www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Ecumenical Councils

Do Eastern Catholics regard only the first seven ecumenical councils as ecumenical? Or do we accept the fourteen other councils as ecumenical, as do Roman Catholics? What does it mean for a council to be ecumenical? If a council is considered ecumenical, does this mean we are required by our Church to believe all its teachings?

I ask this because I know many Eastern Catholics who speak against the doctrines of Purgatory and Papal Infallibility, the Filioque, and the Immaculate Conception - all of which are doctrines confirmed by councils subsequent to the first seven. I am new to Eastern Catholicism and have been led into doubt by these contradictions.

What are we required to believe? What are we free to disagree with? Are there teachings that Roman Catholics must believe and that Byzantine Catholics are free to disagree with? If so, why?

The term �ecumenical� can be defined at many levels. Even Pope Paul VI placed the Seven Ecumenical Councils in a broader and more authoritative category than what he called the later �General Councils in the West�.

Generally speaking, Eastern Catholics see only the first Seven Councils as fully ecumenical. We recognize the validity of the theology of the later 14 councils in the West, but most of them had little effect on us.

One must be careful when asking questions like �are we required by our Church to believe all its teachings.� Very often councils address a particular problem and the answer to that problem must be understood in context. If one views the pronouncement of a council as sort of a recipe, then it should be understandable that a change in a Western theological recipe does demand a change in a perfectly legitimate Eastern theological recipe.

If one asks if we are required by the Church to believe all its teachings, the answer is yes. But one must realize that this expectation applies to all the Church teaching � East and West. A particular council in the West that addresses a problem that existed only in the West speaks authoritatively yet it does not always speak comprehensively.

Eastern Catholics, for example, do not have a doctrine of purgatory. But all Catholics share the main dogmatic point: that there is a purifying journey of the soul after death.

Eastern Catholics accept papal infallibility, but that does not mean that they also believe that the current method of exercising it is best for the Church.

The issue is not properly one of being able to accept or reject things Eastern or Western. It is an issue of acknowledging legitimate theology while keeping one�s own theological recipe.

Thank you for your helpful response.

You wrote, �A change in a Western theological recipe does demand a change in a perfectly legitimate Eastern theological recipe.�

I agree � provided that there is no contradiction. I like something that Bishop John A. Elya, Emeritus Eparch of Newton wrote about this:

�Catholic is Catholic and truth is truth. We cannot pose as "Orthodox united to Rome" only for what suits us. I do mean it when we pray every day, at the Divine Liturgy, for "unity of faith and the communion of the Holy Spirit."

There is no 'Eastern truth' vs 'Western truth'. Truth is one. It may be articulated according to various cultural expressions, but truth is super-cultural. Truth should not be restricted by "party line" positions. We should accept or reject ideas for their worth and not for an artificial attachment to a given "identity." The Church teaches truth. If something is true, it would be absurd to say "Oh, we don't believe that in the East."� (http://www.melkite.org/bishopQA.htm ).

The statements that some Eastern Catholics have made to me are not simply an �Eastern theological recipe,� but � as I wrote � contradictions. You write that all Catholics share the dogmatic point �that there is a purifying journey of the soul after death.� I am comforted by this. However, some other Eastern Catholics have denied this point. You write that �Eastern Catholics accept papal infallibility.� Again, I am comforted � but some Eastern Catholics have denied even the possibility of such infallibility. I expect you are not surprised, even if disappointed?

Regardless, thank you again for your helpful comments, particularly the information about Pope Paul VI. Where could I find his statements about the councils?

The converse of what I wrote is also true: �A change in a Eastern theological recipe does demand a change in a perfectly legitimate Western theological recipe.� The �measuring stick� of what is correct is neither the Western theological recipe nor the Eastern theological recipe, but the Catholic recipe (East and West speaking with one voice). Latin Catholics must avoid temptation to judge the Catholicity of Eastern theology with the measuring stick of Western theology.

