www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Defining "Ecumenical"

In another thread, the Administrator made the following statement:

"Eastern Catholics accept the teachings of all Seven Ecumenical Councils and have incorporated them into our theology and liturgy. We even have special Sundays on the liturgical calendar to celebrate their memory.

We also recognized fourteen or so additional councils in the West as valid but we do not consider them to be fully ecumenical since the greater part of Orthodoxy did not particpate in them."

This has me intrigued. From a Catholic perspective, I would think that these other 14 councils WOULD be seen as "fully ecumenical" because, although perhaps not all "validly ordained (a.k.a. Orthodox) bishops" were in attendance, those not in attendance were also not in communion with Rome. Therefore, their absence should have no bearing on whether a council would be considered ecumenical or not.

How paralyzed the Church would be, how incredibly long she would have had to wait to hold another ecumenical council and to settle some of the critical issues she has had to settle, were it necessary for all bishops to return to union with Rome!

Administrator?

Greg

Slava Jesu Kristu,

Well, that is the whole point. The individual Church (Roman, Ruthenian, Russian , Greek, etc) can meet with their own particular bishops and decide local and regional problems. This is different, however, from the Holy Ecumenical Councils. These require the enitire body of Christ's Church. Therefore, there hasn't been a truely Ecumenical Council since before 1054 in the strictist sence of the term. This is the great tradgedy of the Schism.

Dmitri

Well, in the absolute strictest sense, there hasn't been an Ecumenical Council since Ephesus. :p

So the Councils after 1054 are not infallible?


Adam

Slava Jesu Kristu,

According to Eastern praxis - No. The councils after Ephesus are not infallible. Eastern Catholics are not bound by them as in the West (or so I am told).

Dmitri

Hmmm...that's interesting. This leads to yet another set of questions. If no Church Council is infallible after Ephesus, then what role does the Magisterium of the Church play in Eastern thought? I know the Eastern Catholics accept the Magisterium, but is that in name only? I was always taught that the when the Bishops meet in Council they were exercising the infallible Magisterium. If not, then how is the Magisterial authority expressed in Eastern Catholic thought?

For example if no Council is infallible after Ephesus, then what authority do we have to tell people to believe in the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, etc? To me this seems to lead to a "picking and choosing" of what in the councils you want to believe and what you don't....

Adam

OK. I'm reaching a conclusion on the way Eastern Catholics view the councils. The first 7 are Ecumenical the rest general.

Of course, this is true, assuming that Eastern Catholics = Byzantine Catholics, which is not true.

There are Eastern Christians from the Oriental Orthodox traditions who went under Rome. Since Oriental tradition only recognises Three Councils, these Eastern Catholics technically should recognise Three in the way Byzantines recognise Seven.

However, I have at least once seen an Eastern Catholic liturgy of the Syrian tradition make reference to "four" ecumenical councils, adding Chalcedon to the diptychs. Presumably, if you can have four, you can also have seven, or for that matter, twenty-one.

I thought ALL Catholics regard ALL 21 ecumenical councils as ecumenical? If not, why do the Eastern churches agree with the Western church on every single dogma (although, obviously, view it in a different light). FOr example, Eastern Catholics accept Papal Infallibility which was defined in the 20th ecumenical council. What about the Eastern churches (i.e. Maronites) that have always been in communion with Rome? Thanks.

ChristTeen287

But we don't agree on every dogma. After the first seven, the remaining councils are a matter of the individual jurisdiction and laity to accept or reject. Depending to whom you speak, even Papal infallibilty is not universally recognized amoung Byzantine Catholics. Although we don't always act like it, we are a different Church in communion.

Dmitri

Dear Friends,

Coming from a similar Oriental Orthodox tradition as Mor Ephrem, yet being in full communion with Rome, I think I would answer this question in the following way:

Historically Armenian Catholics would recognize the vallidity of all 21 Councils which the Roman Catholic Church considers "Ecumenical." Yet in our Church it is primarily the first three Ecumenical Councils which by far most impact our theology (as it is also with the Armenian Apostolic Church).

In fact, many of the latter councils don't impact our theology at all because they were Western councils, held by Latin prelates, dealing with Western problems in the terms of Western theology. So, again, many of their decrees have very little meaning to us Armenian Catholics.

Yet there's also the interesting Ecumenical developements which have been alluded to in the posts above. Some of the last few Popes have made very significant gestures to the seperated Eastern Churches by referring to these latter councils not as "Ecumenical" but rather as "the general councils of the West." Now, it is argued that Rome is moving away from insisting on the Ecumenical status of these in hopes of fostering good will to speed us all down the road of eventual reunion. The Eastern Catholic Churches would most definitely support such a "clarification." But, I'm not sure if this interpretation of Rome's gesture is correct or just mere speculation. Only time will tell.

So, I would probably still stick with my first statement while mentioning this second part as food for thought and a possibility.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

I would like to add that I would have to disagree with Dmitri, who said, "But we don't agree on every dogma." Yet, I disagree with this not for the reasons one might expect. Allow me to quote from a document which was a dialogue with an Armenian Apostolic brother:

-----------------------------------------
"We can distinguish between Dogma, doctrine, disciplines and customs.

1. Dogma:
A Dogma is something that is revealed by God which the Church holds to be absolutely essential to the Christian faith and must believed to be a member of the Church. These always and exclusively involve Faith and Morals. To be in unity, Churches must share the same Dogmas on Faith and morals. Everything outside of the realm of faith and morals is open to differences.

2. Doctrine:
One way of looking at doctrine, as I learned from Archbishop Malichias Ormanian of the Armenian Apostolic Church, is that doctrine (which literally means "teaching") is the explanation of Dogmas. As he put it, “The dogma is the teaching of the Church; the doctrine is but the statement of the school. Dogmas belong to religion; doctrines to theology" [1]

If doctrine is understood in this light it becomes apparent that it can legitimately vary from Church to Church in its human attempt to explain the identical underlying dogmas. St. Gregory of Nyssa once said, “when it comes to speaking about God, every man is a liar.” This points to the limitations of our human language to express Divine realities."

---------------------------------------
For more elaboration on this theme, see:

"Apology for the Armenian Catholic Church #1: Primacy in the Armenian Church"

http://www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/Articles1.html

Thus, I would say we are agreed on Dogma. We just follow different schools of doctrinal explanation of these dogmas. To say we have different Dogmas to me is an admission of -at least- a broken communion and schism.

In Christ's Light,

Der-Ghazarian

Friends,

Perhaps this question should be posed to some Eastern Catholic bishops? What would their response be? I suspect that few of them would publicly claim that the later, predominantly Western councils are not "ecumenical." Or would they?

Anthony

Ok, since every member of the Church has to accept the Church's dogmas, then Eastern Catholics do, in fact, hold to the same dogmas as Western Catholics. Also, on many Eastern Catholic sites, it has been reiterated that they DO hold to Papal Infallibility, and I've never seen an Eastern Catholic site that rejects it. Mr. Dragani on the EWTN Eastern Catholic Forum has said many times that, of course, the Eastern churches in communion with Rome believe in Papal Infallibility, regardless of individual opinions.

ChristTeen287

From a purely logical standpoint, it would seem ridiculous that the Church cannot exercise infallibility (whether it's conciliar or papal) and hasn't in the past 1,000 years or so. How could the Church speak definitely on anything? To me, that seems totally ludicrous.