www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils under the Pope?

From the Orthodox point of view, the Pope is a highly honored Bishop, but he has not authority to decide which councils are ecumenical and which are not. Remember that we believe in a primacy of honor but not jurisdiction or power.

Joe

As I have noted, if you are looking for specific papal endorsements or ratifications of several of the Seven Great Councils, you won't find it. Rome's endorsement more often took the form of "reception"; i.e., its incorporation of the teachings or decrees of the Councils into its Depositum Fidei. But going by formal papal ratification creates other anomalies, too--like popes rejecting councils accepted by prior popes, popes rejecting parts of councils accepted by prior popes, and popes accepting councils whose teachings negate the teachings of prior councils endorsed by prior popes without actually rescinding the earlier councils.

Also, if you will check out the Ravenna Document, particularly (I believe) secs. 35-39, it is pretty clear that Rome now also accepts the notion that reception, and not any a priori criteria, are the hallmarks of a true ecumenical council. The ramifications of this part of the Ravenna Document are potentially enormous, and I am surprised that more has not been made of it. I will post the relevant sections separately.

"From the Orthodox point of view, the Pope is a highly honored Bishop, but he has not authority to decide which councils are ecumenical and which are not. Remember that we believe in a primacy of honor but not jurisdiction or power."

Just so long as the concept of "primacy of honor" is understood in the context it had during late antiquity. The Pope was never a purely ceremonial person like the Lord Mayor of London--dedicating buildings, presiding over the opening of trade fairs, and handing out crowns to beauty contestants. The concept of "honor" had a particular meaning, and conveyed immense moral authority (auctoritas), even when it was not associated with juridical power (potestas or imperium). In fact, a private citizen (privatus) could possess significantly more auctoritas than a sitting magistrate endowed with imperium. Thus, when someone holding a primacy of honor speaks, others listen. And while that person has no potestas or imperium to compel obedience, his auctoritas is such that one would contradict him only with the greatest trepidation. It is significant that the Papacy's influence was greatest when it relied almost exclusively on auctoritas, and that its reliance on potestas increased in proportion to the decline of its influence.

From the Ravenna Statement (highlights added):

35. In the course of history, when serious problems arose affecting the universal communion and concord between Churches - in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith, or to ministries and their relationship to the whole Church, or to the common discipline which fidelity to the Gospel requires - recourse was made to Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were ecumenical not just because they assembled together bishops from all regions and particularly those of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, according to the ancient order (taxis). It was also because their solemn doctrinal decisions and their common faith formulations, especially on crucial points, are binding for all the Churches and all the faithful, for all times and all places. This is why the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils remain normative.

36. The history of the Ecumenical Councils shows what are to be considered their special characteristics. This matter needs to be studied further in our future dialogue, taking account of the evolution of ecclesial structures during recent centuries in the East and the West.

37. The ecumenicity of the decisions of a Council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole - by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.

38. Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops' decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church.

39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an "institution" whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an "event", a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out. . .

42. Conciliarity at the universal level, exercised in the ecumenical councils, implies an active role of the bishop of Rome, as protos of the bishops of the major sees, in the consensus of the assembled bishops. Although the bishop of Rome did not convene the ecumenical councils of the early centuries and never personally presided over them, he nevertheless was closely involved in the process of decision-making by the councils.

43. Primacy and conciliarity are mutually interdependent. That is why primacy at the different levels of the life of the Church, local, regional and universal, must always be considered in the context of conciliarity, and conciliarity likewise in the context of primacy.

Just an FYI, the Ravenna document is the product of a theological commission and has no official standing as a statement of belief by either Church. Rome is free to review the document and reject it as are the Orthodox Churches. Theological dialogues are just dialogues. And I wouldn't be surprised to see the CDF of the Catholic Church issuing some "clarifications" in the next few years since some of what Ravenna says contradicts the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Joe

"Just an FYI, the Ravenna document is the product of a theological commission and has no official standing as a statement of belief by either Church. Rome is free to review the document and reject it as are the Orthodox Churches."

