The Greek Orthodox Churches

[Aloysius]

One reason that the Scholastic categories ought not to be imposed upon Galasius nor the East. If one replaced "substance" with "accidents", one would be conforming it to the scholastic categories and terminology (something I was tempted to do initially before you called my attention to his analogy, revealing to me that I was still necessitating it upon the Aristotelian philosophy of the nature of the material world). it is not a difference of belief about the Eucharist, but a difference of philosophy about the nature of substance and accidents in the human world; Galasius does not contradict the doctrine, he simply does not have the Aristotelian philosophical framework about what bread and wine is. his analogy stands without necessitating consubstantiation, IMO.... this is a temporal example within the Western Church of the semi-geographical model I would see in the re-united East-West Church. Galasius' sacramental theology is both ignorant of Trent AND not in contradiction to Trent.

[Ziggamafu]

So what would have to happen for a new council to be universally recognized as ecumenical? And again, just for clarification, does that mean that Eastern Catholics do *not* regard the previous 14 councils as being infallible (rather than merely generally authoritative, binding on the Latin rite)? Do Eastern Catholics then call into question Vatican I's declaration of papal infallibility? Is papal infallibility rejected by Eastern Catholics?

[Resurrexi]

Well they seemed to accept all the Ecumenical Councils when Pope Benedict XIV prescribed this profession of faith for the Eastern Catholics in the Constitution [i]Super ad nos[/i]:

'I, N., with firm faith, etc. I believe in one, etc., [as in the Nicene-Constantinople Creed.]

I revere also and accept the universal Synods as follows, namely; The first Nicean, and I profess what has been defined in it against Arius of execrable memory, that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God, the only-begotten Son of the Father, who is born of the substance of the Father, not made, that He is consubstantial with the Father, that those impious statements have been rightly condemned in the same Synod, such as: "That at some time He did not exist," or, "that He was made of those things which are not, or of some other substance or essence," or, "that the Son of God is mutable or changeable."

The first Constantinople, second in order, and I profess that which was defined in it against Macedonius of execrable memory that the Holy Spirit is not a servant but Lord, not a creature but God, and possessing the one divinity with the Father and the Son.

The first Ephesian, third in order, and I profess that which was defined against Nestorius of execrable memory, that divinity and humanity by an ineffable and incomprehensible union in the one person of the Son of God have constituted for us one Jesus Christ, and that for this reason the most Blessed Virgin is truly the Mother of God.

Chalcedon, fourth in order, and I profess that which was defined against Eutyches and Dioscorus, both of execrable memory, that the one and same Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, was perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, true God and true man consisting of rational soul and body, consubstantial with the Father in regard to His divinity, and consubstantial with us in regard to His humanity, in all things similar to us, without sin; that before time He was born of the Father according to divinity, but that in these latter days the same One, for us and for our salvation, was born of the Virgin Mary, Mother of God, according to humanity, and that the one same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten must be recognized in the two natures without confusion, immutably, indivisibly, inseparably, never removing the difference of the natures because of their union, and preserving the peculiar character of each nature joined in one Person and substance; that this same Lord is not separated and divided into two persons, but is one and the same Son and Only-begotten God, the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ: likewise that the divinity of our same Lord Jesus Christ, according to which He is consubstantial with the Father and the Holy Spirit, is impassible and immortal; moreover, the same Lord was crucified and died only in the flesh, as was also defined in the said Synod and in the letter of St. Leo, the Roman Pontiff, by whose mouth, the Fathers in the same Synod declared that Blessed Peter the Apostle spoke, and by this definition there is condemned also that impious heresy of those who, when the Trisagion transmitted by the angels was being sung in the aforementioned Synod of Chalcedon: "Holy God, strong God, immortal God, have mercy on us," added these words: "Who was crucified for us," and thereby asserted that the divine nature of the three Persons was passible and mortal.

Second Council of Constantinople, fifth in order, in which the definition of the aforementioned Synod of Chalcedon was renewed.

Third Council of Constantinople, sixth in order, and I profess what was defined in it against the Monothelites, that in our one same Lord, Jesus Christ, there are two natural wills and two natural operations without division, change, separation, or confusion, and that His human will is not contrary to, but subject to His divine and omnipotent will.

