1 members (theophan),
316
guests, and
40
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums26
Topics35,393
Posts416,749
Members5,993
|
Most Online3,380 Dec 29th, 2019
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Dear Teen Logo,
But the Latin Church itself may one day redefine "Ecumenical Council" to reflect more accurately what such a Council is in terms of the understanding of the first thousand years of the undivided Church.
In previous discussions, we've seen that there are two conditions that have historically been set for the recognition of an Ecumenical Council: a Council at which the entire Church is present AND at which doctrine is defined.
Vatican I satisfies the latter requirement for ecumenicity, but if the Latin Church believes, as it has always believed, that the Orthodox Church is also the Body of Christ (even though "in rebellion"), then Vatican I does not satisfy the former requirement for an Ecumenical Council.
Vatican II was a grand get-together, but it defined no new doctrine.
But my point is that even Vatican I's hard and fast statements on papal infallibility and jurisdiction can be further developed within what Cardinal Newman called the process of the development of doctrine.
Newman himself posited, to his Protestant friends and opponents, that future Popes would make pronouncements to curtail and limit the grand powers that they have formerly appropriated to themselves.
Again, one could argue that the East has always accepted Rome's jurisdiction as a court of final appeal - not much used historically, but it was there in place for extreme necessities.
As for infallibility or indefectibility, we need only restore the damaged relationship between Pope and Ecumenical Council to arrive at a mutually agreeable formula for reunion - Papal infallibility seen as the ratification, along with the other Patriarchs of the universal Church, of the decrees and canons of an Ecumenical Council and within that context alone.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
Thanks for the reply Alex, but I'm no ultramontanist!
The Catholic Church has always taught that "ecumenical" falls within the context of the Church. If separated branches of Christendom are not present at the council, it doesn't somehow make it unworthy of ecumenicity. The Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. If Vatican I wasn't an ecumenical council, then neither were councils 4, 5, 6, and 7 (we were missing the Orientals). Also, even if the EO and the Catholic Church (CC) were to to end the schism, the Oriental Orthodox would still be left out and, by your reasoning, we couldn't have an ecumenical council. Even if the CC, EO, and OO ended their schisms, we still couldn't have an ecumenical council because of true Churches with Apostolic Orders such as the SSPX, etc.
As far as the infallibility of the Pope, I would be inclined to agree with you in terms of conciliar ratification, EXCEPT for the fact that Papal Infallibility has been used otherwise before (Immaculate Conception, Assumption). If these were declared invalid, the Catholic Church would thus declare itself invalid and not the true Church. I don't see how NOT to include these as infallible statements then.
Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Dear Teen Logo, Ah, to be young again! You are a feisty little . . . Good for you! I hope you go into teaching or another professional context where you can give full vent to your natural ability to challenge and generate thought! I mean that sincerely. O.K., I guess it's time for me to respond to a few things, right? Number one, I never called you an Ultramontanist. I called Mike an Ultramontanist . But in a nice way . . . Yes, you are right, the Latin Catholic Church does indeed maintain its 14 Councils following the 7 initial ones as "Ecumenical." All I'm saying is that that categorization isn't hard and fast. Scholars like Fr. Francis Dvornik and others find the matter "capable of question." But this would only really apply within any future attempts at reunification between East and West. In other words, say, for example, the Eastern Churches of the Byzantine tradition say to Rome: "O.K. we're ready to talk unity." In such a case, Rome would not/could not tell the Eastern Churches that they must recognize its later 14 Councils as "Ecumenical." They were "Ecumenical" insofar as the Roman Patriarchate, which is a world-wide Communion," is concerned. But beyond that . . . As well, the vast majority of what those later Roman universal Councils ("universal" for the world-wide Latin Communion) were about had to do with internal matters and issues affecting Rome alone. Where the Eastern Churches come into play, especially the Council of Lyons and Florence, the whole thing was a bust, unity was not achieved, even though the conclusions of those Councils were later employed as highly Latinized "Eastern formularies of union" at Brest-Litovsk and elsewhere. Those councils are best left forgotten to make room for new and better frameworks of church unification. The FACT that a Council's significance can be reduced from "Ecumenical" to "Local" doesn't, in any way, invalidate what the council/synod said. What was said about internal Latin Church discipline would still be valid for the Latin Church. There is no question that it would not be valid for any Eastern Church. Moreover, Churches in both East and West have taken canons from Local Councils and made them universally applicable. Again, should the RC Church agree to categorize its later 14 Councils as universal Latin Councils (for they involved the universal RC Church), that would take nothing away from those Councils' significance for the Latin Church. It would, in fact, change nothing. The Orthodox Churches of the East would not be obliged to accept those Councils and RC theologians have never said they must to achieve unity. In the same way that Oriental Orthodox Churches would not have to accept the later 4 Ecumenical Councils of the Roman/Byzantine Church of the West (it's all a question of 'location, location, location' ). They were not present at those Councils, but they deny nothing of what was affirmed by way of doctrine at them. The Oriental Churches COULD, if they so wished, affirm the later four Councils at a union synod. They liturgically celebrate the Three Councils and they would not need to liturgically commemorate the later Roman-Byzantine four in any event. Again, Councils aren't the only source for our Faith. Scripture, Tradition, Councils, Canons, Liturgy inform what we already believe with respect to the Faith handed down via the Church from Christ and His Apostles. Now we get into your important point regarding the church doctrines proclaimed at certain Councils and also by individual Popes outside a Conciliar setting. And, in fact, both aspects amount to the same thing. It matters not whether Vatican I was an Ecumenical Council in the eyes of the Orthodox or not. What matters is that the Pope in that Council proclaimed two papal doctrines, papal jurisdiction and papal infallibility. Whether he did it in the context of a Council, or else alone as did Pope Pius XII when proclaimed the Assumption of the BVM all amounts to the same thing - the doctrine was defined and all Catholics were commanded to adhere to it/them. So even if Rome were to say Vatican I was a Local Roman Council, that would change nothing about the issue of the doctrines proclaimed by the Pope during that Council. The world-wide Bishops of a Latin Council could all stand on their heads if they wished, but if they didn't have the ratification of the Pope, the Council could do nothing. The "good thing" about the RC view on Councils then has truly excellent implications for ecumenism . . . For what matters is not the Council, but the Pope. Therefore, to reduce the significance of Councils in RC understanding is to change nothing about the role of the Pope, his universal jurisdiction and infallibility. And the Pope himself, as Cardinal Newman and others have said, can change or limit the way his powers are exercised. In a future council of union between East and West, the papal powers could foreseeably undergo further revision - the Catholic Church allows for such ongoing development of doctrine. It is not a "taking away" from what already exists, but a "refining" and a "building upon" what already exists. You yourself very aptly put it when you said you had nothing against the alignment of papal powers with Conciliarity. And even Pius XII asked the views of the world's RC bishops before he defined the Assumption. He didn't do it on his lonesome. The Pope has a role to play in the Church, but so does a Council, and the Pope must be accountable to Church tradition and contemporary praxis in the exercise of his prerogatives in terms of leadership. What better way of satisfying all this than within the context of an Ecumenical Council? A truly new Ecumenical Council could be called in future to achieve East-West unity and also to define further doctrines/dogmas (I don't know the difference between the two, sorry) with respect to papal authority/conciliar authority, church government, a universal formulation of the Faith for all the Churches, clarification on universal vs local traditions with respect to theology and liturgy and so on. Nothing has to be denied or discarded from what went on in the past, only refined and developed further. That is the strength of the Catholic Church, Latin, Greek - what have you. And as for the Marian doctrines - the Eastern Church believed in their essence without ever feeling the need to define them as there was never any crisis in its jurisdictions with respect to Marian devotion etc. The Eastern Church believes that the Spirit guides the Church into all truth. The united Church of the first 1,000 years saw the Ecumenical Council with its great Patriarchs as the ultimate modum for the expression of the Spirit's Voice. Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 147
Member
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 147 |
Alex, as long as we are imagining the eschatological future of a reunified Church--what will be the status of the Council of Blachernae (1283) and the Palamite Councils (1340s)?
