Ecumenical Councils

[Resurrexi]

...

Edited November 4, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Groo the Wanderer]

Doggone Finniards!

[RandomProddy]

Finland, Finland, Finland, The country where I want to be....

[abercius24]

The word "heretic" at its root means one who picks and chooses. We must accept the truth for the sake of loving God, who is Truth.

[Pleural]

[quote]In conclusion, may anyone pick and choose which ecumenical councils are ecumenical and which he will accept?[/quote]

Why not, the church does it.

[Justin86]

Yes, no, no

[quote name='Pleural' post='1416498' date='Nov 9 2007, 04:51 PM']Why not, the church does it.[/quote]
Except the Church, possessing the Holy Spirit, has the authority to do that. This is so every indivual can't just go around picking and choosing whatever he wants to believe. We are the Catholic Church. Not the Relativist Church.

[ColinAH]

Yeah, you have to belive that any thing the Church claims, at least dogmaticaly and doctrinaly are ture, no pickin and chosin.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

I believe this poll is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to bait some Eastern Catholics, particularly the Melkite Church. If you have an issue with the hypothetical "Finnish Church", yet the Pope nor the rest of the Catholic Communion do, the problem is neither the "Finnish Church's" nor the Pope's, nor the Catholic Church's, but yours..

The Constitutions of Union with the Eastern Churches, and the Melkites in particular clearly state that they must preserve their Tradition, not by imposing Latin theology and constructs on top of their own, but by continuing what their Apostles and fathers handed down to them. If one looks at the Eastern Churches they will see that the accusations of "cafeteria"ness are frivolous and laughable - there are no Easterners replacing Divine Liturgy for clown and dance shows, nor any widespread clamour for women priestesses, nor abuses of liturgy and Eucharist - all that is coming from the "cafeteria"-eaters in the West. Until that is corrected, it is ridiculous to attack the faithful and orthodox Eastern Catholic Churches as being in heresy or anything else...

[Laudate_Dominum]

A voice of reason. Welcome to phatmass!

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1425055' date='Nov 26 2007, 02:55 AM']If one looks at the Eastern Churches they will see that the accusations of "cafeteria"ness are frivolous and laughable - there are no Easterners replacing Divine Liturgy for clown and dance shows, nor any widespread clamour for women priestesses, nor abuses of liturgy and Eucharist - all that is coming from the "cafeteria"-eaters in the West.[/quote]

While it pales in comparison to the problems in the west I would be very careful to make claims such as this. Would you really say that there are no abuses taking place in Eastern Rite Churches? Of course the form of such abuses would be far different from those in the west logically, because the right way to do things in Eastern practice is different from that of the West. But I would be very hesitant to say no abuses are occurring.


[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1425055' date='Nov 26 2007, 02:55 AM']Until that is corrected, it is ridiculous to attack the faithful and orthodox Eastern Catholic Churches as being in heresy or anything else...[/quote]

If we are talking about truly Catholic Eastern Rite, and not rebellious bordering on Eastern Orthodox, then I totally agree. But it goes both ways.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1425055' date='Nov 26 2007, 04:55 AM']I believe this poll is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to bait some Eastern Catholics, particularly the Melkite Church. If you have an issue with the hypothetical "Finnish Church", yet the Pope nor the rest of the Catholic Communion do, the problem is neither the "Finnish Church's" nor the Pope's, nor the Catholic Church's, but yours..

The Constitutions of Union with the Eastern Churches, and the Melkites in particular clearly state that they must preserve their Tradition, not by imposing Latin theology and constructs on top of their own, but by continuing what their Apostles and fathers handed down to them. If one looks at the Eastern Churches they will see that the accusations of "cafeteria"ness are frivolous and laughable - there are no Easterners replacing Divine Liturgy for clown and dance shows, nor any widespread clamour for women priestesses, nor abuses of liturgy and Eucharist - all that is coming from the "cafeteria"-eaters in the West. Until that is corrected, it is ridiculous to attack the faithful and orthodox Eastern Catholic Churches as being in heresy or anything else...[/quote]

thank you O newbie for embodying the voice of reason and seeing thru the carp.

[Didymus]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1425055' date='Nov 26 2007, 03:55 AM']I believe this poll is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to bait some Eastern Catholics, particularly the Melkite Church. If you have an issue with the hypothetical "Finnish Church", yet the Pope nor the rest of the Catholic Communion do, the problem is neither the "Finnish Church's" nor the Pope's, nor the Catholic Church's, but yours..