In fact, however, Rome gives every appearance of "receiving" this document and integrating it into its ecclesiology as it has every other document produced by the Joint International Theological Commission. Regardless of what the Orthodox Churches do regarding them, the Church of Rome accepts them as doctrinal statements, and acts in accordance with them. Thus, though only a few Orthodox Churches, if any, have accepted the Balamand Statement as authoritative, the Church of Rome has (even in the face of resistance from various Eastern Catholic Churches). So saying that Ravenna has no standing in or implications for the Catholic Church is much like the SSPX dodge of saying Vatican II issued no "dogmatic" statements. It's true--it's also irrelevant.

Thus, when the Ravenna document speaks of councils becoming ecumenical by a process of reception, that represents not a break with the past, but the culmination of a long process of development in Catholic theology dating back half a century. It's a case of the Vatican being out in front of the rank-and-file faithful, most of whom seem to believe that there is some "official" list of "ecumenical councils", when in reality there is only the unofficial listing compiled by Robert Belarmine for polemical purposes during the Reformation, revised by the additions of the two Vatican councils.

In fact, the Catholic Church has no "official" list of ecumenical councils, even as it has called some councils "ecumenical". Since these councils involved only the Church of Rome, and for the most part dealt only with doctrinal and disciplinary issues within the Church of Rome, it is impossible to view them objectively as anything other than general councils of the Church of Rome and nothing more.

This process of relativization of second millennium synods has been advancing steadily since at least 1974, when Pope Paul VI referred to the Second Council of Lyons not as an "ecumenical council" but as a "general council of the Church in the West". That said, it is apparent from the reaction of many ordinary Catholics that they have not "received" this new understanding, but continue to view all the Second Millennium Western councils as "ecumenical"--just why they are so invested in this perspective, I don't know.

For Byzantine Catholics, the most important aspect of the Ravenna Statement concerning ecumenical councils is sec. 38:

"38. Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops' decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church."

Applying this to our liturgy and the Typicon, it is clear that we accept seven, and only seven councils as ecumenical, because seven, and only seven councils are commemorated as such in our liturgies. Since only these seven are accepted in common with the Latin Church, only these seven can be seen as ecumenically binding on all the faithful. Anything else is applicable only to the particular Church that has received and incorporated it into its liturgical life.

Stuart,

I'm sorry, but I have major problems with what you are saying and just don't think it's true.

First of all, as Joe said, the Ravenna document is not some sort of de fide dogma of the Church and no Catholic is bound to accept it, just as the Orthodox. Appearances aside (didn't Arianism often appear to be "accepted" by a majority of Church hierarchs?), the amount of "ecclesiological integration" aside, it doesn't have much real authority.

As far as the last few ecumenical councils being simply general councils of the West (a common talking point for years on this Forum, and I suppose in many areas of Eastern Catholicism in general), I have to register my disagreement on this point as well. Yes, these were councils that were convoked in the West and dealt mostly with Western concerns. Were the first seven ecumenical councils not actually ecumenical because they were convoked in the East and dealt with mostly Eastern concerns? Because so few Western bishops attended, are they not ecumenical? No, we Western Catholic Christians accept them as ecumenical, and they are.

As has been discussed exhaustively in this thread, four of the seven ecumenical councils did not involve all five of the ancient patriarchates. So is a council ecumenical if it involves just two or three of the Five, but not one of the Five in your opinion?

All Catholics share in one common Orthodox Faith, and are not required to believe different things.

Alexis

"First of all, as Joe said, the Ravenna document is not some sort of de fide dogma of the Church and no Catholic is bound to accept it, just as the Orthodox."

Is the Balamand Document "de fide" (whatever that means--I'm not much into legalism when it comes to matters of faith)? The Catholic Church acts as though it is, since it shapes its relations both with Eastern Catholics and the Orthodox Churches. And that is what gets the goat of some recalcitrant Eastern Catholics and "traditionalist" Roman Catholics: they see it as a doctrinal change, that abandons the policy of "uniatism" and the objective of "converting" the Orthodox. And they are right.

The same thing is true of Ravenna: it represents the codification of doctrinal changes which have been ongoing in Catholic ecclesiology for some decades now. These joint statements are the culmination, not the initiation, of a movement. At least since the 1950s, thanks in part to a more objective examination of Church history, it was recognized that the rather mechanistic approach to defining a council as "ecumenical" was not viable, and that, in fact, all councils become ecumenical only through the process of reception--which, as Ravenna notes, has been determined differently in the canonical traditions of the East and West.

