Dear Administrator,

I agree that the Latins do indeed regard their councils as ecumenical and authoritative for the reason you gave.

In that, I am simply stating their view, not necessarily that of the other Particular Churches.

You have me at a disadvantage with respect to your Church's catechism and also to the history of the union of your Particular Church.

If your Church today recognizes the other 14 Latin Councils as Local etc., then, for your Church, they ARE.

My Particular Church recognizes the other 14 Councils as Ecumenical and until such time as we hear otherwise from our Synod, for us they are.

So the perspective I'm espousing here is not a Latin one, but that of the Church of the first millennium - if one acknowledges something to be this or that, it is.

If your Church acknowledges St Photios as a saint in its liturgical calendar - he certainly is that.

Our Church isn't ready for that kind of move, and would not even permit liturgical commemoration of him and other Orthodox saints - another example.

The recognition of Vatican II as ecumenical, nomatter what other Eastern Churches will say, and Latin or otherwise, is something that our Churches "de facto" did when they participated in it.

They were not there as observers like the Orthodox or Protestants.

They signed the decrees.

I submit that the Church of the first millennium would consider such a rather full participation by our Churches which, willy-nilly, implies recognition of that council as ecumenical.

Again, this is not a "Latin" perspective.

The other four major Councils not acknowledged by the Oriental Orthodox are considered ecumenical by the Eastern Orthodox, even though it did not have the participation of the Oriental Churches and the Assyrian Church.

But then "ecumenical" is defined by the Churches that make up the fullness of the Koinonia and that didn't include the Orientals or the Assyrians.

The "East" did indeed partcipate at Vatican II and I would submit that this, de facto, means that it was an ecumenical Catholic council in a way that, admittedly, the other later councils were not.

Again, let me reiterate that our Churches could certainly "make" any Council Ecumenical by simply recognizing it as such.

If the Oriental Churches were to acknowledge the later four Councils, they would acknowledge them as Ecumenical indeed. Their acknowledgement and recognition of them would be a kind of "participation" insofar as they agreed to their canons and dogmatic conclusions.

As for the eloquence, I guess you are rubbing off on me at long last . . .

Alex

Dear Alex:

Thanks for coming out, finally, to expound on the Ukrainian's view, albeit unofficially, on the ecumecity of the later 14 Councils.

However, I think a question arises from your statement:



Past Councils have been constituted with the equal participation of both East and West in mind, or, at least, each side has endeavored to seek the participation of the other. There was always an equal opportunity afforded by one to the other.

That one side chose freely not to participate after the proper convocation of a Council remains unanswered.

It is my personal view, however, that the presidency of such a properly convoked Council was always reserved for, or generally recognized as that of, the Pope or his acknowledged legates.


AmdG

Alex,

Some additional information for consideration:

1. The “Light for Life” catechism is endorsed by the Ukrainian Catholic bishops here in America. It surely reflects the Byzantine-Ukrainian Catholic perspective as well as the Byzantine-Ruthenian view.

2. Is there some sort of definitive statement by the Ukrainian Catholic Synod of Bishops that the later fourteen councils are indeed ecumenical? Or is the UCC simply accepting of the Latin view of this? The fact that our bishops participated in a council does not automatically make such a council ecumenical. What made the Seven Councils ecumenical is that they were eventually received by the entire Church. [The fact that the Oriental Orthodox and the Assyrians did not receive them has more to do with poor communication rather than outright rejection.]

3. St. Photios is listed on our calendar of saints. I am rather surprised to find that he has been removed from the UCC liturgical calendar (his day falls during February).

4. I think it is accurate to indicate that the writers of our catechism do not consider the later fourteen councils to be ecumenical in the same way as were the Seven Councils is because 1) the entire Church did not participate (i.e., the Orthodox) and 2) they did not affect us in the same way as did the Seven Councils.

Yes, it is a complicated issue, especially since the term “ecumenical” carries with it the meaning of “general” and “for good household order”.

