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

It seems to me, however, that this is exactly what the Eastern Orthodox insist upon.

No less so than plenty of "traditionalist" Roman Catholics.

It happened at the 1962 synod commonly referred to as Vatican II. Not in so many words mind you, but the results speak for themselves.

Here are words, like bookends, that bracket the "1962 synod commonly referred to as Vatican II" -- objective words where indeed "results speak for themselves." [below emphasis added]

On October 11, 1962, the first day of the Council, Pope John delivered this address in St. Peter's Basilica.




POPE PAUL VI'S CLOSING SPEECH AND MESSAGES FOR VATICAN COUNCIL II DECEMBER 8, 1965


APOSTOLIC BRIEF "IN SPIRITU SANCTO' FOR THE CLOSING OF THE COUNCIL

DECEMBER 8, 1965 read at the closing ceremonies of Dec. 8 by Archbishop Pericle Felici, general secretary of the council.

Now compare what Vatican II said about the nature of the church, etc., with what the other councils taught.

Does the Catholic Church, as evidenced by the statements of the Popes who called and closed VCII, consider that it was an ecumenical council and that, indeed, there have been 21 such ecumenical councils? The point I am refuting is:

ajk, I think what they are trying to say to you is that, while continuing to label those councils as such, the church has shifted from treating them as ecumenical in practice.

Quoting speeches does nothing to demonstrate that what they are saying is incorrect. They of course would agree that the words you quote were spoken.

I think it does indeed "demonstrate that what they are saying is incorrect." Very much so and with actual documentation. "They of course would agree that the words you quote were spoken." I've heard that one before too, who am I to believe, them or my own ears?

I think the Catholic Church very much considers Vatican II an ecumenical council, and it has and continues to conduct itself on that basis. Please note that the "speeches" were not just any-old talks given at no special time by no person of particular note. The issue here is who is creating fiction and saying it is fact. So demonstrate don't just say "while continuing to label those councils as such, the church has shifted from treating them as ecumenical in practice." Which council has been so repudiated and by what means? Here is the original statement once again:
That is quit a sweeping statement: "...does not treat the councils following Nicea II to be truly ecumenical."

From the moment in 1974 when Pope Paul VI spoke of the Second Council of Lyons as a "general council of the Western Church" rather than as an "Ecumenical Council", the game was up. Moreover, the tacit adoption by the Church of Rome of the criterion of reception, as opposed to extrinsic juridical criteria (called by the Pope, self-identified as ecumenical, ratified by the Pope, etc.) does indeed mean, whether you will or nil, that these councils are not on the same plane as the first seven, and really only bind the Latin Church.

It is important to recognize that the Catholic Church may not always be right, but it is never wrong. Thus, when the Church says A equals B at one time, and then says A does not equal B at some later time, there is no contradiction, no repudiation and no admission of error. Rather, through a series of highly detailed and increasingly opaque clarifications, the Church will demonstrate why it really meant A does not equal B all along. And if, at some point in time, it decides that A does equal B all along, another series of clarifications will show why the first clarification actually ratified the original position.

The Orthodox have no such problem. They operate on the principle of "Never explain, never apologize".

I agree this is all over the same question again.
But then, do the Orthodox find it acceptable to say, that several Ecumenical councils be regarded as "General Council" and only applied to the Orthodox and Catholics?

Although perhaps the theological points inside those councils are acceptable to the Assyrian and Oriental communion, but still its ecumenical status is called to be non-binding, the expression is non-binding, the norms and disciplinary canons as non-binding to them. And don't forget, the dogmatic formulations perhaps as theologumenon at worst.

For me, talking about the status of 7 ecumenical councils is more interesting and should be basis for talking about status of further councils of the Catholic-church.
I think Rome is more willing to address those councils as not ecumenical or at least not in the same level as the 7 first councils. But the Orthodox seems unwilling at all cost to question the ecumenical status of councils where the Oriental and Assyrians were not participant.

Thus I'm interested to know the general trend in the Orthodox body, regarding ecumenical councils status when dialoging with the Oriental and Assyrian.

I think that follows from the principle that you can't explain sacred mysteries so you shouldn't bother trying. Having seen the mess the Latins have got themselves into trying to define the sacred mystery of the church, I doubt Orthodox will shift from this soon.

lol..

hahah

"Never explain, never apologise".

Is that how you view it?

The Holy Apostolic Orthodox Church is a Church of Sacraments. It administers the 7 Holy life-giving vivifying sacraments of the Church.

All of them are mysteries. All of them are works of the Holy Spirit whose action with us is life-giving, salvific and mystical.

Baptism - A person dies and rises wearing Christ.
His sins are forgiven. This is a mystery. How do you explain it?
What do you catholics say? "Well, the uncreated energies of God, when they reach a certain velocity, at given moment, the Holy Divine electrons of this uncreated energies will purify the person of sin and clothe them in a gown of righteousness.

We say: MYSTICALLY, you die and rise with Christ. We say as saint Paul says "that we may unit in the victory of His resurrection through baptism - rising in a new man"

Confirmation:

Its a mystery- we receive the Holy Spirit. How!??

Communion? You, my brothers, went off and started to explain this. You even gave it a term called Trans-substantiation. Great. Now you find yourselves blocked with no way out.

For us, it is a mystery. We eat the life-giving Holy Body of Christ. WOW. That's it. HOW? Its a mystery.

Its not that we don't mention the HOW to avoid never apologising.. PLEASE DONT THINK this way. We don't mention the "how" because the "How" IS a mystery.

Concerning the Church councils, I will post something later for you.

I have no problem with leaving the Holy Mysteries in the realm of mystery. I have a serious problem with refusing to explain one's actions or to apologize for obvious error or wrongdoing, neither of which is an Orthodox strong point.

There is no such "mess" for what is the actual teaching of the Church. The "mess" is usually in the eye of the indiscriminate observer. As a result of a properly enunciated theology of the mysteries in the Catholic Church, those mysteries (for instance baptism) are applied in a consistent manner that properly reflects their intrinsic nature. Thus the Catholic Church is a true communion of churches that professes the mysteries in a tangible way, living the mysteries they so profess.

No, the attempt to deconstruct and explain the mechanics of the sacraments has resulted in quite a mess, as Father Alexander Schmemann explained in his Introduction to Liturgical Theology and For the Life of the World. Theology is not a science, but for too long it was treated like one.