www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Council of Trent

Tobit,

Well, I must admit that, in 40 years, I can not recollect that I have ever heard a Melkite or any other Eastern Catholic layperson deny the relevance or authority of Vatican II; in fact, quite the contrary. The presentations of our own Patriarch, Maximos IV, of thrice-blessed memory, at that Council are of no small consequence and evoked praise even on the part of our Orthodox brethren.

As to Martha Liles' site, to which you link, it is an unofficial site, but the information which it presents is not far off the mark. Any issue that Eastern Catholics have with Vatican I and II is solely that they were not ecumenical in respect to being inclusive of the Church in its entirety - the Patriarchates not in communion with Rome being unrepresented.

Patriarch Gregory II Youssef-Sayour, of blessed memory, speaking to the assembled hierarchs at Vatican I made an impassioned statement in regard to the prerogatives of the ancient patriarchs and subsequently subscribed words to a document that express it well.

He signed the document Pastor Aeternus only after adding the phrase salvis omnibus iuribus et privilegiis patriarcharum {"saving all of the rights and privileges of the patriarchs"}.

Many years,

Neil

I agree with Neil. I think you will find without exception that Eastern Catholic hierarchs and theologians all consider Vatican II to be a great turning point for the Eastern Churches, with greater participation from Eastern bishops than ANY Council (with the possible exception of Florence) than the Seventh Ecumenical Council.

This Council, as Bishop Elias Zoghby of blessed memory once said, gave the Eastern Catholics the "courage to be ourselves" i.e. return to our traditions and shake off latinizations. The interventions and statements of Eastern Catholic bishops at VII was legendary, with memorable statements by Patriarchs Maximos IV and Josyp Slipij, Metropolitan Maxim Hermaniuk, Elias Zoghby, etc. etc. etc.

Usually those who have issue with Vatican II that attend our churches are "disgruntled" RCs who would like to think we are a sort of pre-Vatican II Eastern liturgical museum.

Randy,

No wonder - in a lot of cases, that would mean us looking like a pre-Vatican II Latin church

Many years,

Neil

Hiya I just arrived at this place and all and I dont want to cause trouble but I'd like to throw my two pennies in if you will. I mean I find it odd that the basis of rejecting or accepting an Ecumenical Council can be whether or not one is represented.

For instance the Roman Church itself was not represented at the first Council of Constantinople in 381 AD. Indeed, to my knowledge the Western Church only discovered the council's acts at Ephesus 50 years later. Yet, it is recognised by all as an Ecumenical council.

Then there is the sticky problem of the seven Ancient Churches of the East who have accepted no councils since Chalcedon. Given that they are just as legitimately Apostolic as anybody else does this mean their denial causes all Councils after 451 AD to be classified as 'regional'?

From my understanding of Patristics to have an Oecumenical Council what was needed was either the summons and/or confirmation of that council by the Bishop of Rome. The Arab Byzantine theologian, Theodore Abu Qurrah (c.750-c.825) employed this line of argument against Muslim apologists who claimed that Constantinopolian Imperial influence had altered the deposit of faith. Moreover, and perhaps this is merely my ignorance speaking, I cannot recall a council being called Ecumenical that was not confirmed by the Bishop of Rome i.e. the robber synod of Ephesus, which was rejected by the Pope.

I must stress at this point that I am not trying to suggest that all that was done at General Councils of the Church was particularly relevant to the Eastern Catholics. Nor am I proposing some odd Latinisation that is alien to the nature of Catholicity, of Universality. Nonetheless, I do think it would be mistaken to propose that the basis of a Council being Oecumenical is that all the different Church's have represenation. Because such a thing has not happened since Chalcedon. The replacement of the Coptic patriarch with a Melkite patriarch displaced the line of succession from St Mark it didnt replace it.

The only sure way we have of recognising an Oecumenical Council is that the Roman Church accepts it as such. By that reckoning there have been 21 Oecumenical Councils where the Bishops in communion with the successor of Simon Peter exercised infalibilty. As has already been pointed out in this thread their acts would not alter the substance of Eastern Catholic teaching and as such, I feel, the real issue here is not whether the Eastern Catholics are obliged to accept the decrees of the Councils--like that will change much for them--but what makes an Oecumenical Council Oecumenical.

Please respond to this post. St Thomas Aquinas said that sometimes in proffessing error we can arrive at truth and thus both disputants are left in a better position thereafter. I would humbly accept correction on any points of history and theology that I have mentioned. When I say things like 'if memory serves' I genuinely mean them. They are not rhetorical devices. In my heart all I long for is the truth, which in its purest form is God Himself. I believe these friendly debates can only draw us all closer to Christ Jesus and put us in better positions to love and serve Him.

Neil (or anyone else who knows)-

Just out of curiousity, was this phrase in Pastor Aeternus itself? If so, where? If not, where was it inserted?

