www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology First Seven Councils

I have been discussing ecumenical councils with some Latin friends. For years, I have heard that we eastern Catholics are only obligated to accept the first seven councils as ecumenical. Does anyone know of any documentation that states this? Is it in any of our reunion treaties?

How many councils do we celebrate liturgically? There ya go.

Quote from the Byzantine Catholic Catechism, Light for Life: The Mystery Believed pg 81-82:
"The Catholic and (Byzantine) Orthodox Churches together recognize seven such councils as ecumenical...
The Oriental Orthodox Church (Armenian, Coptic, and Syrian) did not accept the fourth council and consequently any that followed...
The Byzantine Church venerates the seven councils during the course of the liturgical year...
The Roman Catholic Church further recognizes fourteen other councils as ecumenical."

What would a coptic catholic or a chaldean say to the question of councils?

Good information, but do you know of any higher level documents that specify our acceptance of only the first seven councils as ecumenical? I am sure I have read that this exists in a treaty or agreement between the Vatican and at least one of the Byzantine churches, but don't remember now where I read this.

So the later councils are simply theological opinion and not binding on all Catholic faithful?

See Paras 35-39 of the Ravenna Statement for your answer.

Can you post it?

Regarding the Ravenna Statement, the Vatican's website has this to say about the document. "the document represents the outcome of the work of a Commission and should not be understood as an official declaration of the Church’s teaching".

So what's the official teaching?

A caveat intended the weak-kneed. What we should be asking ourselves is if it goes against official church teaching why are they signing it, and why are they posting it on their OFFICIAL website?

Exactly. This point may have been glossed over, but I think it is an important one.

Let me put it this way: the Catholic co-chairman of the Commission is the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Christian Unity. He is the Pope's ecumenical officer--in this instance, someone equivalent to the Secretary of State. Do not believe for an instant that he does not discuss every nuance of ever statement with the Pope and his closest advisors. When the Catholic delegation signs, it is a de facto endorsement of the document. Every last joint statement issued by the Commission has become embedded in Catholic doctrine and policy. The Orthodox may claim the Commission does not speak for Orthodoxy, but it does speak for Catholicism.

To suggest that the Pope will not stand behind the Ravenna Statement is tantamount to saying that the President will not stand behind an agreement negotiated by his Secretary of State. It is within the realm of possibility, but highly improbable. If it did happen, then the Secretary of State would undoubtedly be dismissed posthaste.

Or, to put it in biblical terms, the agent speaks for the one who sent him.

I read the document in question and here are the parts referred to

35. In the course of history, when serious problems arose affecting the universal communion and concord between Churches - in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith, or to ministries and their relationship to the whole Church, or to the common discipline which fidelity to the Gospel requires - recourse was made to Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were ecumenical not just because they assembled together bishops from all regions and particularly those of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, according to the ancient order (taxis). It was also because their solemn doctrinal decisions and their common faith formulations, especially on crucial points, are binding for all the Churches and all the faithful, for all times and all places. This is why the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils remain normative.

36. The history of the Ecumenical Councils shows what are to be considered their special characteristics. This matter needs to be studied further in our future dialogue, taking account of the evolution of ecclesial structures during recent centuries in the East and the West.

37. The ecumenicity of the decisions of a Council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole - by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.

38. Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops' decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church.

39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an "institution" whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an "event", a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.

I'm guessing the part I bolded is what's being referred to. I have to wonder how anybody knows what the basis of belief is in the RCC if that document actual reflects current thinking.

I think this is a very important statement and should be considered when studying and discussing the latter Roman Councils that are deemed "ecumenical." Both Churches held synods when seriouse crises arised within their own Patriarchate.

I think it could lead to the idea that the latter Roman Councils apply to the Latin Patriarchate and are not binding on the Eastern Churches (both Orthdox and Catholic). This would be a possitive step in the healing of the schism, IMHO.