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

Dear Friends,

It has been said here before that the reason why the latter 14 Latin Councils are not accepted as "Ecumenical" by the Byzantine Catholic Churches (like the first Seven) are because a) they were largely local Latin ones that dealt with Western Church issues and internal discipline and b) the Eastern Churches were not directly involved.

It is to the second point that I wanted to ask this question.

What about Lyons, Florence and Vatican II where Eastern Church reps did in fact participate.

Lyons and Florence were largely rejected, but what they discussed there did figure in the formation of the union of, say, Brest-Litovsk.

And Vatican II not only had full formal participation from Eastern Catholic Hierarchs, but also issued the Decree on the Eastern Churches.

So doesn't our argument break down with respect to the above three councils at least?

Respectfully submitted,

Alex

And if the latter 14 Councils are rejected in terms of the whole oekoumenia and are considered simply local councils, what are we to think of Councils 4, 5, 6, and 7? Were they not lacking the participation of the non-Chalcedonians? How then are they to be considered ecumenical when the last 14 are not?

Sometimes the Eastern view of what counts as an ecumenical council is a bit confusing for me, but I'm willing to learn.

Logos Teen

I'd love to hear too. Do Eastern Orthodox believe that doctrinal progression happened over their 7 councils? Whenever I've read their stuff that's how it's always seemed to me, and I've always wondered why they don't become Catholics, since it seems to me to make more sense to say that doctrine is still progressing, than to say that it progressed for the first half of Christianity, and then stopped... What am I misunderstanding about the EO stance?

I agree, CO. To my ignorant mind, Eastern Orthodoxy has seemed to be "doctrinally stagnant" since the Schism. In a way, I guess that's good since we'd be a lot worse off if there were some Eastern Orthodox ecumenical council that went squarely against the latter ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church. What about the Oriental Orthodox Churches? Do y'all see your theology as continually developing (though not changing)?

Logos Teen

No, actually, we're on the opposite end of the spectrum, no doctrinal development. EO & Catholic will look at Nicea and say that the doctrine of the Trinity was better undersood, while we just see it as a firm expression of the ancient faith. EO & Catholics see the doctrine of the nature of Christ being worked out at Chalcedon while we don't see the need with works beforehand that talk about it clearly. We believe it's ok to express the faith in a way relevent to the current times, but never to deveolop it further. We believe that the faith Christ taught the Apostles during the Holy 40 days was sufficient, and that we can't go further, but rather must hold onto that faith without alteration. These seem like the two stances that make sense, either it never developed, or it develops still, but to think that it developed and then stopped doesn't seem to make much sense. That's why I'd love to hear an EO explain what it is they belief, so I can understand since I've never heard a good explanation.

Thanks for the information, I had never heard the Oriental Orthodox view on this before.

I would also be interested to hear.

Logos Teen

I agree, CO. To my ignorant mind, Eastern Orthodoxy has seemed to be "doctrinally stagnant" since the Schism. In a way, I guess that's good since we'd be a lot worse off if there were some Eastern Orthodox ecumenical council that went squarely against the latter ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church.

It's also good because it makes no sense to make the mistakes that being "doctrinally vibrant" seems to make. :p

(I disagree that Orthodoxy, since the Schism, has been "doctrinally stagnant", btw.)

I agree with Mor Ephrem. We must beware that we do not "Over-develope" doctrine. If Logos Teen is interested in learning about Eastern Orthodox theology being far from stagnant post schism, there are many books which treat this subject. One very important development in their theology was the energies/essence distinction which developed in medieval times. Of course many on this forum could explain this better than I. So I'll defer to them.

Trusting In Christ's Illuminating Light,
Wm. DerGhazarian

Armenian Catholic Christian
www.geocities.com/wmwolfe_48044/ [geocities.com]

The Council of Lyons had eastern reps? What, all three of them, and not one a reigning bishop? (1 ex-patriarch and 2 laymen) ;-)

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

Did not St Peter I, Metropolitan of Kyiv participate in Lyons?

According to Holweck, Peter left the Council in "personal union" with Rome - which is why he sometimes appears in later RC calendars as "St Peter" and certainly Holweck, very strict about NOT including Orthodox saints for Catholic veneration, includes Peter.

Patriarch Josef Slipyj also mentioned this in one of his pastoral letters and gives St Peter's family surname "Akerovych." I'd have to look it up, if you wanted the particulars, as I don't have it with me.