Thanks,

Marc

Diak and Neil

Both of you have impressed me on numerous occasions with your vast knowledge concerning nearly all aspects of the Eastern Rite Churches, still I must wonder out loud if either of you would be so favorably disposed towards Vatican II, if say Chapter VII-125 (123-124 to a lesser extent) of Sacrosanctum Concilium had had any direct bearing on either of your respective churches. Perhaps it may sound like I'm digging up just one small part of a long series of documents, but it was one that was very damaging to the Latin Rite.

Dear Lawrence, I dont wish to take this thread off on a tangent because I am still waiting for someone to reply to my earlier post about 'what makes an Oecumenical Council?' However, I would stress that Sancrosanctum Concilium did not have a damaging affect on the Roman rite. There is nothing in the entire document that could provide for such a scenario. Unfortunately, in many places the spirit of Vatican II (which the Pope keeps telling us is in the letter of Vatican II) was mingled with the spirit of the 60's. Revolutionary fervour and hippism hijacked the authentic desires of the Council to restore a sense of austerity to our liturgy. Many things done in sundry places for the sake of 'active participation' were not specified in Sancrosanctum Concilium or the original missal of the Pauline Mass. Instead, particularly in Western Europe and the United States it seems, people have taken it upon themselves to ignore Lumen Gentium's statements about the authorative magisterium and make their own private intreptations of the documents of Vatican II. That being said it seems highly unlikely that the Council Fathers of the East would ever agree to the statements contained in para 123 in reference to their particular churches and so the draft would've been changed.

Marc,

I believe he prefixed the phrase to his signature.

Many years,

Neil

Lawrence,

Thank you for the kind words.

I'm posting the text from Sacrosanctum Concilium [vatican.va] that you referenced, so that we can be certain that we're speaking of the same thing

I have to admit that I'm puzzled - maybe even lost - as to the point that you're making. Reading this, I don't see how it would be very damaging to the Latin Church. To my eye, it is relatively benign in and of itself and expresses laudable ideas, albeit nothing novel.

Could its precepts be manipulated or interpreted in a way that would allow sacred art to encompass styles or schools of art that not all would find spiritually edifying? Certainly they could. The ancient (?) precept that Beauty is in the eye of the beholder is as true when Beauty is replaced by Art.

While the paragraphs you cite weren't intended to be applicable to our Churches, I don't think that there's any doubt that the mandates to us to return to and reclaim our origins anticipate that we will act similarly with respect to the sacred art of our own traditions.

The only paragraph that I think doesn't lend itself, as written, to application in our Churches is so much of paragraph 123 as presumes that there is not a particular style applicable to a Church, as there is to ours. With regards to the Latin Church, however, that is not as true - because of that Church's inherent diversity - a diversity that only now is coming to be in our Churches, but - late in arrival - should be superimposed on our existing traditions, rather than supplant them.

Am I missing something?

Many years,

Neil

Neil,

He may be referring to the removal of various Sacred Art & Objects from many Roman/Latin Churches, replaced or not by modern/generic Christian art, less Marian, Saints etc.

james

Neil

In Chapter VII-125 the statements reading "Nevertheless their number should be moderate and their relative positions should reflect right order. For otherwise they may create confusion among the Christian people and foster devotion of doubtful orthodoxy." were used as justification in numerous instances for the wholesale removal (or destruction) of sacred art from Latin Churches.

In 124 "Let bishops carefully remove from the house of God and from other sacred places those works of artists which are repugnant to faith, morals, and Christian piety, and which offend true religious sense either by depraved forms or by lack of artistic worth, mediocrity and pretense." Here I must ask in all honesty, what was either repugnant or pretentious in our churches prior to Vatican II ? I have no wish to sound arrogant, but I truly find these to be ambiguous statements.

In 123, the reference to "the art of our own days" "shall also be given free scope in the Church" was used metaphorically speaking, to cast aside Michelangelo in favor of Jackson Pollock, particularly in churches built after Vatican II.

Hope this helps, and while it may sound like it's just my opinion, it's something that is painfully obvious when I walk through the doors of many Latin Rite Churches.

Dear Neil understanding your frustrations as someone who is aggrieved by certain influnces that the Latin church has fallen prey to over the past 40 years. I cannot defend your verdict of Sancrosanctum Concilium on the basis that if I were to, I would be defending those who brough the spirit of the 60's into the Church claiming it was in the name of Vatican II. Why? Because of the logic underpinning it.

When you use terms like 'used as a justification' I would ask the question 'by whom?' and based on 'what authority?' Lumen Gentium makes quite clear that only the authorative magisterium is not the preserve of individuals but of the Pope and the Bishops faithful to him. Often the real havoc was wreaked on churches when based on their own incentive parishes simply 'decided' to do things in 'the spirit of Vatican II'. Where Bishops have supported these moves they have often done so in opposition to the statements of the Holy See i.e. the opposition showed by some to the new more faithful to Latin English translation of the Pauline Mass. In doing so they default their ability to speak authoratively because as Lumen Gentium says, they can only do this when they follow the Roman line.