Lack of correct knowledge exists and always will exist. I know of more then a few Roman Catholics who deny the Catholic legitimacy of everything from our theology regarding the procession of the Holy Spirit (which does not include the filioque) to our 2,000 year tradition of a married priesthood. I don�t question the legitimacy of the Latin Catholic Tradition because of the opinions of a few.

I�ve posted the references to Paul VI before, but they don�t show up in a search. I�ll try to dig them out tonight and post them in this thread.

Dear John Russell,

Well, as for papal infallibility, let's take a case in point to illustrate what the Administrator said above.

The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, for example, are two papal doctrines that have absolutely no application to the East!

The former is based on an Augustinian notion of Original Sin that does not obtain in the East. That the Mother of God is All-Holy from her Conception is something that has always been celebrated in the Byzantine liturgical tradition - as is her being bodily assumed into heaven.

As for the papal jurisdiction, it has not always been the case that Rome has put into practice what it itself believes about our right to govern ourselves under our respective Primates - Patriarchs, Major Archbishops, Lesser Archbishops and so on.

As for infallibility, unless the Pope tells us something we don't already believe, it's not something that we're going to sit up and think about!

Alex

Orthodox Catholic writes:

"The Immaculate Conception and the Assumption, for example, are two papal doctrines that have absolutely no application to the East!

The former is based on an Augustinian notion of Original Sin that does not obtain in the East. That the Mother of God is All-Holy from her Conception is something that has always been celebrated in the Byzantine liturgical tradition - as is her being bodily assumed into heaven."

I must confess a bit of confusion here. You say that these two doctrines have no application in the East and then go on to describe how the East has always believed these two doctrines (worded differently).

Papal infallibility has never meant that the Pope can declare a "new dogma." "New dogma" may be an oxymoron. As Pope Benedict XVI recently stated, "The pope must not proclaim his own ideas, but rather constantly bind himself and the Church to obedience to God's Word."

So, the infallible declaration of dogmas by the pope serves the purpose of reiteration. Both of the papal doctrines you mention are beautiful reiterations of ancient Eastern teachings. When the Pope tells us something we already believe, we had better sit up and think about. In fact, we would all do well to sit up and think about everything we already believe.

Dear John Russell,

O.K., I've got you now!

WHEN did I say the Pope declares "new doctrines?"

Hmmm?

"Worded differently?"

Not exactly. St Augustine talked about the "stain of Original Sin" - and the doctrine of the IC affirms the Theotokos was free of such "stain."

The Byzantine East has never accepted any "stain" of Original Sin in the sense of a passing on of the actual sin of Adam to humanity.

What was passed on was the impact of the actual sin of Adam - which is how we understand "Original Sin."

There was no "sin" for our Lady to be made immune from.

She became the Temple of the Holy Spirit at her Conception (the feast comes from the East to the West in the 6th century, as you know) and the fact that this liturgical feast is celebrated affirms that she is already All-Holy from that time (only the feasts of Saints may be celebrated liturgically).

Thus, there was no theological or liturgical need for anyone to clarify or affirm the All-Holiness of the Theotokos in the East.

As a result of Augustine's view of Original Sin (although he refused to accept that our Lady ever had any portion with any "stain" as you know), a Latin Catholic could deny the Immaculate Conception (prior to it being proclaimed a dogma, of course). St Thomas Aquinas wasn't keen on that, as you also would know.

In a more general way, doctrines need to be affirmed when they are overtly denied or else are seen as necessary to the deposit of faith but yet are not held by all.

As for the Byzantine East, none of this applies when it comes to Mariology.

The West can teach us NOTHING about devotion to our "Most Holy, Most Pure, All-Glorious Sovereign Theotokos and Ever-Virgin Mary."

The Immaculate Conception was simply a way to affirm our Lady's all-holiness which matter was obfuscated by the West's Augustinianism.

Over to you!

Alex

Orthodox Catholic wrote:
�WHEN did I say the Pope declares "new doctrines?"�

You did not say � but implied � that the Pope COULD declare �new doctrines� when you said, �unless the Pope tells us something we don't already believe.� Were he to do so, he would have declared a �new doctrine.� But really, all we have here is a miscommunication, I think.