The Constitutions of Union with the Eastern Churches, and the Melkites in particular clearly state that they must preserve their Tradition, not by imposing Latin theology and constructs on top of their own, but by continuing what their Apostles and fathers handed down to them. If one looks at the Eastern Churches they will see that the accusations of "cafeteria"ness are frivolous and laughable - there are no Easterners replacing Divine Liturgy for clown and dance shows, nor any widespread clamour for women priestesses, nor abuses of liturgy and Eucharist - all that is coming from the "cafeteria"-eaters in the West. Until that is corrected, it is ridiculous to attack the faithful and orthodox Eastern Catholic Churches as being in heresy or anything else...[/quote]


fair enough, but I always keep in mind the fact that of all the Catholic Churches in my city (8 Western/2 Eastern), the Byzantines are the only ones that seem to have particles of Jesus all over the floor where they distribute the precious Body and Blood, and this is after the Liturgy is done and completed. Of course, this isn't as malicious as an irreverent clown mass, but it still shows how some of them at times fail to live up to the belief of the Divine Presence in the Eucharist...

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

Perhaps what you see isn't the "Particles of Eucharist", but the blessed bread called 'antidoron', which isn't consecrated but eaten, taken home, and/or given out by parishioners. This bread is taken from the portion of bread that is NOT used as the Lamb, and is distributed after the Divine Liturgy is completed as per the Byzantine custom.

[Aloysius]

Aside from all the rhetoric, there is an authentic problem that needs to be addressed; that is, whether an Eastern Catholic may hold that all councils except the first seven were particular councils of the Roman Church.

Preserving their tradition is one thing, but they could affirm those as being ecumenical councils without imposing latin constructs onto their own theology, and there are many that do. I think that this is the posittion that must be held by a faithful Eastern Catholic, and that those who do not hold this position are contradicting their communion with the See of Rome.

Rome's position remains that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils in the Catholic Church. An Eastern Catholic needn't throw out their entire theology to agree with that position, and I know that there are Eastern Catholics who do believe that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils but are completely faithful to their own theological tradition.

There needs to be an analysis of what things said by those ecumenical councils would be doctrinally binding and whether they would actually limit the position of the theological tradition of the Eastern Church; I think Rome tends to say "let's err on the side of permitting the particular theological tradition"... and really, that's the position I would take; yes, there are 21 Ecumenical Councils; and yes, those things which were doctrinally defined at those Councils are binding upon all Catholics, East and West, but when the Council of Trent words things in pecuiliarly Scholastic terminology and focuses, ought we to insist that the Easterns hold those positions as worded? By no means, the Easterns should not be converted to Scholasticism. There is a fine line, a difficult line to see, and when the line is that fine we err on the side of saying "preserve this theological tradition because it fosters a true faith in the true God"

A good example is Rome's approval of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. Trent said that the words of consecration had to be said to confect the Eucharist. Rome has now said that she sees the words of consecration as being implicitly present in that anaphora. Trent was addressing the matter in a very scholastic way, and that's the way it worded it; but Rome understands the deeper meaning present in that infallible teaching of the Ecumenical Council of Trent, and applies that understanding to an Anaphora that would seem, to someone who was looking for uniformity of terminology, to lack what Trent said was necessary.

But the position of the Catholic Church is that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils, and there is nothing to indicate that any Catholic, Eastern or Western, is permitted to say that there have been less. The applicability of those councils which were convened after the Great Schism is debateable for Easterners.

[goldenchild17]

nice post, I agree. though I would probably argue the bit about the anaphora.

Edited November 27, 2007 by goldenchild17

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='PopeClementI(MorClemis)' post='1425055' date='Nov 26 2007, 02:55 AM']I believe this poll is nothing more than a thinly veiled attempt to bait some Eastern Catholics, particularly the Melkite Church. If you have an issue with the hypothetical "Finnish Church", yet the Pope nor the rest of the Catholic Communion do, the problem is neither the "Finnish Church's" nor the Pope's, nor the Catholic Church's, but yours..

The Constitutions of Union with the Eastern Churches, and the Melkites in particular clearly state that they must preserve their Tradition, not by imposing Latin theology and constructs on top of their own, but by continuing what their Apostles and fathers handed down to them. If one looks at the Eastern Churches they will see that the accusations of "cafeteria"ness are frivolous and laughable - there are no Easterners replacing Divine Liturgy for clown and dance shows, nor any widespread clamour for women priestesses, nor abuses of liturgy and Eucharist - all that is coming from the "cafeteria"-eaters in the West. Until that is corrected, it is ridiculous to attack the faithful and orthodox Eastern Catholic Churches as being in heresy or anything else...[/quote]

I have no problem with Eastern Catholics in general and absolutely love the different Eastern Liturgies. I do, however, have a problem with Eastern Catholic who deny the dogmas of the Church, especially the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff (see Denzinger 1826 - 1840).