Second Nicean Council, seventh in order, and I profess what was defined in it against the Iconoclasts, that images of Christ and of the Virgin Mother of God, as well as of other saints, should be kept and retained, and that due honor and veneration should be given to them

The fourth of Constantinople, eighth in order, and I profess that in it Photius was rightly condemned, and that Saint Ignatius, the Patriarch, was rightly reinstated (restored).

I venerate also and accept all the other universal Synods which have been lawfully held and confirmed by the authority of the Roman Pontiff, and especially the Synod of Florence; [there follows what is gathered and excerpted as far as the meaning goes from the decree on the union of the Greeks, and from the decree for the Armenians]. . . .

Likewise, I revere and accept the Council of Trent, and I profess what was defined and declared in it, and especially that there is offered to God in the Mass a true, proper, and propitiatory sacrifice, for the living and the dead, and that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, in accordance with the faith that had always been in the Church of God, there is contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and hence the whole Christ, and that there is made a change of the whole substance of the bread into the body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the blood, which change the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, and that under each species and in each single part of each species, when a division is made, the whole Christ is contained.

Likewise, I profess that there are seven sacraments of the New Law instituted by Christ, our Lord, for the salvation of the human race, although not all of them are necessary for each individual: namely, baptism, confirmation, Eucharist, penance, extreme unction, orders, and matrimony; and (I profess) that these confer grace, and that of these, baptism, confirmation, and orders cannot be repeated without sacrilege. Likewise (I profess) that baptism is necessary for salvation, and hence, if there is imminent danger of death, it should be conferred at once and without delay, and that it is valid if conferred with the right matter and form and intention by anyone, and at any time. Likewise (I profess) that the bond of the sacrament of matrimony is indissoluble, and that, although a separation of bed and board may be possible between the Spouses because of adultery, heresy, and some other causes, nevertheless it is not lawful for them to contract another marriage.

Likewise, (I profess) that the apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions must be accepted and revered; also, that power of granting indulgences has been left to the Church of Christ, and that their use is very salutary for Christian people.

Likewise, I accept and profess what was defined in the aforesaid Synod of Trent about original sin, about justification, about the list and interpretation of the sacred books of both the New Testament and the Old.

Likewise, all other things I accept and profess, which the Holy Roman Church accepts and professes, and I likewise condemn, reject, and anathematize, at the same time all contrary things, both schisms and heresies, which have been condemned, rejected, and anathematized by the same Church. In addition, I promise and swear true obedience to the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Blessed Peter, the prince of the Apostles and the vicar of Jesus Christ. And that this faith of the Catholic Church, without which no one can be saved, etc. . . . [as in the Tridentine profession of faith].' (DS 2525 - 2540)

Edited February 22, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1787717' date='Feb 21 2009, 09:16 PM']So what would have to happen for a new council to be universally recognized as ecumenical?[/quote]
The [i]Ravenna Document[/i], which was produced a couple of years ago by the [i]Joint International Commission for Theological Dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Churches[/i], gives the Eastern view as far as it concerns the process of reception of ecumenical councils within the life of the Church (cf. [i]Ravenna Document[/i], no. 37).

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1787717' date='Feb 21 2009, 09:16 PM']And again, just for clarification, does that mean that Eastern Catholics do *not* regard the previous 14 councils as being infallible (rather than merely generally authoritative, binding on the Latin rite)?[/quote]
My own views have been influenced by the writings of Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zoghby, and by the 1995 [i]profession of faith[/i] that was issued by the Melkite Catholic Church's Holy Synod; and so I do not accept the idea that the 14 Latin Church Councils are infallible, but I do accept that they are binding for members of the Roman Church.

Now as far as other Eastern Catholics in general are concerned, you will get different answers from different Eastern Catholics, usually depending upon which Church they belong to and how Latinized or De-Latinized their Church is.

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1787717' date='Feb 21 2009, 09:16 PM']Do Eastern Catholics then call into question Vatican I's declaration of papal infallibility? Is papal infallibility rejected by Eastern Catholics?[/quote]
As I have already indicated, this will vary from Church to Church, but I tend to agree with the position taken by Melkite Archbishop Zoghby, who said:

"In any case, valid or not, Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone" [Archbishop Elias Zoghby, [u]Ecumenical Reflections[/u], Eastern Christian Publications, 1998].

Edited February 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

Section 37 of the [i]Ravenna Document[/i] reads as follows:

The ecumenicity of the decisions of a Council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole - by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers ([i]didaskaloi[/i]) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.

