www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils: 21 or 7?

Moronicus,

The problem here is that the question has two answers, both correct and both wrong. Now, if that seems like a dichotomy, it is. The problem here is that there are seven ecumenical councils that are recognized by East and West. There are 21 ecumenical councils that are recognized by the West. There are also a number of Eastern Churches that are in communion with the West and are, therefore, bound by the dogmatic teachings of those councils between 8 and 21 by virtue of choosing to be in communion with Rome. They are not bound by the disciplines of those councils, however, since discipline is, by and large, a province of the particular Church.

I don't know if this resolves the question, but I think it provides an understanding for the differences.

Fr. Deacon Edward

>>>There are 21 ecumenical councils that are
recognized by the West.<<<

With all due respect, Father Deacon, if they are only recognized in the West, then by definition they cannot be "ecumenical"; i.e., universal. And so at the end of the day it will, since Rome desires unity more than it desires to hold onto a meaningless list of councils that was only compiled in the 17th century, and which has no dogmatic or legal standing.

Comehome,
The fact of the matter is that there is ONLY SEVEN ECUMENICAL COUNCILS. In no way is the Primacy of Peter and his successors historically questioned. The problem with semi-educated Roman and Byzantine Catholic is in understanding the application of the title "Primacy" in contrast to what is the Papacy. The Papacy does not contain the fullness of the title "Primacy" as it was known and believed by all. It was and is possible to transfer the title "Primacy" along with its complete understanding and application. There is something definitely in error in the Roman Catholic phronema that leads to arrogancy and audacity. Family members should not act in such manners with other family members regardless of the leadership position once attributed. Titles can be forfeited and transferred. If a family member continues to view himself superior over the others that person is suffering from pride and will require restoration into the family once again. Families cannot function with the disease of pride because it will infect them and cause much harm.
I believe you will have to reevaluate your presumptions about the 21 councils and continue to seek the historical facts in reference to Primacy. St. Peter was not a leader over the other Apostles but a leader among them as seen at the Council of Jerusalem (Act 15). Orthodox and Byzantine Catholics do not believe that the 8-21 are Ecumenical and do not have to be believed by ALL.

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your kind post. I agree with you on some of this. The Pope was given primacy to strengthen and love his fellow bishops. Not to oppress and harm them. The problem is that the Roman Curia, acting in the name of the Pope, sometimes favors the Latin Tradition over the Byzantine Traditon. The end result is that the Byzantine Tradition is (in practice)relegated to a second-class position in the Church.

If the Pope is ever to reclaim his rightful place of primacy in an undivided Church, in which the Orthodox and Catholics are reunited as one, the Roman Curia must have its power curbed. The Byzantine Tradition must be placed on equal par with the Roman Tradition, and the Roman Curia appears resistant to do this.

God bless,
Anthony

[This message has been edited by Dragani (edited 07-20-2000).]

I came to the realization last night that there are not 7 ecumenical councils. There are not 21 ecumenical councils. There are zero ecumenical councils--at least if we take Roman claims to their conclusion. Ask any RC apologist about what makes a council "ecumenical" and they will say that the "approval of the Pope" makes a council "ecumenical". If this is the case, then Mother Angelica, Ratzinger, Hans Kung, and Fr. Andrew Greeley can have a council between the four of them and if the Pope ratifies the council, then it's "ecumenical". There exists no such thing as an "ecumenical" councils. There are only papal councils and non-papal councils.

There are serious problems with the RC apologetical approach to some of these issues, that is true. For one thing, in order to follow the reasoning (which is basically that the Papacy retained a line-item veto over what happened at the Ecumenical Councils in the first millenium), you have to agree that most of these councils were only partially ecumenical.

For example, the parts of the councils that discussed Rome's position as being linked to its secular political role were not ecumenical, in the Latin view, because the sitting Popes rejected them. Similarly, otherwise ecumenical councils that excommunicated Popes were not ecumenical because the Papacy disagreed with them.

What you have then as a result is that the first seven councils are mostly, but not completely, ecumenical -- because Rome vetoed certain provisions.

When you look at it that way, we have a long way to go towards reaching a common understanding of the relationship between primacy and conciliarity, don't you think? On the one hand, it would appear that this personal "approval" or "veto" right - regardless of whether or not one's delegates have agreed or not - is a show-stopper in terms of conciliar ecclesiology because I doubt that the Orthodox will ever agree to a Papal veto right over conciliar decisions. It's really a question of how one views the First millenium -- the RCC and the OC have two very different views of what these discrepancies mean. On the Latin side, the interpretation is that Rome had a veto right. On the Orthodox side, it's that Rome's "veto" was of no ecumenical importance. That's where "looking to the first millenium" has its weaknesses.

I guess one way around it would be to require all of the Patriarchs, at least, or heads of autocephalous churches, to agree on any conciliar proposal -- giving all of them a veto. But this seems to be a poor solution because as the history of the ecumenical councils shows that sometimes Patriarchs err (even the Roman Patriarch).

