Councils

[RhetorTheo]

I just found this and thought it was interesting.

First, (retired) Bishop Elya's answer on how Melkite's view the post-schism councils, such as Trent and Vatican I & II.

http://www.melkite.org/Questions/T-2.htm

Second, the questions given to Melkite children for religious formation, along with the correct answers. (Grades 7-12, questions 8 and 9, deal with the status of the councils.)

http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm

 

[a_ntv]

Melkites are really a huge richness for the Church!!!

We need of you.

 

[QuantaCura]

That's odd.The first link seems to imply that they do consider them ecumenical but the second says since the Orthodox were not present, they are not ecumenical. ANd yet, what about Florence, where the Orthodox were present and signed on (although later retracted). And what about the councils among the first 7 that the Oriental Orthodox were not a part of? By their logic those would not be ecumenical.

The fact of the matter is schismatics do not need to be part of a council.

 

[a_ntv]

That's odd.The first link seems to imply that they do consider them ecumenical but the second says since the Orthodox were not present, they are not ecumenical. ANd yet, what about Florence, where the Orthodox were present and signed on (although later retracted). And what about the councils among the first 7 that the Oriental Orthodox were not a part of? By their logic those would not be ecumenical.

The fact of the matter is schismatics do not need to be part of a council.

Well, we shall be afraid of definitions. Ecumenical vs not Ecumenical. It is not a magic word.
Two different meaning of ecumenical:
1: the councils which propositions are infallible
2: the councils attended by all bishops of the ecumene (inhabited land in greek)
Both these two definitions are problematic.

The second is the original definiton, and a Church that is nearer to the greek (like Melkites) for sure shall highlight such a definition. EO are true bishops also for CC, so they shall attend a council to let it be ecumenical. The word' schismatic' is very limitative.
The first definition is anyway problematic too. On a side it lead to consider councils above the pope or the single bishops, lowering the teaching ministry of bishops alone, on the other side there were 'ecumenical council' not orthodox, councils that were laterly rejected (like council of Constantinople of 754).

This is matter that shall be furtherly deepened, also in order to approch unity with othodoxes.

 

[RhetorTheo]

I would say "ecumenical" means more than one church involved. Thus, Rome + Maronites = ecumenical. But an infallible Council would require all of the churches be invited, no? Under the Vatican's Balamand Statement, arguably the Orthodox would need to be present to have an infallible Council.

When the Melkites tried to re-establish full communion with Orthodox Antioch, the issue of the Vatican councils was raised. If the Vatican were to declare that the post-schism councils were not infallible, not only would traditional Romans be pleased (Vatican II) but reunion with the East would become possible.

 

[Filia Mariae]

An ecumenical council is a solemn assembly of the bishops of the whole world, convened by and presided over by the pope, to discuss/decide matters of concern to the whole Church including doctrine, discipline (or practice), and the relationship of the Church to the world.

A Council is ecumenical in its summons (all are invited), execution (accepted in sufficiently representative numbers), and its authority acknowledged by the universal Church. This last part is of the greatest importance and can take the place of the other two.

 

[a_ntv]

Which is the Liturgy of Melkites? It is like the Bizantine one?
When you speak of Orthodx Anticoch, do you speak of the Greek orthoox Church of antioch or with the Syrian Irthodox church of antioch?

 

[Servus Iesu]

Vatican I and Trent endeavoured to make infallible pronouncements, both of which are unquestionably in line with the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, so far as I can see. It makes no sense ecclesiologically to say the Orthodox have to be there, unless you say that we are actually united to the Orthodox and there is no schism. Do the Old Catholics have to be around for a council to be infallible? How about the Coptics and Monophysites?

 

[RhetorTheo]

Vatican I and Trent endeavoured to make infallible pronouncements, both of which are unquestionably in line with the constant tradition of the Catholic Church, so far as I can see. It makes no sense ecclesiologically to say the Orthodox have to be there, unless you say that we are actually united to the Orthodox and there is no schism. Do the Old Catholics have to be around for a council to be infallible? How about the Coptics and Monophysites?

I think the Balamand Statement would be to that effect, that the EO and RC are still so united (two lungs). That would not apply to the others with apostolic succession.

Whether the statements made in VI and Trent are true is separate from the question of whether the councils are ecumenical; something doesn't need to be stated in a council to be infallible and true.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Which is the Liturgy of Melkites? It is like the Bizantine one?
When you speak of Orthodx Anticoch, do you speak of the Greek orthoox Church of antioch or with the Syrian Irthodox church of antioch?

Byzantine, yes. And I meant the EO See of Antioch, not the non-Chalcedonians.

 

[RhetorTheo]

Well, we shall be afraid of definitions. Ecumenical vs not Ecumenical. It is not a magic word.
Two different meaning of ecumenical:
1: the councils which propositions are infallible
2: the councils attended by all bishops of the ecumene (inhabited land in greek)
Both these two definitions are problematic.