Admin

Dear Amado,

Actually, I think Ukrainians may be divided on my view of what Ukrainians think - but what the heck, what is life if you don't take some chances?

I'm a little confused as to which Council you are referring to - the first Seven or the later ones (?).

In terms of the presidency of the Pope, the first councils saw this only in terms of a primacy of honour for various reasons. That primacy did not make the Pope of Rome "above" the other Patriarchs in any way and even Pope John VIII insisted on sharing a patriarchal throne with St Photios of Constantinople that were on an even level.

Pope John Paul II did the same on a recent visit to him by the Patriarch Bartholomew, something that the Italian press made much of.

It is clear that the "Vicar of Christ" who had the major say in the early Ecumenical Councils of the Church was none other than the Byzantine Emperor - the above title is one the Emperor coined for himself and that the Roman Popes later adopted.

Meyendorff's "Imperial Unity" does an excellent job of discussing these and related issues.

I think you raise questions for which we have no ready answers that would be agreed to by everyone.

The Orthodox clearly were at the Council of Florence and the majority DID sign the decrees. They later repudiated them when they got home to the jeers of their flocks. St Mark of Ephesus didn't sign them, spent the rest of his life fighting them and before his death asked that none of the Greek bishops who signed them be present at his funeral . . .

Does that make Florence truly ecumenical? Not if by "Church" you mean the Church with the Pope as its visible head.

It would seem that the Latin view of "ecumenical" implied orthodoxy of doctrine from the RC perspecitve AND a sense of "world-wide" Church. This is probably the major factor behind the appointment of Latin Patriarchs in Eastern Church Sees following the schism of 1054. It wasn't primarily about RC expansionism as it was about maintaining Rome's claim to being "ecumenical" in the "universal" and "orthodox" sense. Such ecumenicity was previously defined in terms of union with the five patriarchates.

Rome was adamant about affirming its orthodoxy against the Eastern "schismatics" who, from its point of view, were now "usurping" the Eastern Patriarchal Sees while in schism.

And with the schism of 1054, there was no longer a Byzantine Emperor who could convene a Council. It was natural for the Pope to not only claim the authority of five patriarchates in himself, but to also claim an imperial role for himself, a "Pontifex Maximus" and "Vicar of Christ," titles that the Byzantine Emperor held.

That was my point to our Esteemed (and busy) Administrator.

Rome is very serious about considering 21 Ecumenical Councils.

And I would submit that Eastern Catholics tacitly affirmed this when they entered into union with Rome (submission, whatever). Rome considers all the ancient conditions for ecumenicity with respect to Councils to have been met, especially given the fact of Roman Church presence in Orthodox jurisdictions (including the Churches of the Unia, after all).

We can rewrite history all we want. And the fact that one Pope may have said otherwise, to quote St John of Damascus "because one bird has sung does not mean that spring is here."

The Administrator said that I was looking at this from a Latin perspective because I was confusing Ecumenical Councils with the authority that any local or general Council can have.

I would submit that if we are in union with Rome (and we are) then it doesn't make sense to say to Rome "I don't agree with your teaching on this."

This is outside a Latin teaching that amounts to something similar that Eastern theology holds (e.g. Immaculate Conception means the Theotokos is all-Holy and we've always believed that).

And, I would submit, Amado, even though the Administrator isn't here right now to defend himself (although I think we will be hearing from him), recognition of the Ecumenicity of a Council (e.g. the 14 later Latin Councils) does NOT imply (nor did I ever said it did) that its decisions have the same force (or any force for that matter) over our Eastern Particular Catholic Churches.

(I have to stop now and catch my breath - the inspiration I am feeling is simply overwhelming.)

