Catholic-Orthodox Dialogue - can the CC sign such a sentence?

[a_ntv]

Last monday the week of dialogue between 60 theologicans Catholic and Ortohodox ended.

They did not issued any document, but a simply common declaration of friendship and will to continue the dialogue, that anyway is vary important and it iwas the maximun result possible (here the official text http://www.spc.org.yu/Vesti-2006/09/25-09-06-e.html)

Please note a margin polemic between the Orthodox Church of Russia and the Orthodox Church of Costantinople (see http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2053)

The anwer of Cardinal Kasper was that "The question is inter-Orthodox and is not an argument of discussion between Catholics and Orthodox"
(Please browse: http://www.zenit.org/english/ and follow 'Inter-Orthodox Unity Vital for Ecumenism, Says Cardinal')

Anyway it is extremly interesting looking the sentence on which there have been the un-agreement between Moscow and Rome: At the final session, however, a heated argument developed of a document’s section on the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, which says inter alia that after the severance of communion between East and West in the ninth century, a convocation of an ‘Ecumenical Council’ in the strong sense of the world became impossible, but ‘both Churches continued to hold ‘general’ councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople.’ (see http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2053)

This sentence was not signed by the catholics only because the rivaltry between Moscow vs Costanitnople, but -if signed- it means that any ecumenical council after the 1054 is not actually ecumenic, and so not striclty binding in doctrine: think to Trento, or to Vatican I (=pope infallibility). And without the pope infallibilty, no more IC dogmas..

I think that the CC, to will sign something like that, really loves the union with the EO

Your ideas? can the CC sign something like such a sentence?

 

[QuantaCura]

What about later Councils like Florence and Lyons II where there the Orthodox were present and approved doctrines like papal authority (only to take it back later)? Will those be considered ecumenical?

What about the the Council of Chalcedon and the councils after it where the Oriental Orthodox were not present? Do the Oreintal Orthodox not matter?

I see that sentence as problematic on a few levels: the Orthodox have no real specific definition of an ecumenical council--they have no attendance minimums to define one. They're determinations of which are good and which are not is kind of arbitrary--in fact they within themselves don't agree on how many there were. Likewise, it seems by saying that only those councils are good, it assumes there was no schism and we are all united all the time--if that were the case, we wouldn't be having these talks. As John Paul II said, we cannot compromise truth for union.

Anyway, any declarations like that are going to have to be approved by the pope.

 

[CrusaderKing]

Dismissing those councils would be going too far. I say no to that.

 

[OnTheWay]

What about later Councils like Florence and Lyons II where there the Orthodox were present and approved doctrines like papal authority (only to take it back later)? Will those be considered ecumenical?

For a council to be accepted in the Orthodox Church the body of believers must accept it, which can make the process a bit complicated. So from an Orthodox POV, any support given by a representive for such a measure would be considered null and void because the Church as a whole never accepted it.

What about the the Council of Chalcedon and the councils after it where the Oriental Orthodox were not present? Do the Oreintal Orthodox not matter?

The OO don't represent 4/5th's of the Great Sees of the Church.

I see that sentence as problematic on a few levels: the Orthodox have no real specific definition of an ecumenical council--they have no attendance minimums to define one. They're determinations of which are good and which are not is kind of arbitrary

Well from a point of view I suppose you'd be right. We tend to think in terms that the Holy Spirit will see to it that a council is accepted if correct and rejected if incorrect.

--in fact they within themselves don't agree on how many there were.

Everyone agrees on the 7 figure.

 

[stray bullet]

What about the the Council of Chalcedon and the councils after it where the Oriental Orthodox were not present? Do the Oreintal Orthodox not matter?

Bishops certainly don't have to be present at an Ecumenical Council for it to remain valid, after all, ex-communications have been discussed during them.

I believe it is reasonable that multiple bishops, even whole regions can fall away with an Ecumenical Council still be valid. For example, the Anglican church was once a valid region with valid bishops. It would seem to me the argument that an Ecumenical Council requires all five Sees is a reasonable one, with bishops, regions and Churches not having to be present or represented due to schism.

 

[King of the Nations]

Last monday the week of dialogue between 60 theologicans Catholic and Ortohodox ended.

They did not issued any document, but a simply common declaration of friendship and will to continue the dialogue, that anyway is vary important and it iwas the maximun result possible (here the official text http://www.spc.org.yu/Vesti-2006/09/25-09-06-e.html)

Please note a margin polemic between the Orthodox Church of Russia and the Orthodox Church of Costantinople (see http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2053)

The anwer of Cardinal Kasper was that "The question is inter-Orthodox and is not an argument of discussion between Catholics and Orthodox"
(Please browse: http://www.zenit.org/english/ and follow 'Inter-Orthodox Unity Vital for Ecumenism, Says Cardinal')

Anyway it is extremly interesting looking the sentence on which there have been the un-agreement between Moscow and Rome: At the final session, however, a heated argument developed of a document’s section on the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, which says inter alia that after the severance of communion between East and West in the ninth century, a convocation of an ‘Ecumenical Council’ in the strong sense of the world became impossible, but ‘both Churches continued to hold ‘general’ councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople.’ (see http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2053)

This sentence was not signed by the catholics only because the rivaltry between Moscow vs Costanitnople, but -if signed- it means that any ecumenical council after the 1054 is not actually ecumenic, and so not striclty binding in doctrine: think to Trento, or to Vatican I (=pope infallibility). And without the pope infallibilty, no more IC dogmas..

