www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Soul and the Council of Constantinople IV

Hi, all! My name is Adam and I am Roman Catholic with a love for the Byzantine (Eastern) Church. I hope my time here is delightful.

I have a question (many more to come I'm sure)

Do the Eastern Catholic Church's have to accept all the Ecumenical councils? For example, Constantinople IV said that the soul does not come from the parent but is created immediately by God, while the Eastern Orthodox favor it coming from the parents. Would the Byzantines have to accept the Council's definition or would that just be Roman Catholics?

Welcome, Theosis, to The Byzantine Forum!

Eastern Catholics accept the teachings of all Seven Ecumenical Councils and have incorporated them into our theology and liturgy. We even have special Sundays on the liturgical calendar to celebrate their memory.

We also recognized fourteen or so additional councils in the West as valid but we do not consider them to be fully ecumenical since the greater part of Orthodoxy did not particpate in them.

Thanks, for the insight. If a Council isn't considered "Ecumenical" is it still infallible for East and West to obey?

Adam

When you say "Constantinople IV", do you mean the Council of 869-870, or the Council of 879-880? The latter Council, ratified by Pope John VIII, resolved the Photian Schism and established the principle that each Church should follow its own customs in areas not dogmatically enunciated by the universal Church (which back then did not mean the Church of Rome), and it repudiated the acts of the Council of 869-870 (which were burned in a copper bowl before the assembled bishops). But in the 11th century (or possibly a bit later), the Latin Church either forgot or repudiated the Council of 879-880, and re-accepted the Council of 869-870. When Robert Bellarmine compiled his list of "ecumenical" councils in the 17th century (for anti-Protestant polemical purposes: the Catholic Church still has no "canonical" list of ecumenical councils, just a customary one), he counted the Council of 869-870 as "Constantinople III", the "Eighth Ecumenical Council". Today, however, the Council of 879-880 has been rediscovered and given a great deal more authority than in the past--at least in the West.

I didn't know that info. Thanks! I mean the Council of Constantinople 869-870. I did a little more research in the CCC, and found out I had the wrong topic. The Council of 869-870 dealt with the issue of man being body, soul, and spirit or just body and soul. What is the Byzantine Catholic position on that? The Council (which may not be valid..by what I gained from the last post) said that man is body and soul. (not body, soul, and spirit) Can we believe as we want on that issue? Thanks!

It's kind of irrelevant what the Council said, because the Byzantine Tradition (and, as far as I know, the Traditions of the other Oriental Churches as well) maintain that man is a trinity of body, soul and spirit. Certainly, the Desert Fathers and the hesychasts approach it in that way. As a matter of spirituality, it is completely internal to the Tradition of each particular Church, not something that can be dogmatically proclaimed for the "universal" Church.

Thanks, StuartK. I was hoping that we could view man as a trinity. I find that way the most biblical. I've always thought, that everything a church council says is infallible, though. Am I right to think that? Personally, I don't think the Church councils from the Great Schism until the "Union of Brest" can really be ecumenical since the East was not present. Anyway, an interesting topic. I'm glad I can discuss these issues with Byzantine Catholics.

Now back to my first question. It was the Council of Lateran V (1512-1517) that decided that man's soul is created by God immediately at birth (or 8 days after) and IS NOT passed on by the parents. Should those in the Eastern Catholic Church accept this or have they got their own traditions on the soul's orgin from God? Thanks!

Glory to Jesus Christ! Glory Forever!

Theosis:

I think the correct and prevailing Roman Catholic view is that "ensoulment" (by God) occurs at the moment of conception, and not at birth or after 8 days.

A warm welcome!

AmdG

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Amado Guerrero ]

Hi:


Personally, I disagree both because the East WAS represented in those Councils and also because the Eastern Bishops that didn't attend we absent on their own free will, not because the Roman Communion ever prevented them to attend.

A Catholic faithful, no matter which flavor, is required to believe that all the Councils Rome accepts as Ecumenical are so, and that the dogmatic definitions that come from them (but only the dogmatic definitions) are infallible.

Shalom,
Memo.

Not everything promulgated by a general council of the West concerns other Churches. Most of their acts in fact address issues of relevance only to the Latin Church. During the Tridentine period, the ecclesiology of the Latin Church tended to conflate the Latin Church with the totality of the Catholic Church, but Vatican II reverted to the older concept of an ecclesiology of communion, in which there are many particular Churches. The mode of theological expression suitable for one particular Church in one particular Tradition may or may not be applicable to other Churches. This is one of those which is generally irrelevant to Eastern Christians of all stripes.

Make me, Memo. I double dog dare you.

Where does that information come from? Now answer this one:

1: Rome says Nicea II is infallible
2: Nicea II says all five patriarchs must approve a council for it to be ecumenical and infallible
3: Not all five patriarchates supported the later 14 councils
4: The argument that the east was not present because it was heretical does not stand becuase no one can date the schism precisely and also because Rome says the Orthodox are not actually in schism but "mystically" part of the Church.
Conclusion: only 7 councils are ecumenical.

In Christ,

anastasios

Howdy, neighbour!

A few quick questions for you, Anastasios.

If Nicaea II says that the five patriarchs must approve of a council in order for it to be ecumenical, what about councils four through seven, where there was no approval from the Syrian and Coptic Patriarchs (the true Patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, respectively)? Does Nicaea II (and thus the Roman and "Greek" Churches) thus not recognise them, but only the Greek Patriarchs of these sees? And if the argument is that we'd fallen into heresy, then what about the progress in dialogue we've made where pretty much both sides agree we were never heretics? And also all of that "mystically united" talk?

It seems there are not seven ecumenical councils, but only three. :p

However, feel free to point out the error in my thinking, if any.

[ 09-05-2002: Message edited by: Mor Ephrem ]

Excuse me, but I cannot find a reference to it. In any case, the only dogmatic definition made at Nicea II was that concerning the holy icons. Only that definition is held as infallible.

Since the pentarchy is not part of the Divinely Revealed nature of the Church, because the office of Patriarch itself is of human invention, no dogmatic definition can rest upon the pentarchy.

Therefore, even if it was an Ecumenical Council that defined an Ecumenical Council in terms of the pentarchy, the definition itself cannot be infallible.

Shalom,
Memo.