Edited February 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

Apo would probably consider that an unjust latinization, though I am inclined to side with it in principal... but it seems since Vatican II de-latinization has gone a bit too far to purge the Eastern Catholic Churches of many of the things which really tied them in unity with Rome.

Apo is wont to see the detrimental effects of many post-Vatican II policies but agrees with the Spirit of Vatican II here; an inconsistency, IMHO.

all this aside, I'd like to re-iterate that I think there is room for an unadulterated continuation of the theological patrimony of the Eastern Churches; ie a way to keep the exact formulations of these Councils from being imported into a theological paradigm in which they cannot properly fit.

[mortify]

Do Eastern Catholics believe the Pope is infallible?

[Resurrexi]

Yes Eastern [i]Catholics[/i] do. All Catholics are required to accept all dogmas, regardless of their sui iuris Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Aloysius' post='1787777' date='Feb 21 2009, 09:51 PM']Apo would probably consider that an unjust latinization, though I am inclined to side with it in principal... but it seems since Vatican II de-latinization has gone a bit too far to purge the Eastern Catholic Churches of many of the things which really tied them in unity with Rome.

Apo is wont to see the detrimental effects of many post-Vatican II policies but agrees with the Spirit of Vatican II here; an inconsistency, IMHO.

all this aside, I'd like to re-iterate that I think there is room for an unadulterated continuation of the theological patrimony of the Eastern Churches; ie a way to keep the exact formulations of these Councils from being imported into a theological paradigm in which they cannot properly fit.[/quote]
The process of De-Latinization has two primary goals: (1) to restore the doctrinal, spiritual, and liturgical patrimony of the Greek Fathers and saints within the Eastern Catholic Churches; and (2) to show the Eastern Orthodox Churches that it is possible to be truly Eastern and in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1787786' date='Feb 21 2009, 09:54 PM']Yes Eastern [i]Catholics[/i] do. All Catholics are required to accept all dogmas, regardless of their sui iuris Church.[/quote]
Thank you pope Resurrexi for that insightful comment.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1787789' date='Feb 21 2009, 09:56 PM']Thank you pope Resurrexi for that insightful comment.

[/quote]

No thank you apo for that sarcasm.

[mortify]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1787786' date='Feb 22 2009, 12:54 AM']Yes Eastern [i]Catholics[/i] do. All Catholics are required to accept all dogmas, regardless of their sui iuris Church.[/quote]

Hard to tell with Apotheon's comments.

[Resurrexi]

In fact, the Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith added the following to the profession of faith for Eastern Catholics on July 16, 1878:

"Item veneror et suscipio oecumenicam synodum Vaticanam, atque omnia ab eadem tradita, definita et declarata, praesertim de Romani Pontificis primatu ac de eius infallibili magisterio, firmissime amplector et profiteor." (DS 2539)

That is:

"Likewise, I venerate and accept the [First] Vatican ecumenical synod, and I most firmly embrace and profess all things handed down, defined, and declared by the same, especially concerning the primacy of the Roman Pontiff and concerning his infallible teaching authority."

Edited February 22, 2009 by Resurrexi

[Aloysius]

I agree, though in the post-Vatican II de-latinization atmosphere, Eastern Catholicism is hugely split on such issues... how far de-latinization goes is a line that has to be clearly and definitively drawn as Ecumenism with the Eastern Orthodox moves foreward. And though the Melkite Catholic Patriarch may disagree, it is VERY unlikely that Rome will concede on the point of Papal Infallibility. To do so would be to abandon the Roman Church itself and allow it to devolve into chaos; likely causing schisms of epic proportions such that there would scarce be any Catholic parishes or dioceses left in union with Rome... it would be theological doomsday.

Why? Because the entire unity of our Church and the authority of the Pope has been predicated upon this definition of Papal authority. The Pope would lose all ecclesial credibility and the Roman Church would devolve into chaos.

Rome will not give up on Papal Infallibility... though they might leave what the Eastern's must believe about it a bit ambiguous were there to be reunion between East and West.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='mortify' post='1787796' date='Feb 21 2009, 11:58 PM']Hard to tell with Apotheon's comments.[/quote]

I might also like to add that there were many Eastern Catholic Bishops present at the Council which defined Papal Infallibility.