Dear friends of the forum --

I apologize if this has been hashed to death at another time when I was not on the board or did not see it.

I am in a discussion with a Latin rite Catholic and he states that all 21 councils are binding upon Eastern Catholics.

Issat so?

Must I accept all 21 of the RC councils, or just the first 7?

Thank you for your answers.

Brother Ed -- the angry X Prot

The First 7 Councils were not RC

For many of the ancient Churches, four of those seven were not even "C".

Officially all 21, altar boy.

Just a few points to add to this discussion. While it is customary in many Roman Catholic circles to assume that all 21 councils are of equal weight and fully ecumenical, there is actually no official declaration anywhere that this is so. The various lists enumerating 21 councils are just that, lists.

If someone is really interested in a good discussion on this topic I suggest researching and posting two items that clearly show that the Seven Ecumenical Councils are in a different category:

1. The letter of Pope Paul VI to Cardinal Willebrands of October 1974 (found in "Information Service" of the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity, n. 25 (1974/III) pages 8-10). In it Pope Paul VI provides a good explanation of the difference between the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the later General Councils in the West.

2. A homily preached by Cardinal Willebrands in Lyons for the 7th centenary of the Second Council of Lyons which directly follows the above.

Regarding the Byzantine Catholic position, I believe that our official catechism states that we hold the first Seven to be fully ecumenical while acknowledging that the Roman Catholics often consider the 14 General Councils in the West to be of equal weight. This does not mean that we reject the teachings of these councils. It just means that we consider them to be local councils for the Roman Catholic Church.

This does not mean that we reject the teachings of these councils. It just means that we consider them to be local councils for the Roman Catholic Church.

The above statement totally confuses me. If we do not reject the teachings of these councils, then they are binding on us, right? If we do not accept the teachings of these councils, and ignore them, then they are NOT binding on us, right?

In other words, do we, as Eastern Catholics, have the "right" to state "The ASSUMPTION of Mary is a Western teaching which we do not accept" (Vatican II if I remember correctly).

Then we get into a sticky issue of the pronouncement of Papal Infallibility in Vatican I. Now suddenly, instead of being a faithful Eastern Catholic I am treating the councils like the Protestants treat the Bible -- SMORGASBOARD!!! Take what you want and ignore the rest.

Could you explain a bit more for me please? Thank you.


Brother Ed

Dear Brother Ed,

A good principle to follow here with respect to the later Roman Councils is what was discussed in the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox ecumenical conferences.

As we know, the Oriental Orthodox hold the first three Councils as Ecumenical alone.

There position with respect to the other four has to do with the fact that their Churches were not represented at those councils, they take issue with some of the formulations especially at the Chalcedonian Council and that, as with the Seventh Council where the theology of the icon was defined and defended, they say that the iconoclastic controversy only affected the Byzantine Church and never their Churches - and they have always had and venerated icons, it was never a problem that had to defended within their jurisdictions.

Some Oriental Orthodox theologians therefore argue that the "core" of what is taught in the later four Councils is already held by the Oriental Orthodox or else is contained in the first Three Councils.

The later 14 Roman Councils often dealt with crises that arose within the Roman Church and which were relevant only to the historical experience and development of the Roman Church - they really had nothing to do with Eastern Church praxis.

The doctrines of the Assumption and the Immaculate Conception, long debated between East and West, are Latin affirmations of what the Eastern Churches have ALWAYS believed, in pith and substance, about the Most Holy Mother of God.

As our liturgical tradition shows, our Eastern Churches venerate her as All-Holy from the moment of Her Conception - the feast is an Eastern one, later adopted in the West by the Catholic Church of England. Again, the East doesn't share in the West's Augustinian notion of the "stain" of Original Sin and therefore it wasn't dragged into the Western debates on human nature etc.

We also have ALWAYS venerated her Dormition and Assumption into Heaven. In other words, what those two Latin doctrines say about our Lady have to do with Latin theology that the East doesn't share in the first place. Their statements about her total holiness and her union with her Son in heaven are things the East has always adhered to.

Even the papal pronouncements of Vatican I and their triumphalistic sounding words are things that Eastern Catholics today consider a "Latin thing" that they will hopefully and eventually "grow out of" .

We embrace and honour the Patriarch of the West as the first Patriarch in the universal Church, as did the undivided Church of the first thousand years. We believe that the Spirit prevents the Church from falling into error, guided by the Pope surrounded by all the Patriarchs and Bishops who are in communion with him throughout the world.

At the same time, we are returning to the vision of a unified Church of our forefathers and through a better defined sense of our own Orthodox and Catholic identity, are reclaiming our Particularity on a Patristic basis.

