The Conditions Necessary For A Council To Be Regarded As Ecumenical

[militantsparrow]

I just discovered the document,
[url="http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341814?eng=y"]The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium[/url].

I realize it is not official yet (or maybe ever), but there are a few things in the letter which strike me as problematic. The description of what is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical seems to go against my previous understanding of either side.

[quote]27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
[b]– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;[/b]
[b]– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);[/b]
– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole...[/quote]

I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Thank you and God bless.

[Resurrexi]

I disagree with those conditions. I do not think that the patriarch of the East have to be present at a council for it to be ecumenical

[Apotheoun]

In my opinion the points you highlighted come from the [i]Ravenna Document[/i], which references canon 34 of the Apostolic Constitutions on primacy within synodality, and also from the [i]Imperial Sacra[/i] summoning the Second Council of Nicaea. But in order to confirm my judgment on this issue we would need to talk to one of the members of the [i]Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church[/i] since this is a working document of that official body.

Edited April 18, 2010 by Apotheoun

[militantsparrow]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='18 April 2010 - 03:58 PM' timestamp='1271617129' post='2095679']
In my opinion the points you highlighted come from the [i]Ravenna Document[/i], which references canon 34 of the Apostolic Constitutions on primacy within synodality, and also from the [i]Imperial Sacra[/i] summoning the Second Council of Nicaea. But in order to confirm my judgment on this issue we would need to talk to one of the members of the [i]Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue Between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church[/i] since this is a working document of that official body.
[/quote]

Apotheoun,
Thank you. This helps a lot.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='18 April 2010 - 01:23 PM' timestamp='1271615020' post='2095658']
I disagree with those conditions. I do not think that the patriarch of the East have to be present at a council for it to be ecumenical
[/quote]

Trent??? Hello???

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='rkwright' date='20 April 2010 - 03:05 PM' timestamp='1271793900' post='2096906']
Trent??? Hello???
[/quote]

Indeed. Trent is most certainly an ecumenical council, and not a single Eastern bishop was present.

[Oik]

[quote name='militantsparrow' date='18 April 2010 - 01:13 PM' timestamp='1271614431' post='2095651']
I just discovered the document,
[url="http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.it/articolo/1341814?eng=y"]The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium[/url].

I realize it is not official yet (or maybe ever), but there are a few things in the letter which strike me as problematic. The description of what is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical seems to go against my previous understanding of either side.



I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Thank you and God bless.
[/quote]

It seems to me that most Roman Catholics would say exactly what Resurrexi has said; "I do not think that the patriarch of the East have to be present at a council for it to be ecumenical."

[Oik]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='20 April 2010 - 04:21 PM' timestamp='1271798519' post='2096951']
Indeed. Trent is most certainly an ecumenical council, and not a single Eastern bishop was present.
[/quote]

Some might say that Eastern Bishops would have little to contribute to an ecumenical council. In fact, some might argue that bi-ritual Roman Catholic clergy could replace any real need for Eastern clergy.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Oik

[Formosus]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='20 April 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1271798519' post='2096951']
Indeed. Trent is most certainly an ecumenical council, and not a single Eastern bishop was present.
[/quote]


To be honest I thought a Maronite Bishop or the Chaldean Patriarch participated in some way.... I probably misread or do not remember properly. The closest I could find was the Chaldean patriarch traveling to Rome during the years of Trent.


In my personal opinion, Trent counts as Ecumenical as it was called by the Emperor, though its decrees mostly dealt with Western issues and were formulated in an exclusively western fashion. Hence not entirely relevant to Eastern Catholics.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Oik' date='20 April 2010 - 09:28 PM' timestamp='1271816916' post='2097137']
Why even invite Eastern Bishops anyways? In fact, why even have them when there seems to be no reason for them.
[/quote]

The same question could be asked of abbots: Why invite abbots to an ecumenical council if their presence is not necessary?

Obviously, the reason why one would invite Eastern Catholic bishops is because it is beneficial to have as many Catholic bishops at an ecumenical council as possible.

I think it is ridiculous to state that Eastern bishops [i]must[/i] be present at a council for it to be ecumenical. I also think it is ridiculous to state that Western bishops have to be present at a council for it to be ecumenical. There have been ecumenical councils with only Eastern bishops present (such as Constantinople I), and there have also been ecumenical councils with only Eastern bishops present (such as Trent).

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Formosus' date='20 April 2010 - 09:32 PM' timestamp='1271817154' post='2097140']
To be honest I thought a Maronite Bishop or the Chaldean Patriarch participated in some way.... I probably misread or do not remember properly. The closest I could find was the Chaldean patriarch traveling to Rome during the years of Trent.
[/quote]

This may, in fact, have been the case. I was just under the impression from reading the text of decrees and commentary of the council that only Western bishops were present. I could be wrong.

[Formosus]

[quote name='Oik' date='20 April 2010 - 11:28 PM' timestamp='1271816916' post='2097137']
Why even invite Eastern Bishops anyways? In fact, why even have them when there seems to be no reason for them.
[/quote]

[Oik]

[quote name='Formosus' date='20 April 2010 - 09:38 PM' timestamp='1271817492' post='2097145']

[/quote]

Edited?

[Oik]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='20 April 2010 - 09:36 PM' timestamp='1271817394' post='2097143']
The same question could be asked of abbots: Why invite abbots to an ecumenical council if their presence is not necessary?

Obviously, the reason why one would invite Eastern Catholic bishops is because it is beneficial to have as many Catholic bishops at an ecumenical council as possible.[/quote]

Other than it being really cool, what exactly would be the benefit?

[quote]I think it is ridiculous to state that Eastern bishops [i]must[/i] be present at a council for it to be ecumenical. I also think it is ridiculous to state that Western bishops have to be present at a council for it to be ecumenical. There have been ecumenical councils with only Eastern bishops present (such as Constantinople I), and there have also been ecumenical councils with only Eastern bishops present (such as Trent).
[/quote]

Who [i]must[/i] be there then?

[Formosus]

[quote name='Oik' date='20 April 2010 - 11:58 PM' timestamp='1271818721' post='2097152']
Edited?
[/quote]


It was sad not because you suggested it in jest, but because I have ran into people who would take that position seriously...