The bulls of union from the Ecumenical Council of Florence (Denzinger 691 - 715) state explicitly that the Eastern Churches must believe the dogmas of the Catholic Church.

The profession of faith for the Maronites (Denzinger 1459 - 1473) states that the Easterners must accept as ecumenical the Councils of Florence and Trent.

I have never stated that there is not problem with the way the Liturgy is said in the West, and it for the past forty years has been in a very bad state, but that is getting better, especially since [i]Summorum Pontificum[/i].

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Didymus' post='1425172' date='Nov 26 2007, 01:44 PM']fair enough, but I always keep in mind the fact that of all the Catholic Churches in my city (8 Western/2 Eastern), the Byzantines are the only ones that seem to have particles of Jesus all over the floor where they distribute the precious Body and Blood, and this is after the Liturgy is done and completed. Of course, this isn't as malicious as an irreverent clown mass, but it still shows how some of them at times fail to live up to the belief of the Divine Presence in the Eucharist...[/quote]

As, PopeClementI said, those particles are not the Body of Christ but the blessed (not consecrated) bread which is given out after the Divine Liturgy. It would be very unlikely that even a single particle of the Sacred Host would be lost in an Eastern Divine Liturgy since the Blessed Sacrament is received in the mouth under both species by means of a golden spoon.

And as for Al's post, I have the same opinion as golden child

[Apotheoun]

Aloysius points out that there are Eastern Catholics who accept the later Latin particular synods as ecumenical, and I accept that that is true. It should also be said that there have been Eastern Catholics who have introduced various Latinizations into the Byzantine liturgy, i.e., Latinizations that were not forced upon them, but which they voluntarily adopted in a misguided attempt to "prove" that they were as "catholic" as the Latins.

Nevertheless, to accept the later particular synods of the Latin Church, and the philosophical theology that forms the foundation of those teachings would require the destruction of the doctrinal patrimony of the Eastern Churches, because the Byzantine Church rejected the Aristotelian metaphysics that underlying most of what the Scholastics (and the Medieval Latin Church by extension) taught. That said, as an Eastern Catholic I accept only the Seven Great Councils of the first millennium as truly ecumenical, and if that makes Latin Catholics uncomfortable, so be it.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1425554' date='Nov 27 2007, 01:43 AM']I have no problem with Eastern Catholics in general and absolutely love the different Eastern Liturgies. I do, however, have a problem with Eastern Catholic who deny the dogmas of the Church, especially the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff (see Denzinger 1826 - 1840).[/quote]
And I have no problem with Latin Catholics in general and absolutely love the Western Liturgies, such as the TLM, the Anglican Use, the Sarum Rite, the Ambrosian, the Mozarabic, and even a reverent ordinary Mass. I have issues with Latins who deny the authentic Traditions of the various Eastern Churches - that these Traditions are not just a different Liturgy, but a different Patrimony, perspective, praxis, and theology. All of which are just as 100% Catholic.

[quote]The profession of faith for the Maronites (Denzinger 1459 - 1473) states that the Easterners must accept as ecumenical the Councils of Florence and Trent.[/quote]
As far as I know, the only profession of Faith that any Catholic can be bound by is the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed.

[PopeClementI(MorClemis)]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1425532' date='Nov 27 2007, 12:21 AM']But the position of the Catholic Church is that there have been 21 Ecumenical Councils, and there is nothing to indicate that any Catholic, Eastern or Western, is permitted to say that there have been less. The applicability of those councils which were convened after the Great Schism is debateable for Easterners.[/quote]

I disagree. I think the position of some in Latin Church is that there are 21 'Ecumenical Councils' and even that is not official doctrine. Cardinal Kasper has acknowledged that the post-Schism Councils lack something ecumenical (unlike the pre-Schism Councils) about them in quasi-official dialogues with the Eastern Orthodox. Another important distinction, the number of Councils is not doctrine nor dogma, in fact it wasn't until the late 19th/early 20th century that some scholars started formally numbering the Councils. The primary importance is not the numbering of the Councils but the preservation and transmission of the Faith of the Church to the present.