As for repugnance in liturgical art. We must admit that not everything in Church art was beautiful. Many, myself included, consider the Rococco period of art to be unduly extravagent and self-indulgent and the epitome of the enlightenment. This style of art found itself being employs by Church architects who ended up putting on sumptous displays in an indeed pretension way: Beauty for the sake of beauty. I'm sure the Council Fathers had this type of art in mind when they agreed on this document.

Then there is the question of modern art. Indeed, Michaelangelo was a genius. Maybe the best but in our own times there has been some great Christian art. I think here of Salvador Dali's Jesus of St John of the Cross. Again, given the direction the reform of the reform is taking I believe that those who have the authentic spirit of Vatican II working within them are in tune with these thoughts. However, vocal minorities have up until this point been able to bully parishes into a pop art direction.

The solution to all this is 3 fold: 1) prayer 2) faithfulness and 3) speaking out in support of the authorative magisterium. Everybody is complaining but we're letting the liberals go unchallenged. I see liberals going on marches for what they want, I see conservatives leaving the church in protest. But the greater number of really Catholic people who show obidience to the Pope are like an inert mass in the middle of the storm. We grumble and then do nothing.

When the Council of Ephesus was held the people paraded in the streets to salute the Theotokos. This is not such an important matter but we should follow their example and defend the authentic spirit of Vatican II as it has been clarified by the Roman See. Maybe if we stood up against those who'd wish to drown out our traditions in the name of 'modernisation' we might bring back some of the Sede Vacantists and SSPX members. Not to mention, we might see more good authentic modern art in the vein of Salvador Dali's Jesus of St John of the Cross being produced rather than...*shakes head* banners. Not to mention, Churches that really do look like Churches and not sheds.

PS) Please can someone answer my question about what makes an Oecumenical Council Oecumenical? I'd like corrections and a more diverse view etc.

This is opinion only, but it seems to me that a council made up of Latin Rite bishops addressing Latin Rite issues could not possibly be ecumenical, regardles of what anyone wishes to call it. It could be a general council, a holy synod, or a Latin council, but it doesn't encompass the rest of the Church. If another of the Churches did the same thing and called it ecumenical, most Latins would be outraged. But that touches on another problem. The Latins think they are the Church in its entirety. They are not. On Vatican II, I have long held the opinion that the bishops came back from the Council and completely abdicated their responsibilities. They sought the esteem of popular culture rather than the esteem of Christ. Had the bishops held to right order and an authentic application of the Council, the craziness would not have occurred.

Perhaps you misunderstood the nature of my question byzanTN. It seems to me that representation does not make an Oecumenical Council. You said the Latins would be outraged if an Oecumenical Council was held without them being there? However, there is an instance of that in recorded history already and nobody would argue that because the First Council of Constantinople was entirely Oriental in nature with no represenative from the Roman See that it wasnt Oecumenical? Or does the fact that the Seven Ancient Churches of the East went unrepresented at Councils after Chacledon make the post-Chalcedonian Council's none Oecumenical? Please forgive the rhetorical questions but it better serves to illustrate my point. Thus, if representation doesnt make a Council Oecumenical my question is/was: what does?

In reply to your opinions of us Latins. I would reply that in most of what you've said you are right. However, I would say that highly Occidental view Roman Catholics have of the Church is because for the most part they are ignorant of the existence of the Eastern Catholics (and for that matter dont quite understand Eastern Christianity full stop be it in or out of Communion with Rome). If you've looked at the thread I started 'two lungs but how to breathe?' you'll see I'm looking for ways to rememdy that ignorance.

As for the Bishops. I think your critique is overly harsh although I dont fully appreciate the situation in America so I cant give an informed opinion. In Britain we have also had problems and I think some clergy have 'lost their teeth' so to speak. That being said there are many great Bishops in the Roman Church today i.e. Christophe Cardinal Shoenborn and with any luck they'll turn things around.

Dear Myles,

What makes for an Ecumenical Council?

The first Seven, that Rome and the Byzantine Orthodox Churches accept were declared Ecumenical because of:

1) Universal representation of all the Churches

2) they convened to discuss matters pertaining to threats to the faith and the Church as a result

3) they proclaimed certain canons, first and foremost, to combat those threats to faith and restore peace and unity in the Church that had been disrupted

4) They were universally acclaimed as Ecumenical by the Churches convened at them.

So even if there was representation at the Council and the Council's decrees made proclamations, there was still the matter of the Churches ratifying their acceptance and this could happen after the Council stopped convening.

The later 14 Latin Councils can only be really called the "Universal Councils of the Roman Church."

They had really nothing to do with threats to faith and morals with respect to the Eastern Churches - and, in fact, the East and West were separated from each other in any event.

This would be a matter to be taken up by a future Council to discuss the reunion of East and West.

I doubt that anything in the later 14 Latin Councils would come up as points for the East to concern itself about.

Alex