Western theologians, for example, find the distinction between God's ousia and energies to be problematic and questionable. Will the East insist on this distinction as a dogma?
In Christ, Fr Alvin Kimel+
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!
Actually, it was the Hesychasts themselves who inflated the significance of those councils to the level of "Ecumenical."
They were clearly Local Synods, although what they pronounced upon became very popular throughout Orthodoxy, to be sure, especially in the battle with Nominalism.
The anathemas against the Nominalists in St Gregory Palamas' time are liturgically celebrated in the Office for the Second Sunday of Lent (Lenten Triodion by Kallistos Ware et al.).
For example, the Photian Council was never regarded as "Ecumenical" by St Photios himself, even though it gathered together representatives of the entire Church, East and West.
But it pronounced no new doctrine, and so it was hardly "Ecumenical" - it was much later that the West made Photios out to be the "bogeyman" and originator of the schism of 1054 etc. and others in the East also responded by affirming the "ecumenicity" of the Photian Council.
St Gregory Palamas is today officially recognized as a saint by the Roman Catholic Church and the entire controversy over his teachings, reviewed in a more perspicacious light by RC theologians today, has subsided.
Hopefully, St Photios himself will one day be likewise recognized by Rome which never denied his great personal holiness.
Again, there is no reason for either East or West to go beyond the Seven Ecumenical Councils in determining the basis for a future union.
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1
Member
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 4,678 Likes: 1 |
You are a feisty little . . . Good for you! I hope you go into teaching or another professional context where you can give full vent to your natural ability to challenge and generate thought! I mean that sincerely. Thanks, Alex. Yeah, we Methodists can be a feisty bunch; Mama raised me right! Thanks for the compliment, but I think I'm going into law/real estate investing. I'll still find some way to pontificate! In other words, say, for example, the Eastern Churches of the Byzantine tradition say to Rome: "O.K. we're ready to talk unity."
In such a case, Rome would not/could not tell the Eastern Churches that they must recognize its later 14 Councils as "Ecumenical."
They were "Ecumenical" insofar as the Roman Patriarchate, which is a world-wide Communion," is concerned. Well, being from the the Catholic vantage point, I'd still say it was ecumenical because the whole Church (the Church in communion with the Apostolic See) was there. Where the Eastern Churches come into play, especially the Council of Lyons and Florence, the whole thing was a bust, unity was not achieved, even though the conclusions of those Councils were later employed as highly Latinized "Eastern formularies of union" at Brest-Litovsk and elsewhere. Those councils are best left forgotten to make room for new and better frameworks of church unification. Yes, but the whole Church was still present! I've a feeling we're lookin at two sides of the same coin, but I'm not sure how! What was said about internal Latin Church discipline would still be valid for the Latin Church. There is no question that it would not be valid for any Eastern Church. Definitely. Well, I have no time on the computer left and I'm on the plane tomorrow morning, so I gotta cut this short! Y'all don't have too much fun without me and please pray for my family's safety. Ciao! Logos Teen
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 13
Junior Member
|
Junior Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 13 |
Dear Orthodox Catholic, No, I am not a Montanist! I don't really like being called a heretic. But anyway, yes I am formiliar with Orientalium Ecclesiarum. I know that the Patriarchs pretty much run the show. They choose their own bishops with the right of the pope to step in at any time. These individual churches both Eastern and Western, while they differ somewhat among themselves in what is called "rite," namely in liturgy, in ecclesiastical disclipline and in spiritual tradition, are none the less all EQUALLY entrusted to the pastoral guidance of the Roman Pontiff, who by God's appointment in successor to Blessed Peter in primacy over the Universal Church. (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no.3) The Patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, not excepting the right of setting up new eparchies (dioceses) and appointing bishops of their rite within the patriarchal territory, without prejudice to the INALIENABLE right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in ANY particular case. (Orientalium Ecclesiarum no.8) What I was talking about that I couldn't believe you said was: "Rome can legislate for itself as it pleases. To expect the East