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

As I said, the actual teaching of the Church:
Actual teaching not Father Alexander Schmemann's interpretation. This is not to say that the differentiation that is so much the approach of the West could not be enriched by the integration of the East -- and vice versa.

Well that certainly gives a specific time and circumstance for this documentation of a new and sweeping (at least so argued) policy. It was in a letter to Card. Willebrands who at the time headed the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity. In that context one might expect the Pope to use terms that did not highlight controversial topics. This single phrase in a letter commemorating Lyons II should be contrasted with the numerous references to ecumenical councils in the opening and closing ceremonies of VCII. Furthermore, those numerous references were made within the context of the liturgy, and some would point out that it is in the liturgical assembly that one finds the intrinsic manifestation of the lived faith. The council, however, was some ten years earlier than the letter and policies can change. Here they did not. As I noted, there is lore?, fantasy?, myth?, that has an uncanny ability to supersede the truth.

I've not been able to find a complete English translation of the Pope's letter, and being a relatively recent document, the lack of a (readily-available) translation may be an indication of its actual significance. It is available in the Latin original here [vatican.va]. The title refers to Lyons II as "ALTERUM GENERALE CONCILIUM LUGDUNENSE" and the link has "centenario-concilio-ecumenico." In general in this context, council and synod can be used interchangeably; the same holds for the terms general, universal and ecumenical. The words of the letter quoted as


are actually (and in broader context)


There is no word "Church" in the original. Rather, the Lyons Council is enumerated the sixth among the General Synods celebrated in the Western "orbe," that is, in the western orb/world. It merely designates a factual geographical location. It indicates a simple differentiation from other councils, the General Synods celebrated in the Eastern orb/world, of which there are eight based on the enumeration given by Popes John XXIII and Paul VI in the opening and closing of VCII.


As shown, there was no such "tacit adoption" as indicated and the concept of reception has traditionally been recognized. The argument does not hold since one can "will or nil" with impunity if one misquotes.

There is wisdom in this. The Catholic Church does explain, some would say to a fault, and it has rightfully apologized for instances where Catholics have failed the Gospel. It is not always right as seen in the actions and words of its members, including leaders, which warranted the apologies, but it is never wrong in its teachings on faith and morals which it has solemnly acknowledged as a grace of God that ensures its infallible character.

I think this is an accurate characterization.

Precisely Stuart!

That's precisely it. Because your Church had decided to off and scientify a lot of this, what happened is you've cornored yourselves.

Now, if we were one Church, what would that have achieved??

Unity between us is a lifeline for you to say "Let's get back to where we were!".

To make a new start. To forget about your old problems. To reunite the Church communities within your own Church.

You need Orthodoxy. We are the reference or landmark from which you left. We are still here and we will always be here.

The A and B stuff is interesting but concrete examples would be helpful and focused.

Here is one such seeming turn-around that, especially given its antiquity, might qualify as the mother of such an A/B evolution:

That's your story, and you're sticking with it. No council is ecumenical just because it, or one particular Church, says it is.

It's not a "story" at all but a matter of translation and the meaning of words. It was you who made the big deal out of the words of Pope Paul VI, and you who indicated the document

Your words quoting the letter:


Actual words of the letter:


Find the word "Church" in the Latin; it is crutial to your point. Where is it? What does "orbe" mean? How should the Latin be translated into English?

What Church would that be, pray tell?

.

Preach not to the choir.

Brother Stuart, I completely agree with you on the above statement. 30+ years as a Byzantine Catholic, I could not agree that either V1 or V2 was in fact an ecumenical council. History will decide if they "fit the bill". Personally, I think not.

I think you are preaching to the choir. The Russian Orthodox hierarchy would do very well to listen to you.

But that conversation is ongoing in the East-West forum, I don't want to derail this one.

Dear brother Bob,

Don't confuse the phrase "not an official declaration of the Church's teaching" with the phrase "not official teaching." I hope the distinction is obvious to you, because I'm too tired right now to explain.

Blessings

Dear brother Stuart,

Ummmm. No. You are confusing a "commission" with an official "synod." Though a legate can speak for the Catholic Church at an official synod, a commission is consultative at best.

Blessings

I actually agree with brother Stuart's assessment here. Did I just hear a trumpet?

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Did a miracle just happen ? :-P lol

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Though the Pontifical Commission for Promoting Christian Unity does not have the same standing as one of the "congregations", it is still a dicastery of the Curia Romana, and operates as an extension of the Bishop of Rome for the functions he delegates habitually to it. Thus, when the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith issues a statement, that statement is taken to represent the official position of the Pope. When the Congregation for the Clergy issues a statement, that statement represents the official position of the Pope. And when the Pontifical Commission for the Promotion of Christian Unity issues a statement, that statement likewise represents the official position of the Pope.

Given the high degree of centralization within the Catholic Church, it is impossible to think of a situation where a dicastery would "stray off the reservation" on a major doctrinal issue, or that a statement of important theological and ecclesiological import would be promulgated without the prior consent of the Pope himself. The organization just does not work that way, and, given Catholic assumptions about the magisterium of the Church, if it did, the entire structure would collapse from its own internal inconsistencies.

As I said, just as the Secretary of State speaks for the President, so, too, the Secretary of the Pontifical Commission. And, as he is the head of the Catholic delegation to the International Theological Dialogue, any agreed statement goes out over his signature on the Catholic side, automatically indicating pontifical assent.