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

Don't you think that might come as a shock to the system of people who might somehow be under the impression all those post schism councils represent a repository of doctrine and not a body of local opinion?

Sometimes a little shock could be a good thing, no?

Sure, that just seems like a bit of a rug to pull out from under people.

Sometimes the truth is shocking. If anyone has been paying attention to the RC Church for the past 40 years they would know that they have backed off of a great many teachings. Those are the facts. No, they haven't "officially" reputed them (except in the case of Limbo, since they no longer are following the understanding of original sin that Trent held, and Limbo was a logical necessity to that understanding). The reason that they haven't offically reputed them is that would be a real shock to many.

Only to those who don't realize that Bellarmine's list of so-called "ecumenical" councils never had any official standing. The ecumenicity of those second millennium general synods of the Latin Church exists only because, for most of that period, the Latin Church considered itself to be the Catholic Church, outside of which were just aggregates of unrepentant schismatics. As the Latin Church and the Catholic Church were the same thing, a general synod of the Latin Church automatically had ecumenical status, and did not need reception by any outside group.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

I think that it will be more shocking in the end for the general lay Roman Catholic than for the lay Orthodox. Since it seems so much of what is perceived as doctrine will be in their view stripped away.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Then again, why accept as 7 and not using the Oriental, or perhaps Assyrian Church of the East standard of Ecumenical council?

The real point is, we need to establish once and for all a criteria of ecumenicity of a council.
Without, we only have an eternal situation where the Byzantines demand to the Latins, only 7 councils should be regarded ecumenical; and demand to Oriental and Assyrian, to accept 'more' council as ecumenical.

This should be the task for all.

I don't see any problem with this. It seems like a perfectly logical point of view, and actually seems to satisfy what you ask for - a definition of ecumenicity that applies regardless.

We've gone over this before: the Orientals and the Assyrians profess the same faith as that expressed by the fourth through seventh councils, but do so in their own manner. As long as there is unity of faith, we need not insist on unity of expression. If, at some later date, the Oriental and Assyrian Churches should choose to receive the acts of those councils, all well and good, but as they already believe what those councils teach, it is not necessary.

But that's the rub. Many would argue that there cannot be unity of faith when there is not unity of expression for the reason that different interpretations allow for differences in faith.
This is, essentially, what I hear from the Eastern Orthodox regarding the Filioque and essence/energies contraveries.

Requiring unity of expression is one of the surest ways to guarantee schism.

Differences over the filioque is not merely a matter of differing expressions of the faith-at least not from the Orthodox perspective. Some (myself included) would say the same about the essence/energies distinction.

So much for typing a quick response while being distracted. I meant repudiated, not reputed. The point being that the Roman Church does not treat the councils following Nicea II to be truly ecumenical, so it is no surprise that the eastern churches in communion with Rome would follow suit. As Stuart pointed out, the ecclesiological assumptions of those councils has been altered, and so their value to the church has likewise been devalued.

I submit that the real shock for some will be the realization that the above is actually fantasy and delusion predicated at least in part on misinformation (the appraisal of "limbo"). But let me ask, when did it happen that the "Roman Church does not treat the councils following Nicea II to be truly ecumenical"? On what specific basis is such a claim being made?

Well, i agree that it's all about "perspective", which is why a single expression of faith is demanded by the Orthodox for unity of faith. This is the reason why the Oriental Orthodox and Eastern Orthodox remain out of communion.

While I readily agree with Stuart's point that we believe the same thing but express it differently, that is not a universally accepted statement among the Apostolic Churches.