As far as the Immaculate Conception goes, I am not sure I have any substantive disagreements with you. More later. I must now go to work.

Dear John Russell,

Well, it was not my intention to say that the Pope could affirm something "new" in the sense that it is not contained at least implicitly in Tradition.

"New" need not be something "out of the ball-park" of Tradition.

It could be a new formulation of an aspect of Tradition - which is, as you know, perfectly legitimate as part of the development of doctrine.

In that sense, a Pope could say something along these lines and we BC's would accept it.

As the Administrator said (isn't he wonderful? And his birthday is coming up on August 1st!), we BC's would look to some improvements in papal jurisdiction as far as our jurisdictions are concerned . . .

But that doesn't mean we question the right of the Pope of Rome to have such jurisdiction (we'd just prefer him to get involved when we invite him and, for the rest of the time, call off his Vatican watch-dogs . . . ).

Alex

I would like to return to my original general difficulty, which is resurfacing in this specific debate about Immaculate Conception. I would like to leave off from the particular points that come rushing to my head about this particular issue. Either people are born stained with original sin or they are not. Either Mary was preserved from this stain by a singular grace, or all people are preserved from this stain - in other words, there is no stain.

Here is my difficulty. This doctrine, as with all other doctrines, is either true or false. If doctrines are true, all Catholics should believe them. If they are false, all Catholics should deny them. If their truth or falsehood is unknown, then Catholics should believe what they will. "In neccessary things unity, in doubtful things, liberty, and in all things, charity."

I need to know - for the peace of my soul - which things are neccessary and which are doubtful. The Immaculate Conception - according to the Latin Church - is a "neccessary" thing. According to many Eastern Catholics it is a "doubtful" thing. Which is it? Who has the authority to answer this question? the Pope? the Patriarchs? the General Councils? You?

Dear JohnRussell,

It depends what is meant by the term "stain of Original Sin."

While the Immaculate Conception is a papally-proclaimed dogma, the nature of Original Sin is not.

The East has always affirmed that no actual stain of the sin of Adam himself is contracted by the rest of humanity, but only the impact on our human nature (concupiscence etc.)

In addition, the Eastern Fathers did not affirm that we are conceived and born completely without grace. St Augustine had a more radical view on this.

The West's view of the "stain" of Original Sin has been understood by the East as saying that we inherit the actual sin of disobedience of Adam, in addition to the effects of that sin on our human nature.

I understand that the RC Church today allows for a greater emphasis on the latter than the former.

Again, we are in the realm of legitimate theological diversity of views on this matter.

What is NOT allowed here is a diversity of views on whether the Most Holy Mother of God was ever sullied by the stain of any sin on her soul.

The East discards the Augustinian notion of "stain of Original Sin" insofar as this might suggest that we inherit the actual sin of Adam and therefore the doctrine of an Immaculate Conception that specifically asserts that the Mother of God was preserved "free of the stain of Original Sin" is not only "not required" for Eastern Mariology - it is nonsensical from our perspective.

Roman Catholics who are used to seeing things from within their own (legitimate) theological perspectives only see in this a denial of Mary's sinlessness.

That is simply not the case.

The Byzantine East was the first to celebrate her Holy Conception - that means that the Theotokos was, from her Conception in the womb of St Anne (happy belated St Anne's day by the way!)sanctified by the Holy Spirit for her special role in soteriology. The Byzantine East also celebrates the Holy Conception of St John the Baptist as well.

So the East and the West believes together that the Mother of God was holy from her Conception.

The West simply arrives at this conclusion in a more laborious manner, having accepted a view of a "stain of Original Sin" that suggests inheritance of the actual sin of Adam - and therefore developing, through Bl. John Duns Scotus, a perspective that would exempt the Mother of God from that "stain."

Both sides believe the same about the Most Holy Virgin Mary.

Both sides arrive at their respective beliefs in a different manner.

Frankly, I prefer the Eastern patristic perspective - the very idea of the Mother of God ever being in the shadow of any stain is abhorrent to me.

And yet the Latin Church allowed this as a legitimate theological opinion until it defined the IC dogma in the 19th century.