Alex

Alex,

Lyons happened in 1274. Peter Moghila lived several centuries later.

In Christ,

anastasios

Dear Anastasios,

Yes, but I wasn't referring to St Peter Mohyla (St Peter II of Kyiv), but to St Peter I (Akerovych).

Thanks for the link to the article you sent me!

It is always so wonderful to be in the company of such great theological scholarship!!

You will make a great prof and also a great priest, if your wife lets you.

Mine isn't . . .

Alex

Dear Friends,

Anastasios the Seminarian sent me a great article on this subject by Fr. Francis Dvornik that I thoroughly enjoyed reading and wanted to highlight a few points from it here.

He discusses the Ignatian and Photian Councils of 869 and 879 respectively. The Photian Council annulled the Ignatian Council and had reps from all five Patriarchates. But Rome acknowledges the Ignatian Council and the East has sometimes considered the Photian Council as Ecumenical - although Photios himself never did and only acclaimed the first Seven as such.

Dvornik also quotes from articles written by Greek Uniats written after the Council of Lyons (at which St Peter I of Kyiv was present ).

It would seem that the Greek Uniats were quite "into" the Filioque and kept repeating their newly accepted doctrine "From the Son" over and over again!

They list the Ecumenical Councils as they saw them - the first Seven (without mentioning either the Ignatian or Photian Councils) and then that of Lyons as the "8th" and then the 9th as the Council of Constantinople under Patriarch Beccos that ratified Lyons and then the 10th Ecumenical Council that of Florence.

Also, until the 11th century, Rome did acknowledge ONLY the first Seven Councils as Ecumenical, the Ignatian Synod notwithstanding. For the Byzantines, the Photian Synod annulled the Synod of 869 and it was non-existent.

It would seem that until the final break between East and West (which I put at the Sack of Constantinople, the events of 1054 notwithstanding), both East and West viewed an Ecumenical Council as one that had reps from the entire Church and also, most importantly, one that MADE A DOGMATIC DEFINITION OR DECISION ABOUT DOGMA.

Without the latter, it was NOT an Ecumenical Council. Dvornik says that according to this standard, a number of the later Latin Councils are clearly NOT Ecumenical either!

Also, as for participation in a Council, in 1136, Bp Nicetas of Nicomedia wrote that while the East accepts the primacy of the Roman Pope and his presidency in an ecumenical council, he asks how can the Eastern Church accept as normative the decisions made by a Synod/Council convoked by the Pope involving the Latin Church alone?

Such are ONLY local Latin synods and NOT Ecumenical Councils.

So I began here by asking if participation by Eastern hierarchs in Councils such as Lyons, Florence (and that of Constantinople under Beccos, it would seem) made a Council Ecumenical?

Dvornik shows that this would be required as a condition.

But even previously, in the Ignatian and Photian Councils that met to discuss church union, these two councils were not, in their day and afterwards for a long time, regarded as Ecumenical by the Latins or the Greeks (later events notwithstanding), precisely BECAUSE they were not convened to make dogmatic definitions binding on the entire church but to discuss church union and the ending of separation.

Therefore, the only Councils that hold to the two main conditions that govern "Ecumenicity" with respect to Councils are the first Seven (in the Western, Roman-Byzantine Churches).

Even Vatican II does not meet the criterion of an "Ecumenical Council" because it did NOT meet to make dogmatic decisions, participation of Eastern Catholic hierarchs notwithstanding.

Therefore, while each Particular Church is entitled to hold and maintain its own Local Councils and their decisions binding on them, the only councils that are truly "ecumenical" for the Roman/Byzantine Churches are the first Seven based on: universal participation of the bishops of those Churches and the declaration of dogmatic decisions.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Well you have got me with that trivia! I didn't know there were two Saint Peter of Kiev! Wow!

Let me check into that council. I will go to the libarary at St. Vlad's and look it up. Thanks!

As for the article, you're welcome!

In Christ,

anastasios

Sorry, I wasn't clear. "Doctrinally stagnant" was a poor choice of words to try and express what I mean. I mean to say that, althoughh Eastern Orthodox theology has, I suppose, been continuing to develop, none of these developments have been dogmatized or doctrinalized in an official manner as they were in the Seven Ecumenical Councils. Why no new developments/reformulations?

Logos Teen