Ecumenical Councils

[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.