The East alone revered the Mother of God as All-Holy and Ever-Immaculate throughout.

Alex

Applying your statements to the maxim I quoted above, (�In necessary things, unity, in doubtful things, liberty, and in all things charity�) I conclude that the all-holiness of the Theotokos is a �necessary� thing and that each understanding of Original Sin is a �doubtful� thing. Catholics are free to believe what they will as regards Original Sin but must believe in Mary�s all-holiness. Is this correct?

Or, would you say that Eastern Catholics must believe the Eastern view of Original Sin and Western Catholics must believe the Western view of Original Sin? What if I believe neither view? When contrary opinions are theologically legitimate � as they so often are � it is my practice to regard the matter as unknown and to leave it at that. I do enjoy speculation, but as I am not blessed with prophecy, I regard my speculations as nothing more. I do not possess the authority of proclaiming doctrine.

I have submitted my faith to the teachings of the Church, which is one. If half the Church teaches one thing and the other half legitimately teaches something contrary, I will believe neither teaching.

I still have many arguments about the Immaculate Conception and Original Sin, but I am still talking about something else. I am talking about unity. The churches should not insist that their own teaching is correct if they simultaneously admit that contrary teaching is legitimate. This is divisive.

How could this be divisive?

To state that one doctrine is correct does not imply that another (from a different point of view) is incorrect. The theology of the Church is never exhaustive. This is why we seen fresh and often better formulated presentations of theology as the Church matures in wisdom.

A Byzantine Catholic need not reject the Latin Catholic understanding of original sin in order to adhere to the Byzantine doctrine of original sin.

A Latin Catholic need not reject the Byzantine Catholic understanding of original sin in order to adhere to the Latin doctrine of original sin.

On this topic it is very important to note that none of the doctrinal teachings of the Latin Church have spoken to or condemned the Byzantine doctrinal teachings.

It is legitimate for a Latin Catholic to say that the Byzantine Catholic doctrine on this issue is poorly formed and organized. What the Latin Catholic may not say is that the Byzantine Catholic doctrine is not true.

It is legitimate for a Byzantine Catholic to say that the Latin Catholic doctrine on this issue is poorly formed and organized. What the Byzantine Catholic may not say is that the Latin Catholic doctrine is not true.

A theology can be very poorly expressed and still be true (although it is probably better to simply conclude that a particular theology is need of further development).

The term I used was "contrary teaching," not "from a different point of view." You are saying that the teachings are not contrary.

"A Byzantine Catholic need not reject the Latin Catholic understanding of original sin in order to adhere to the Byzantine doctrine of original sin."

This is so only if the two understandings are not contrary. Are they contrary or aren't they?

Orthodox Catholic wrote:
"The East has always affirmed that no actual stain of the sin of Adam himself is contracted by the rest of humanity, but only the impact on our human nature ."

and:
"The West's view of the "stain" of Original Sin has been understood by the East as saying that we inherit the actual sin of disobedience of Adam, in addition to the effects of that sin on our human nature."

My feeble skills at logic indicate a contradiction:

West: "People are conceived guilty of sin"
East: "People are conceived without guilt of sin"

These cannot both be true statements. To believe one you must reject the other.

Dear JohnRussell,

First of all, can you give us a definition of what exactly the Latin Church means by "stain of Original Sin?"

I've been trying to arrive at an understanding of that for some time.

Also, can you point to a document that states the Pope has pronounced infallibly on how we are to understand Original Sin?

As for "divisiveness," how so?

The most significant aspect of Original Sin, on which there is unity, is the fact that it has "stained" our human nature, darkening our mind, bringing in concupiscence and weakening our will.

That is the central core of Original Sin - and we agree on this.

I would like to know when the Latin Church ever taught that we inherit the actual sin of Adam in Original Sin. And whether, if it did, where it is reflected in the Catholic Catechism promulgated during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.

Again, on the topic of divisiveness, were there not many periods in church history when Latin Catholics could hold more than one view on a given subject i.e. the Immaculate Conception itself?

Was such diversity of view also divisive to the Latin Church?

Alex