www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Seeking Council

Dear Anastasios,

I have an icon of all Sainted Metropolitans of Kyiv with both Peters!

And it's "Kyiv" not "Kiev . . ."

Da?

God bless,

Alex

Dear Teen Logo,

The East doesn't quite accept the same notion as the West here . . .

The West literally swears by dogmatic formulations in understanding Christian faith and there is the implication made that new doctrines can arise that are rooted in Scripture and Tradition, but hadn't made themselves felt until later times.

The East however understands the role of a Council in terms of defining the faith that all Christians have always held from the beginning, and that has come under attack by heretics.

When the Church defined the way in which Christ is both God and Man in one Divine Person, it was affirming what it always believed, but needed to be define formally to protect the Church against Arianism.

When the Church at the 7th Council defended icons, it was defending itself against the attacks of iconoclasts, including Emperors, and affirmed what it has always believed about the veneration of images in connection with the Incarnation of Christ etc.

As an aside, this is why the Oriental Churches, who have only three Councils, need not accept the 7th, since they never had a "crisis of faith" over images and have always venerated them.

The same is true about the other Councils they don't observe - also because they weren't present at them.

For the East, there was no need to define the Immaculate Conception and the Assumption - the East has always celebrated the complete holiness of the Mother of God and her bodily translation into Heaven.

And if the West had not given Augustine the emphasis it did, it too would not have felt the need to define new doctrines that "protect" the Mother of God from incurring the "stain of Original Sin" etc.

But for the more rational West, faith is something to be thought about in a more rational, than mystical way, with universally acclaimed conclusions sometimes being defined dogmatically and "infallibly."

That the West defined papal infallibility the way it did is also something that was unnecessary from the Eastern point of view - but it was definitely necessary to establish a "doctrine-making system" in the West.

In the East, papal participation in an Ecumenical Council and his ratification of such, along with that of the other patriarchs, were the conditions that established Conciliar canons and decrees as true and binding on all Christians - i.e. "infallible."

Alex

I don't see how the positions of East and West are contradictory here.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

Did I say they were "contradictory?"

They're just different and reflect different approaches, proper to the spiritual culture of both East and West - that's all.

Alex

Well then we agree. Your post just came off with a little too much "versus" for me.

Logos Teen

Dear Teen Logo,

But only in the kindest, most amicable sense!

After all, I'm from "Canuckistan."

Alex

But given the divisions and problems that Vatican II has caused among thr Latins themselves, wouldn't it be better to ackowledge the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the unidivided Church only?

Most definitely, esteemed Dr. Roman!

Just because a council causes division doesn't mean it should be knocked off the ecumenical totem pole. Dissenters are always going to be present, rejecting the Truth that Christ speaks through His Church. I don't see how nullifying or downgrading His words helps anything.

Logos Teen

Dear Remie and Teen Logo,

Well, how does Vatican II qualify as an Ecumenical Council of the universal Church?

No doctrine was affirmed by it, or doctrinal clarifications.

And the Orthodox East did not participate, except as observers.

It is simply a Local Council of the Churches in communion with Rome.

Certainly, the Decree on the Eastern Churches relates to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

But even here, it has been described by the Orthodox as "a Latin document on the Eastern Churches."

Alex