to bow to papal triumphalism is simply not on. It is incumbent on Rome to present a more agreeable model of papal primacy to the East that was never under papal jurisdiction and especially not for the first millennium." The East was under papal jurisdiction for the first millenium. and... "When Rome ceases to view the Eastern Churches as parts of its world-wide Papal Diocese that are "in rebellion," that would be a good starting point. If that is what papal authority is all about, then the Orthodox East should keep away from it. And so, I would add, should the Eastern Catholic Churches currently in communion with it." I am greatly disturbed by this Alex. The Diocese of Rome IS the Diocese of the World. The Eastern Churches that, as you called it, are "in rebellion," (not in communion with Rome) are not part of the Catholic Church. The Church that Christ founded SUBSISTS in the Catholic Church under the Roman Pontiff. So you are telling people they should stay away from the Church of Christ. No matter how the Bishop of Rome is exercising his office, there are NO grounds to leave the Church. "Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it, or to remain in it.(Lumen Gentium no.14) All I am saying is if the Pope wanted to be more "monarchial" he could very well do so even though the present norm is that the patriarchs pretty much run the show without prejudice to the Supreme Pontiff. If the Pope did choose to be this way it would be no grounds for people to leave Christ's Holy Church nor to stay away from Her. She is the Sacrament of Salvation for the world. May God lead all people into His Holy Catholic Church, God Bless, Michael
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Dear Teen Logo, You want to go into law and real estate? That will give you plenty of training for a priestly vocation too! We don't disagree here. From the perspective of the Church of Rome, should the prospect of unity with the East come about, there is just no way that its later 14 councils can be imposed on the Eastern Churches simply because THEY were not present at them. That the 14 Latin Councils were world-wide - of this there is no doubt because what they proposed is binding on the world-wide Latin Church. And as such they are truly "Ecumenical" for the Roman Communion. The other point you are raising, which is both an insightful and very intelligent point if I may say so, is the relation of Rome to the Eastern Churches from the perspective of the Councils. The fact is that Rome never said the Eastern Churches are NOT the true Church. Rome has said they are "in rebellion" or else "Separated Brethren " But the Eastern Churches have the same Apostolic faith and ecclesial continuity as the West. And their "separation" from Rome is on the basis of new demands from Rome with respect to its jurisdiction that never existed in the first millennium of Christianity. Objectively speaking, the East continues in the same faith and tradition as the Undivided Church of the Apostles. From this perspective, it is Rome that fell away with its new doctrines, not the East. But that is another story So, from the RC perspective, WAS the entire Church present at the post-Schism Latin Councils? Yes and no. It is not really a big issue, since in the event of reunion with the East, those same Councils will continue to be binding on the West. They will have no impact on the East, just as they have no impact on the Eastern Catholic Churches in communion with Rome today. The real issue is that of Papal primacy and how to, as you yourself said, again very insightfully, integrate it with the principle of conciliarity - which is how it existed in the first millennium of the united Church as well. Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Bless me a sinner, Father Kimel!
The Orthodox Church has never declared any Council beyond the Seven to be "Ecumenical" and world Orthodoxy recognizes only seven.
Fr. John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) once stated that in the event of a reunion council between East and West, the Photian Council COULD be declared "the 8th Ecumenical Council" by the reunited Church, East and West, while the reunion Council itself could then be declared the "9th Ecumenical Council."
That was his own proposal, and it is not without its problems.
The Photian Council itself was not considered "Ecumenical" by St Photios - one of the keenest and most brilliant theologians of the entire Church, East and West, of the first Millennium, truth be told.
It was simply a reunion Council and had much greater universal attendance from the Pentarchy of Patriarchates than the Ignatian Council.
But it declared no new doctrines and so could not be considered "Ecumenical" great attendance notwithstanding.
It is clear from the proceedings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils that the Fathers participating in those understood them as "Ecumenical" and binding on the entire Church.