As regards the earlier councils in which the West did not participate directly, or with only symbolic representation: they were received by the Church of Rome when the Church of Rome incorporated their teachings into their own. They did this because the issues addressed by the earlier councils did in fact have ramifications for the entire Body of Christ (in ways that, for instance, the Fourth Lateran Council or the Council of Constance did not), and thus the decrees of those councils also had universal applicability.

Regarding how many Churches have to receive a Council for it to become "ecumenical", the ultimate answer is "all". And you are correct, there is only one Truth, but that Truth, it turns out, is not conditioned by one particular mode of theological expression. It is true that the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East did not receive some of the Seven Councils. Nonetheless, the doctrine they taught was in accord with the teachings of those Councils, albeit put in their particular modes of expression. They did not reject the teachings of the Councils, only the way in which those teachings were presented, and then largely due to non-theological factors. That's just history. I could expound on it at length, but it is not really necessary. I recommended Meyendorff's "Christ in Orthodox Theology", and still do, for those who want to understand how Churches so fiercely in agreement about the human and divine natures in Jesus Christ could be so militantly opposed to each other.

My own question is why it is so important to accept the Latin canon of "ecumenical" councils? In its present form it has proven remarkably divisive, while at the same time not really contributing that much theologically. The Latin Church itself has walked away from a number of ostensibly "de fide" or "dogmatic" definitions of these councils, so putting them into their proper context relative to the first seven councils is a potential solutions to many problems that afflict Christian unity.

Brother Joe, can you point out what parts contradict Catholic teaching? The part that was quoted, at least, does not contain anything contrary to Catholic teaching. Maybe it's in another section? Please point out these contradictions. Thank you.

Blessings

Very well said!!!

Once again . . . well said!

Brothers Stuart and Apotheon,

Do you then concede that only the First Three Ecumenical Councils are Ecumenically Binding AND Universal, as these are the only Councils that we (Oriental Catholics) Commemorate in our Liturgy and hold in common with both of the Western Churches (Latin and Byzantine)?

"Do you then concede that only the First Three Ecumenical Councils are Ecumenically Binding AND Universal, as these are the only Councils that we (Oriental Catholics) Commemorate in our Liturgy and hold in common with both of the Western Churches (Latin and Byzantine)?"

No, insofar as both the Oriental Orthodox Church and the Church of the East have endorsed Joint Christological Statements that accept the teaching of the later Councils without endorsing their precise theological formulations. As I said, there was never a substantive difference between the Nestorians and the Cyrillians and the Chalcedonians; they were talking past each other, and their controversy was inflamed by personalities (Cyril of Alexandria was, let's face it, an intolerant thug) and political factors (Byzantine attempts to dominate Coptic Egypt).

This is very different from, e.g., the rejection of Nicaea by the Arians. Nicaea taught that the Son was of one essence with the father; the Arians believed the Son was of similar essence. The Nicaean believed that the Son was begotten before all ages; the Arians believed the Son was a creature of the Father. These positions are antithetical and cannot be resolved. The Arians rejected the substance of Nicaea. The Nestorians rejected not the substance, but the expression of Ephesus. The Orientals rejected not the substance, but the expression of Chalcedon. Their differences, not being substantive, could be resolved once sufficient charity was extended by both sides.

Forgive me for being so blunt, but this merely seems like hand-waving and double standards. The fact is that even with the very recent joint-statements, the Councils themselves are still rejected, and certainly not commemorated. I can agree with Trent without giving it the status of Ecumenical Council (and that's precisely my position), but by your standards the Council of Trent is also Ecumenical since there are no underlying, substantive disagreement.

For you it doesn't matter if the Council is still commemorated as a Robber Council (as Chalcedon is viewed), only if there is no substantive disagreement? If that's the case then there is very little reason not to simply accept most of the Latin Councils as Ecumenical.

Peace and God bless!

I'll have to respond to the rest of the points later, but, Ghosty, could you explain why you don't believe Trent to be ecumenical? Not trying to put you on the spot; if you want to respond privately to me that's fine!

And Stuart: before the joint Christological agreements, would you have said the same thing? Why or why not?

Alexis