER CHURCHES IN THE CONSTITUTION MAGNUS DOMINUS

The constitution Magnus Dominus (1595) which proclaimed the Union of Brest displays the same soteriological and ecclesiological exclusivism. It says that Ruthenian Bishops came to the conclusion that they themselves and the flock entrusted to their responsibility "had not been members of Christ’s body which is the Church, because they lacked any link with the visible head of his Church, the supreme Roman Pontiff" (non esse membra corporis Christi, quod est Ecclesia, qui visibili ipsius Ecclesiae capiti Summo Romano Pontifici non cohaererent);12 that "they were not inside the sheep-fold of Christ, inside the Ark of Salvation, and in the house built on a rock" (intra Ovile Christi, intra Arcam salutis et intra Domum illam non essent, quae est aedificata supra petram).13 Therefore, "They firmly decided to return to the Roman Church, their Mother and the Mother of all the faithful, to come back to the Roman Pontiff, the Vicar of Christ on earth, the common Father and Shepherd of the whole Christian people" (firmiter decreverunt redire ad suam et omnium fidelium Matrem Romanam Ecclesiam, reverti ad Romanum Pontificem Christi in terris Vicarium, et totius populi christiani communem Patrem et Pastorem).14

No wonder that the Ruthenian Bishops, the clergy and the faithful were canonically received into communion with the Roman Church, not as a Metropolitan Sister Church, but simply as individuals, coming back to the Church from "outside" and asking individually for reunion. No mention was even made of the synodal decision of the Ruthenian Bishops in this matter. On the part of Rome, there was no recognition of the Kievan Sister Church.

The Constitution notes that this return takes place after the more than 150 years which had elapsed since the Union of Florence, and thus should be understood as accepting the union again. The category return plays a decisive role in this ecclesiological thinking. The Roman Church is called "the Head, the Mother and the Teacher of all Churches" (Caput, Mater et Magistra omnium Ecclesiarum).15 In their confession of faith, the Ruthenian Bishops pledged to preserve the "true Catholic faith, outside which nobody can be saved" (extra quam nemo salvus esse potest) in all its integrity and purity".16

This final formula was taken from the Tridentine profession of faith17 reintroduced also in the profession of faith prescribed in 1575 for the Greeks by Pope Gregory XIII18. It will appear later also in a special profession of faith introduced by Pope Urban VIII (1623-1644)19 which was used unchanged until the 1st Vatican Council by newly appointed Uniate Bishops (a reference to the primacy and infallibility of the Pope was introduced only in 1878).20

In the light of all these statements, the membership of the Church of God was seen as essentially conditioned by communion with the Pope. Those who do not belong to the Roman-Catholic Church cannot be saved because they are not members of the Church of God as such. Membership of the Roman Catholic Church was thus thought of as the only possible way of attaining salvation.

I am not certain of the title of the book from which this was taken, but you can find it here [crvp.org], and the scholarship seems quite good. I think it answers ajk's question adequately.

EXTRA ECCLESIAM ROMANAM NULLA SALUS

A strictly confessionalist interpretation of the ancient axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus was adopted in the official teaching of the medieval Latin Church. The IV Lateran Council (1215) stated generally: "There is one universal Church of the faithful, outside which no one whatever is saved."4 Pope Boniface VIII in his bull Unam Sanctam (1302) stressed not only the necessity of the Church for salvation, but linked it very closely with the subordination to the Bishop of Rome: "We declare, define and pronounce that for every human creature to be submitted to the Roman Pontiff is simply a necessity of salvation."5 The same reference to the Pope is also evident in the statement of Clement VI (1351), for whom "the Roman Church" (Ecclesia Romana) is "the only one Catholic Church" (quae una sola catholica est); consequently "being outside the faith of the same Church and the obedience of the Roman Pontiffs, no man among the pilgrims can finally be saved."6

Orthodox participants felt it important to emphasize that the use of the terms “the Church”, “the universal Church”, “the indivisible Church” and “the Body of Christ” in this document and in similar documents produced by the Joint Commission in no way undermines the self-understanding of the Orthodox Church as the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, of which the Nicene Creed speaks. From the Catholic point of view, the same self-awareness applies: the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church “subsists in the Catholic Church” (Lumen Gentium, 8); this does not exclude acknowledgement that elements of the true Church are present outside the Catholic communion.

Who doesn't adhere to the axiom extra Ecclesiam nulla salus? The Orthodox then and now?

Am I to understand that the concept of sister church's was already developed, even highly developed, by 1595?

Consider the actual result, for example, as found in the Ravenna Document

Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.