So why would a Council of reunion that would come about at a time in the future declare something for an old synod that itself did not think it was "ecumenical?"
But what Fr. Prof. Meyendorff proposed is possible, since a future Council of reunion would certainly be empowered to make such a pronouncement.
And IF the proclamation of new doctrines is an important characteristic of an Ecumenical Council, how would such a future council of reunion be seen as ecumenical if it is, like the Photian synod, simply concerned with reunification?
Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30
Member
|
Member
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 26,391 Likes: 30 |
Dear Michael, Well, to be an ultramontanist is not to be a heretic. St Thomas More and others in history were considered ultramontanists. As you know, the term means "beyond the mountains" and refers to a super sense of loyalty of certain Western Catholics that placed loyalty to the Pope (living in Rome beyond the central mountainous region of Europe) above loyalty to their national Catholic Churches - in every way, including politically, but that is another story. You say that for the first millennium, the Eastern Churches were under papal jurisdiction. And that is simply wrong. The Popes had no jurisdiction over the Churches of the East in the way that we know "papal jurisdiction" today. Rome was considered a "court of final appeal" by the East, but only if it was ASKED to intervene in a particular case in the East. Those cases are few and far between, in any event. Rome's primacy was really limited to having a first among equals place at the Ecumenical Councils that dealt with the crises in the Church. Also, you say that if one is not in communion with Rome, one is outside the "Church." The quote you give states that the Church "subsists." And that is the all important word here, as you know. What that word does is say that the "fullness" of the Catholic Church is in the communion of/with Rome. That does NOT mean that a "less perfect communion" cannot be had. Rome has always affirmed that the Orthodox Churches, from its perspective, are the true Church, although "in rebellion" or the more contemporary and palatable "Separated Brethren." What you say about papal jurisdiction over the East simply did not exist in the first millennium of the united Church of Christ. If you want to argue further on that, you are most welcome to. But I will give you this - IF what you say is correct, then you are completely right and I am completely wrong. I am not suggesting that the Eastern Catholic Churches should break their current communion with Rome - they already adhere to their own theological traditions through which prisms they view this communion. My statement was simply related to the ecumenical issue of union with the East. If the East needs to regain a sense of the Primacy that it experienced in the first millennium, then Rome needs to regain the sense of a renewed Primacy based on service and love, rather than the prideful and sinful sense of domination and control over other Churches. The Pope is limited by the Tradition of the Church, first and always. He is not above that Tradition and he is not above the Church. Rome itself ackowledges the condemnation of one of its popes, Honorius, and Rome itself refused to canonize another pope, Liberius (who is "St Liberius" in the East, by the way) for noted failures to live up to the standards of that Tradition. For a Pope to want to glorify himself and turn himself into a despot would be to go against the spirit of the Gospel and of the entire Tradition of the Catholic Church. IF such would ever happen, we, as Catholics, would be well within our rights to oppose such a pope - as did Jerome Savonarola with respect to Alexander VI, one of the sorriest popes ever to sit on the cathedra of Peter in Rome. Have a nice day! Alex
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505
Member
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 2,505 |
David, I think your friend was probably referring to canon 844 Which states: Catholic ministers may licity administer the sacraments to Catholic members of the Christian faithful only and likewise, the latter may licitly receive the sacraments from Catholic ministers with due regard for p. 2,3,and 4 of this cannon. #3 Catholic ministers may licitly administer the sacraments of penance, Eucharist and anointing of the sick to members of the oriental churches which do not have full communion with the Catholic Church, if they ask on their ownfor the sacraments and are properly disposed. This holds also for members of other churches, which in the judgement of the Apostolic See are in the same condition as the oriental churches as far as the sacraments are concerned.
So there is no hindrance to the Orthodox from receiving Communion in our Churches when they are not able to worship with other Orthodox. The prohibition still stands on the part of Orthodox Churches if I am not mistaken.
Peace and Blessings Unworthy Monk and Arch sinner Stephanos I
|
|
|
|
|