We find that we must sometimes tell Rome "Thus far, and no further" and we struggle to claim our rights such as a married priesthood etc.

As my Roman Catholic chaplain at university once told me, "If the Vatican has anything to say to your Church about this Eastern tradition or that, just regard it as vulgar chalk-marks on the street made by . . . hooligans."

Alex

Brother Ed,

Alex's post is good, but maybe another analogy would help.

Let's say you are a Greek living in Athens. Let's also say you make spaghetti every Wednesday night and that you use a recipe that has been in your family for a thousand years. The spaghetti tastes great and the only problem you have is that there are never any leftovers.

Now let's say that after your wonderful spaghetti dinner you pick up a newspaper with a story from Rome entitled "Roman Cooks Argue Over Spaghetti Recipe". The story says that there are those groups who want more garlic and others who want less garlic sautéed with the onions. Each week for the next six months you see articles updating the crisis. Finally you see that a Council of Chefs is called to decide what the proper recipe should be for spaghetti for Roman chefs. Finally, a few months later you see that the Council of Chefs met at Rome, debated over and the promulgated a detailed recipe for spaghetti. Canon I details how to make the sauce and includes sub-canons on how to pick the ripe tomato, how to peel and sauté onions and garlic, and how many and how much other spices to use. Canon II details how to make the meatballs. Canon III details how to make and cook the spaghetti itself. Canon IV discusses choosing a wine (and Cannon V is in tiny print and suggests possible remedies for the acid stomach that many folks get from tomato sauce and red wine).

Do you, as a Greek living in Athens, throw away your perfectly good recipe for spaghetti that has served your family for a thousand years and immediately adopt this new recipe?

Or do you review the recipe, acknowledge that it is an excellent recipe but nevertheless continue to use the recipe you have always used?

Of course, now I am extremely hungry and want spaghetti!

Admin

Says who?

Anthony Dragani (on EWTN Eastern Catholic Forum, question posted by June McGee around 9/9/02, I believe.)

From the Twenty First Session of the Council of Trent:

CANON IV.--If any one saith, that the communion of the Eucharist is necessary for little children, before they have arrived at years of discretion; let him be anathema.

From the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches:

51. Communion to the neophytes

Can. 697 of the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches prescribe that the Eucharist be administered as soon as possible after the Baptism and Chrismation with holy Myron, according to the norms of the Church <sui iuris>.
_________________________________________________

The Council of Trent put age limits on when one is to receive the Sacraments of Initiation. The Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches says it is mandatory for Eastern Catholics to receive the Sacramental Mysteries of Initiation at the same time.

So which decree are Eastern Catholics bound by? Are they bound by the Council of Trent or are they bound by the Code of Canons for the Eastern Churches.

So are we down to only 20 of the 21 councils? Let me know. I can bring it down to 19, then 18, then 17, etc. I got a whole hard drive full info.

Joe Prokopchak
archsinner

Dear Administrator --

What a neat analogy, and certainly one that even the most dense of people (meaning yours truly) can easily understand.

Then Joe comes back and proves what you said with the canon from Trent. As we know, whether or not to commune our children is not a doctrinal issue involving whether or not the Body and Blood are present on the altar, but deciding the "how" of how it is going to be ADMINISTERED.

And....quite frankly, I think this is an error administratively on the part of the Romans.

Thanks for your great answers.

Brother Ed

Esteemed Admin,

To play with your analogy a bit, Rome stipulated it is **objectively** a sin to use black olives (artificial birth control)in a sauce.
According to your old Greek recipe, circumstances (how many are at the table) and prayerful discernment may allow for the occasional use of black olives.
Are you bound by the Roman prohibition?

[ 09-11-2002: Message edited by: durak ]

I love the pasta rule; it is helpful and enlightening.

However, a caution if I may.

I think you Catholics (and sometimes maybe us Orthodox, but I am going to pick on you now ) have this tenedency to see matters excessively in terms of procedures and process -- abstract questions independent of any particular teaching or truth as to how we arrive at truth and then what is 'binding', whatever that means.

I think table of SEQUENCE is the more important matter than process, namely--

Christ preached the Good News

The Apostles preached Christ's Good News

The Church preaches the Apostles' preaching of the Good News of Christ.

Now one asks, how do we know, for example, the truth of Mary's maternity. Well, through alot of ways including the Council of Ephesus.

But this 'binding' talk, I think is off the mark. It is a secondary principle eleveated to a primary principle.

Axios

Esteemed Axios,

It seems to me that "binding" becomes a primary principle in the course of exercising the responsibility to form a sincere, honest and correct conscience - there is nothing more serious one can do in life.
Bindingness plays a role in the preparation for the Sacrament of Penance, so, again, it is no small thing.