The heart of the problem, I suspect, lies in the fact that in the first millenium church the unifying role was played as much by the Emperor as by the Pope. When the Empire collapsed in the West, the Papacy assumed this role itself there, leading to the Western view of the Papal role. In the East, the Empire survived for many centuries hence, and therefore the Bishops there didn't view the ministry of Rome the same way that the Western Bishops did. Even as early as the 5th C. there were widely different views on the proper role of Rome in the church at large. For this reason, I think that returning the the first millenium model is not going to be productive ultimately, even from the point of view of discussion, because we are really talking about two models already in existence during the first millenium itself. This way of analysis will merely lead us around in circles, because *each* side can legitimately claim that its own perspective dates to the first millenium. In my opinion, what would be more productive would be to analyze what made those first millenium models work in that context -- i.e., what was it about the relationship between structure and context that made each of them work -- and thereby begin to develop tools to devise a model for the present context. Of course, that requires one to admit that the external structure of the Church beyond the level of Bishop is mutable ... one hurdle that we may never get beyond, I suspect.

Brendan

Brendan

Stuart,

Let me rephrase that -- the Western Church, Roman Catholic if you will, held 14 ecumenical councils, that is, councils in which the entire church was present. It is true that the Eastern Church was not present at most of these councils. However, the fullness of the Churches in communion with Rome were present. That makes them "ecumenical" the sense of "full participation of the Church" or as opposed to the idea of a local synod. Were they "ecumenical" in the sense of the first seven -- no, of course not. This is why I made the statements that I did regarding the effects of the latter 14 councils.

Fr. Deacon Edward

[This message has been edited by FrDeaconEd (edited 07-21-2000).]

>>>Let me rephrase that -- the Western Church, Roman Catholic if you will, held 14 ecumenical councils,
that is, councils in which the entire church was present. It is true that the Eastern Church was not
present at most of these councils. However, the fullness of the Churches in communion with Rome were
present.<<<

This is an historically and ecclesiologically meaningless statement. In the first place, nobody in the West even called these councils "ecumenical" until St. Robert Bellarmine began compiling a list in the 17th century--and he was doing so for entirely polemical reasons. Moreover, the list he compiled, even if we assumed his criteria were valid, is erroneous and incomplete (e.g., it includes the Council of 869-870, but not the Council of 879-880, even though the former was invalidated at the latter, and the latter was ratified by Pope John VIII).

More seriously, you cannot even refer to the presence of "Churches in communion with Rome" durng the entire second millennium, BECAUSE THERE WEREN'T ANY OTHER CHURCHES IN COMMUNION WITH ROME. The Churches of the East rejected the only two second millennium councils at which they were present (the Church of Armenia, which had maintained communion with Rome through the 15th century, broke it in the wake of the Council of Florence--and who could blame them?). The Uniates were not present at any of these, because they were not formed until after Trent. And after their formation, they were denied a distinct ecclesial identity--they were "rites" of the Roman Catholic Church, not particular Churches themselves. So your statement is an example of apologetic legerdemain, pure smoke and mirrors. Better to be honest and say that these are not ecumenical councils at all, and get on with life.

Brendan,
I don't comprehend your statement,

"What you have then as a result is that the first seven councils are mostly,but not completely, ecumenical--because Rome vetoed certain provisions."

What is not complete about the Ecumenical Councils? Especially when it took Rome some time to accept some of them? I don't recall reading in history that these Ecumencial Councils had to wait on the veteo of Rome for approval. Maybe I am misunderstanding you and perhaps you can clarify to me what you are meaning to say.
To whom does the veteo power belong to if it is a poor solution to allow it to autocephalous churches? The Pope of Rome? The Ecumenical Patriarch? Who? What is the best solution that is fair and objective?

If you talk to your garden variety ultra-Montane RC apologist (Steve Ray, Dave Armstrong, Catholic Answers), they will tell you that the Pope has a line item veto authority over councils. For instance, I think it was the second council that placed Constantinople above Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Supposedly the "Pope" (if there really was such an office at that time) did not accept that part of the council. Of course, that is now the Patriarch that ecumenical relations with Orthodox are held since Rome has set up parallel Catholic patriarchs in the other Sees.

Another example of a veto is in the council of Constance where the council said that a council is above a Pope. The Pope obviously gave the line item veto to that one.

Dear moronikus,
If I had a garden as you described I would call the Orkin Man to get rid of those weeds. LOL. These weeds think they know what is best for the Orthodox and, I might add, the Byzantine Catholics. I know Dave Armstrong did not like what I wrote to him once and labeled me an extremist. LOL. If he would only look in the mirror and truly see himself. This thread seems to begging the question as to whom belongth the power to validate teachings and authority. I don't know and I don't think it will be resolved as long as I live. Maybe in the next generation or maybe never. I make myself sound old when I am not. LOL.