Alex

Alex,

The fact that the last fourteen General Councils in the West are not ecumenical does not mean that they are not authoritative or that we somehow reject their teachings. Our communion with Rome signifies that we accept the teachings of these later council fathers as true. It does not automatically mean that we give them ecumenical status. It also does not mean that we consider these teachings to be good theology. Clearly, there is much from these later councils that need further clarification. Hopefully, the Eighth Ecumenical Council will occur during our lifetimes!

Admin

Here is a link to Fr. David Petras' comments on the Light for Life texts and the issue regarding the First Seven Ecumenical Councils:

http://www.cin.org/archives/cineast/199708/0448.html

Fr. David writes:

"Since the first seven Councils were fundamental to the development of the Byzantine theology of the Trinity and the Incarnation, these were emphasized in the volume. The value of the others was not denied, but it was noted that the participation of the Eastern Church in them was minimal."


Joe

"3. St. Photios is listed on our calendar of saints. I am rather surprised to find that he has been removed from the UCC liturgical calendar (his day falls during February)."

Maybe because St. Patriarch Photius and the first missionaries to the Slavs, Cyril and Methodius, had nothing to do with the conversion of Kiev around a century later?

Dear Administrator,

I've an opportunity to have a look at the catechism, and, yes, I don't see how any Eastern Catholic could object to its assessment of the Councils, early and later Latin.

The rejection of the later four by the Orientals was based on their rejection, as heretical, of the Churches that participated in them. As you know, the Robber Synod of Ephesus was convened to fight Chalcedon's definitions of the Nature of Christ. The Oriental Orthodox were quite serious in regarding the later four councils as "Byzantine local Councils" and, indeed, heretical since they were excommunicated etc. Same for the Assyrians. Communication would not have mattered - perceived and condemned heresy did.

You raise a number of fascinating issues having to do with the Roman procedure for "receiving back" Churches.

Florovsky mentions the Roman method at one point and he accurately summarizes it.

At the Union of Brest-Litovsk, and I daresay all other "Unias," a part of the Kyivan Church was recieved into union with Rome. Rome certainly saw this as a return to its fold from which this Church was removed definitively in 1054 - although Roman polemical writing later tried to show that Kyiv never "really" separated from Rome.

As a condition of such a union, Rome did not insist that all local Orthodox saints be removed from the calendar - indeed Sts. Volodymyr and Olha were not only allowed as local saints of the Ukrainian Catholic Church but were later placed in the universal Roman calendar, along with Boris and Hlib.

But Rome insisted that Orthodox saints who were known to be "Anti-Roman" be removed from the calendar of the new Eastern Church united to Rome.

In fact, in the case of Brest-Litovsk, no such saints were removed. St Photios was venerated at Constantinople at the time ONLY and his cult was not everywhere present as a liturgical cult, nor did it need to be.

The Saints of the Kyivan Caves Lavra were likewise only local Saints of that Monastery within Orthodoxy at the time of the Union of Brest-Litovsk, save for Sts. Anthony and Theodosius.

It was only later under St Peter Mohyla that this choir of saints was canonized for the Kyivan Church and later this was expanded for all of Orthodoxy, although they are not in most Greek calendars.

So the Kyivan Church retained all of its Orthodox patrimony with respect to the saints and icons that it had at the time of the Union of Brest.

Met. Andrew Sheptytsky, in 1904, received a decision from Rome with respect to the Orthodox saints capable of Catholic veneration by the Russians coming into union with Rome. In that calendar, Photios was definitely expunged, as were Mark of Ephesus, Gregory Palamas (now recognized by Rome as a saint) Athanasius of Brest (who condemned the unia violently and whose feast day is tomorrow) and some others.

Rome has never approved of the cult of St Photios, even though there is no censure of him within Catholicism any longer (despite what the tradlats on EWTN say).

In our case, anyway, he was never expunged simply because he was never on the local Kyivan calendar to begin with.

In the late 19th century, the Austro-Hungarian Empire DID insist the Ukrainian Catholics expunge certain icons (Pochaiv) and popular Orthodox saints from their calendars for fear of Russification etc. Patriarch Josef restored these later.