I think that the CC, to will sign something like that, really loves the union with the EO

Your ideas? can the CC sign something like such a sentence?

All I have to say on the matter at the moment is that "not binding" is not the same as "not true". Keep that in mind...

Greg

 

[Epiphanygirl]

It would have to be approved by the Magestruim and the Pope first........ It would also have to be agreed upon by all the other Patriarchs. Look at the mess that happened the last time......some agreed, some didn't.....noting changed.
Believe me, when the Churches finally do come to an agreement........it will be a BIG FORMAL gathering. Declarations will be signed by all of the Patriarchs along with our Pope wehn this day comes

 

[outhwaar]

I think the key phrase in the original post is "in the strong sense". This could be read to mean simply that it was impossible any longer to gather all the bishops who can trace their succession back to the apostles. That would essentially render the sentence trivially true, and allow Rome to sign it. Rome could continue to use the phrase "ecumenical council" in another sense i.e. to mean a gathering of all bishops in union with the Holy See, and find such gatherings binding.

 

[Irenaeus]

Even if the Catholics present signed that document declaring anything like the idea that the post-schism Churches were non-Ecumenical, I can almost be certain that those people's action and that document would be swiftly rejected by the Vatican.

 

[Davidnic]

I think that if signed the wording of that alone is kind of broad. I'm sure, as in many documents (such as the Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification between the Catholics and Lutherans) there will be (if signed) clarification of the language used for it to be accepted by all sides.

 

[HandmaidenOfGod]

At any rate it is encouraging that the two groups are talking.

Through the prayers of the Theotokos may our Churches be reunited!

 

[OnTheWay]

Here's a brain teaser for Catholics, could the Pople infallibly decree that he cannot make infallible decrees?

 

[Tonks]

Here's a brain teaser for Catholics, could the Pople infallibly decree that he cannot make infallible decrees?

Infallibility was dogmatized in 1870 so I would have to say no (dogma can't conflict with dogma etc etc).

 

[copticorthodoxy]

The OO don't represent 4/5th's of the Great Sees of the Church.

The OO represent the see of Alexandria , Antioach and Armenia and other sees belong to the Great OO sees

 

[BrRichSFO]

Last monday the week of dialogue between 60 theologicans Catholic and Ortohodox ended.

They did not issued any document, but a simply common declaration of friendship and will to continue the dialogue, that anyway is vary important and it iwas the maximun result possible (here the official text http://www.spc.org.yu/Vesti-2006/09/25-09-06-e.html)

Please note a margin polemic between the Orthodox Church of Russia and the Orthodox Church of Costantinople (see http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2053)

The anwer of Cardinal Kasper was that "The question is inter-Orthodox and is not an argument of discussion between Catholics and Orthodox"
(Please browse: http://www.zenit.org/english/ and follow 'Inter-Orthodox Unity Vital for Ecumenism, Says Cardinal')

Anyway it is extremly interesting looking the sentence on which there have been the un-agreement between Moscow and Rome: At the final session, however, a heated argument developed of a document’s section on the authority of the Ecumenical Councils, which says inter alia that after the severance of communion between East and West in the ninth century, a convocation of an ‘Ecumenical Council’ in the strong sense of the world became impossible, but ‘both Churches continued to hold ‘general’ councils gathering together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or the See of Constantinople.’ (see http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=2053)

This sentence was not signed by the catholics only because the rivaltry between Moscow vs Costanitnople, but -if signed- it means that any ecumenical council after the 1054 is not actually ecumenic, and so not striclty binding in doctrine: think to Trento, or to Vatican I (=pope infallibility). And without the pope infallibilty, no more IC dogmas..

I think that the CC, to will sign something like that, really loves the union with the EO

Your ideas? can the CC sign something like such a sentence?

IF those who are entered into the discussions sign that. I feel that the pope would veto it. There was and is only one Catholic Church and only that one Church can call an Ecumenical Council, which must also be be accepted by the Pope and it's decrees must also be approved by the Pope. Protestants can disagree with Trent and it matters not.

 

[ps139]

Here's a brain teaser for Catholics, could the Pople infallibly decree that he cannot make infallible decrees?

LOL, can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?

 

[Carrye]

LOL, can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?

God does not do things that are contrary to his nature.

 

[ps139]

God does not do things that are contrary to his nature.

Amen. And neither does an individual pope have the power to nullify God's promise to the Church.

 

[King of the Nations]

Here's a brain teaser for Catholics, could the Pople infallibly decree that he cannot make infallible decrees?

No, because he cannot contradict established faith and morals.



Greg

 

[King of the Nations]

LOL, can God create a rock so big that He Himself could not lift it?

That's an invalid question.



Greg