The second is the original definiton, and a Church that is nearer to the greek (like Melkites) for sure shall highlight such a definition. EO are true bishops also for CC, so they shall attend a council to let it be ecumenical. The word' schismatic' is very limitative.
The first definition is anyway problematic too. On a side it lead to consider councils above the pope or the single bishops, lowering the teaching ministry of bishops alone, on the other side there were 'ecumenical council' not orthodox, councils that were laterly rejected (like council of Constantinople of 754).

This is matter that shall be furtherly deepened, also in order to approch unity with othodoxes.

That's an interesting issue. Do all valid bishops need to be invited, including Old Catholics, Traditional Anglicans, etc.? You wouldn't need the Oriental Orthodox invited for a council, or else only the first three councils could be ecumenical.

The EO do not recognize any post-schism councils as being "ecumenical" in the sense of the first seven (or nine) councils.

 

[a_ntv]

Oriental Orthodox invited for a council, or else only the first three councils could be ecumenical.

Well, there is also the issue of uniting with Assirian Church. That perhaps looks like to be easyer than unity with Bizantine Chrches (there is already the intercomunion with Assyrian).

Personally I think that the Christ willed for his Church the infallibility to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals (CVI). And the Chuch includes many different way in different period: the pope, the bishops, the councils, the fathers of the church, the liturgy...No one of them produce magic statments, or statments dictated directly by God, but only all together form the Tradition. So I'm not very worried to divide councils in two cathergories, ecumenical vs not ecumentical.

 

[Carrye]

I think the Balamand Statement would be to that effect, that the EO and RC are still so united (two lungs).

The "two lungs" analogy was used in reference to the Roman church and the Oriental churches, not CC/OC. Unless I am misunderstanding your reference.

 

[a_ntv]

The "two lungs" analogy was used in reference to the Roman church and the Oriental churches, not CC/OC. Unless I am misunderstanding your reference.

OC=Oriental churches (I suppose = Bizantine churches)

I dont understand you

 

[RhetorTheo]

The "two lungs" analogy was used in reference to the Roman church and the Oriental churches, not CC/OC. Unless I am misunderstanding your reference.

The Balamand Statement was a joint statement between the Vatican and (some) EO. It dealt with the relations between CC and EO. I don't believe the OO (Oriental Orthodox) were at all involved.

 

[Carrye]

OC=Oriental churches (I suppose = Bizantine churches)

I dont understand you

Sorry. CC=Catholic Church; OC=Orthodox Church

 

[QuantaCura]

How does Florence fit in then? By the definitions offered, that would be just as authoritative as the first 7.

 

[QuantaCura]

The two lungs reference refers to the Eastern Catholic Chruches, not the EO or OO.

From JPII's Ecclesia in America:

The Eastern Catholic presence
17. Immigration is an almost constant feature of America's history from the beginning of evangelization to our own day. As part of this complex phenomenon, we see that in recent times different parts of America have welcomed many members of the Eastern Catholic Churches who, for various reasons, have left their native lands. A first wave of immigration came especially from Western Ukraine; and then it involved the nations of the Middle East. This made it pastorally necessary to establish an Eastern Catholic hierarchy for these Catholic immigrants and their descendants. The Synod Fathers recalled the norms given by the Second Vatican Council, which recognize that the Eastern Churches “have the right and the duty to govern themselves according to their own particular discipline”, given the mission they have of bearing witness to an ancient doctrinal, liturgical and monastic tradition. Moreover, these Churches have a duty to maintain their own disciplines, since these “correspond better to the customs of their faithful and are judged to be better suited to provide for the good of souls”.(46) The universal Church needs a synergy between the particular Churches of East and West so that she may breathe with her two lungs, in the hope of one day doing so in perfect communion between the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches.(47) Therefore, we cannot but rejoice that the Eastern Churches have in recent times taken root in America alongside the Latin Churches present there from the beginning, thus making the catholicity of the Lord's Church appear more clearly.(48)

 

[RhetorTheo]

The Balamand Statement does not use the term "two lungs" to refer to anything. It does, however, use the term "Sister Churches" to refer to the EO and CC.

Here is a statement by the OCA on the Balamand Statement:

"Orthodox Christianity has not reached a consensus on the Balamand statement, in part because not all of the world's Orthodox Churches participated in the gathering, and in part because controversy has risen over the "sister church" or "two lung" theory. While there are some Orthodox who would perhaps ascribe to these notions, it is my understanding that Orthodoxy is the Church, not half or part of it."

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=200&SID=3

 

[QuantaCura]

I think we need to all realize the Balamand statement is not something where every aspect of it was approved by the universal Church. While cited briefly in Ut Unam Cint, that same encyclical affirms the necessity of Communion with the pope, that unity in Truth AND hierarchy is necessary, and that the two are not equally valid Churches. While the papacy may exercise it's authority differently to accomodate reunion, that authority itself must be accepted. JPII even affirms the infallibility of the pope in that encyclical. It is also the constant Tradition of the Church that straying from her unity is damnable if done culpably. The Balamand statement is an attempt at some individuals within both churches to reach an agreement, but it isn't very authoritative.