Yes, I agree most readily that the issue of a council's ecumenicity has nothing to do with the orthodoxy of its theology or its authority.

And I don't know under what conditions the Ruthenian Hierarchs understand their union with Rome to be.

The documents of Brest-Litovsk indicate the formal recognition by the Orthodox bishops who signed it of the Pope's authority over them whether delivered personally or in Ecumenical Council.

No mention, in fact, was made of any authority of a local Latin Council, which, as the Council of Trullo and its aftermath indicated, sometimes had the force of a universal council.

The Kyivan bishops were only obligated to recognize the Pope's direct teachings on faith and morals whether stated personally or in Ecumenical Council.

That was a tacit recognition of the later 14 Councils presided over by the Pope.

So, as far as our Particular Church was concerned, it had less to do with our participation than it did with the fact of papal ratification as an ecumenical council. It is such because the pope says it is, period.

And the Kyivan Church did not participate, nor could it have, in the deliberations of all of the early seven Councils, yet that did not mean they were not ecumenical for the Kyivan Church in union with Constantinople. If it were in union with the Syriac Orthodox, then the first three would be THE normative number of Ecumenical Councils.

And to say we accept the later 14 councils but reject that they are ecumenical is really a contradiction.

Rules and regulations about Latin Church ritual and discipline certainly don't apply to us.

But if all 14 councils are proclaimed ecumenical by the Pope to be upheld by all Catholics, then that includes us too.

Again, it is not whether we affirm their ecumenical nature, but that the Pope certainly does. To say that our acceptance of them as ecumenical is "Latin" is a conclusion that is not held by those who do not share it.

We all have our "limus tests" of what we consider to be "Orthodoxy."

But just as long as we don't go so far as to be outrightly contradicting Catholic doctrine along with Latin Church imperatives.

Alex

Alex,

I disagree. A council need not be ecumenical to be authoritative. There is no dogmatic or doctrinal list of which councils are to be considered ecumenical. It is clear that even the Roman Catholics do not raise the last 14 General Councils in the West to the same level as the Seven Ecumenical Councils. The fact that they usually attribute the title of “ecumenical” to these later 14 councils speaks only to their poor and now outdated understanding of the universality of the Catholic Church (i.e., that “Catholic” and “Latin” are one and the same).

The historical information you have provided regarding the calendar of saints if fascinating. St. Photios never disappeared from the Ruthenian Calendar (although St. Gregory of Palamas did). I think that the Byzantine Hungarians are possibly the only group of Greek Catholics who kept all of the saints on the calendar (including St. Gregory Palamas).

Admin

Dear Administrator,

As to the Councils, I agree . . . that we disagree!

Although I'm not sure where the disagreement is exactly . . .

But I'm tired, and I need to keep my energy up for work on our new home later on. (And is this how "busy" you are today? )

As for our disagreement, I don't have the website that keeps the Guinness world records under the "There's always a First" section . . .

And I hope that Nik would revisit his posts to me yesterday and change them accordingly as a result of this new information.

Gregory Palamas had a chequered history with the Latins. Latin theologians, while considering St Nicholas Cabasilas a "solid Greek theologian" often charged Palamas with "Quietism."

Even the Melkite Joseph Raya in the Melkite Horologion under the Second Sunday of Lent mentions Palamas but says that his "writings contained errors that were later refuted by Greek and Russian theologians."

As to who those theologians were, we don't know. But the Orthodox Church has always honoured him as a Saint and Teacher of the Church.

The Ethiopian Catholic Church was obliged to expunge "St. Pontius Pilate" from its calendar, but no one else. Those unreasonable Latins!

St Athanasius of Brest was canonized by Orthodoxy after the Union of Brest, but this didn't prevent Eastern Catholics from coming to honour him on Sept. 18 as a national saint who stood up to the RC's etc.

The Jesuits placed the feast of St Josaphat under September 16 (I have an old prayerbook that still lists him there) to try and dissuade our people from attending the pilgrimage to St Athanasius two days later. It is clear that both saints were once publicly honoured by Eastern Catholics.

Today, however, Orthodox saints even recently canonized are venerated by individual Eastern Catholic communities.

Again, I suppose this doesn't mean the RC's recognize Orthodox canonizations, but RC delegates do attend them as guests, venerate the icons and take copies home with them.

If they don't recognize the Orthodox canonizations as legitimate declarations of Christian sainthood, then why do they attend them and receive the icons?

Also, getting back to the Councils for a moment, it is clear that at Brest-Litovsk our Church did indeed recognize and call Florence an "Ecumenical Council" and accepted ALL of its pro-union formularies "Through the Son" "Purgatory is but has no fire" etc.

The Council of Lyons was attended by the Met. of Kyiv St Peter Akerovych who, some say, left having signed the instrument of East-West Union. Patriarch Slipyj mentioned this on more than one occasion and introduced his cult as that of a specifically "Catholic Saint" i.e. in union with Rome into the Ukrainian Church.

It is clear that our Church acknowledges the authority AND ecumenical nature of Lyons and Florence as well as Vatican II.

Your Church does what it will, I'm only representing my Particular Church, although no one has made me a delegate to this convention.

I would raise this matter with my parish priest, but he's very strong and I would first have to do some training in kick-boxing before approaching him.

Alex

:p

Dear Nik,

You're great, Big Guy!

Love y'a!

Alex

Fascinating thread!
I am glad to say that I chose to be Orthodox. This is one of the major & unresolved dilemmas within the Eastern Catholic Churches. One group says we accept Seven Ecumenical Councils and another says 21 and another says it does not matter. I guess if you threw in the Oriental-Catholics they may say three. This is what I call utter chaos based on misleading truths.

Alex,
I am sorry but I have to disagree with your premises in establishing your argument. I sense strong relativistic tendencies in your arguments that make no sense to this Orthodox. Indeed, there were Eastern Catholics present at, for example, Vatican I & II and perhaps they are binding on a segment of people such as yourself but not so for others. I recall from history an Eastern Catholic bishop was willfully pressured in accepting Vatican I. That would be an abombination to me in my eyes. For the recond, what is Ecumenical and only Ecumenical are the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the united Church. As for the Orientals they'll have to deal with the last four Ecumenical Councils and accept them binding in case of reunification. No ifs and no buts about it. Sorry Mor Ephrem but that is the way it's going to have to be. The Seven Ecumenical Councils are non-negotiable. As for Rome's "Ecumenical Councils" this is another reminder of the historical breach with Orthodoxy. Will the Pope or the next Pope make this correction or apology for the sake of the Byzantine Catholic Church as well as for the Orthodox Church? Such an apology & clarification will bring an end to these types of disputes and disaggreements for the sake of Unity of Faith.

"I am glad to say that I chose to be Orthodox. This is one of the major & unresolved dilemmas within the Eastern Catholic Churches. One group says we accept Seven Ecumenical Councils and another says 21 and another says it does not matter. I guess if you threw in the Oriental-Catholics they may say three. This is what I call utter chaos based on misleading truths."


Hey! What came first, the Church or the Councils? And while you are at it ... What came first, the Church or the New Testament? You think that maybe things would be better if we didn't get our noses so deep into ontology? Being is of the essence!

Rum,

The discussion here is not about whether the later fourteen General Councils in the West are valid (they are perfectly valid but mostly address issues within the Latin Church). The discussion is about the ecumenicity of these councils. I find it odd that you would consider this chaotic when within the Orthodox patriarchates there has been no agreed process of convoking a pan-Orthodox council (let alone a real ecumenical) council since 1453.

I think that it is fair to state that Pope Paul VI made a purposeful distinction between the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the later General Councils in the West.

Admin