The Creed

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1895259' date='Jun 18 2009, 12:29 PM']Apotheoun, according to Eastern Catholicism, could a council be considered ecumenical if it included Eastern Catholic but not Eastern Orthodox bishops?[/quote]

Nihil, I hope that you understand that Apothoun's views regarding the ecumenical status of the later ecumenical councils is not reflective of all Easterners. There are several different views on them, ranging from complete acceptance of all the ecumenical councils, to complete rejection of all but the first seven (like Apotheoun), as well as everything in between (e.g. acceptance only of those in which the Eastern Catholic bishops participated, accepting the teachings of all the ecumenical councils but not the scholastic formulations).

Keep in mind, though, that the Eastern Catholic bishops made a profession of faith including the following:

"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, and I profess the things that were defined in it [. . .] Likewise, I revere and accept the Council of Trent, and I profess the things that were defined and declared in it." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 2534-2535)

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1895259' date='Jun 18 2009, 10:29 AM']Apotheoun, according to Eastern Catholicism, could a council be considered ecumenical if it included Eastern Catholic but not Eastern Orthodox bishops?[/quote]
No, I do not believe that a council that excludes the Orthodox, or which has been reprobated by the Eastern Orthodox Churches can be truly ecumenical.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895453' date='Jun 18 2009, 05:25 PM']Nihil, I hope that you understand that Apothoun's views regarding the ecumenical status of the later ecumenical councils is not reflective of all Easterners. There are several different views on them, ranging from complete acceptance of all the ecumenical councils, to complete rejection of all but the first seven (like Apotheoun), as well as everything in between (e.g. acceptance only of those in which the Eastern Catholic bishops participated, accepting the teachings of all the ecumenical councils but not the scholastic formulations).

Keep in mind, though, that the Eastern Catholic bishops made a profession of faith including the following:

"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, and I profess the things that were defined in it [. . .] Likewise, I revere and accept the Council of Trent, and I profess the things that were defined and declared in it." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 2534-2535)[/quote]
Resurrexi,

When have I ever said that my views are representative of all Eastern Catholics? It would be nice if you would actually read what I post once in a while.

Here is what I said in another thread that touched on this topic:

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1891035' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:52 PM'][quote name='Patrick' post='1891022' date='Jun 14 2009, 09:45 PM']
Allow me to ask this value-neutral question: Are there different types of Eastern Catholics? More specifically, are there Eastern Catholics who are essentially just Eastern Rite Roman Catholics, and are there also Eastern Catholics who were something else and came into communion with Rome (such as Melkites)? I'm honestly asking, because I don't know the answer.

Thanks,
Patrick[/quote]
Yes, there are Eastern Catholics, within various Eastern Catholic [i]sui juris[/i] Churches, who are very Latinized, and some who are less so, and some like myself, who strive to be completely de-Latinized. The process of de-Latinization, which was undertaken with vigor after the close of the Roman Church's local council of the Vatican in the 1960s, has brought about the restoration of many Eastern traditions within the Byzantine (and other) Eastern Catholic Churches (e.g., the restoration of the iconostasis, the return to giving all the mysteries of initiation to infants, the return to commemorating saints peculiar to the Eastern tradition, like St. Gregory Palamas, etc.), but it has also met with resistance in some quarters. Sadly, some Eastern Catholics equate being Catholic with being Latin, and many of them are unhappy about the return to Eastern practices. It is also a lamentable reality that many Eastern Catholics who favor de-Latinization leave for Orthodoxy because they think that the process is going to slowly. I have many friends who have become Orthodox for that very reason. Such is life at the present time in the Eastern Catholic Churches.
[/quote]
Taken from: [url="http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s=&showtopic=95012&view=findpost&p=1891035"][b][u]Melkites[/u][/b][/url]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Patrick' post='1895311' date='Jun 18 2009, 02:25 PM']I find it interesting that Apotheoun's idea of spiritual health is "continued enlightenment and spiritual growth", whereas Resurrexi's is a mental acceptance of various tenets of belief and of authorities. In this way, Resurrexi is closer to being a Protestant than Orthodox. (And Catholics say that the only thing standing in the way of reunion with Orthodox is schism!)[/quote]

I do not think that merely accepting the teachings of the Magesterium will make one spiritually healthy. There have been many throughout history who have accepted all the teachings of the Church but have not lived in accordance with those teachings. I do, however, think that in order to be spiritually healthy, it is first necessary that one holds the teachings of the Church.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895453' date='Jun 18 2009, 05:25 PM']Keep in mind, though, that the Eastern Catholic bishops made a profession of faith including the following:

"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, and I profess the things that were defined in it [. . .] Likewise, I revere and accept the Council of Trent, and I profess the things that were defined and declared in it." (Denzinger-Schonmetzer 2534-2535)[/quote]
I agree with the Melkite Patriarch who has said: "We must explain and clarify the topics that are obstacles to our full communion [with the Orthodox]: Primacy of the Pope of Rome, Western Councils [b]which cannot be recognized as Ecumenical Councils[/b] (as it has been admitted by highly qualified Western theologians since Pope Paul VI) . . ."

And I also agree with Melkite Archbishop Zoghby who said: ". . . 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, "Ecumenical Reflections"]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1895458' date='Jun 18 2009, 07:33 PM']No, I do not believe that a council that excludes the Orthodox, or which has been reprobated by the Eastern Orthodox Churches can be truly ecumenical.[/quote]

What about the Monophysites? The Sacrament of Order is valid in those Churches, yet they don't accept the Chalcedon, so how can it the Council of Chalecedon be ecumenical?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895470' date='Jun 18 2009, 05:49 PM']What about the Monophysites? The Sacrament of Order is valid in those Churches, yet they don't accept the Chalcedon, so how can it the Council of Chalecedon be ecumenical?[/quote]
If they truly embrace a monophysite Christology they are heretics, and not merely schismatics.

[Patrick]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895470' date='Jun 18 2009, 05:49 PM']What about the Monophysites? The Sacrament of Order is valid in those Churches, yet they don't accept the Chalcedon, so how can it the Council of Chalecedon be ecumenical?[/quote]

FWIW, Orthodox regard Monophysites as also having left the Church. They are not in communion with us.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1895472' date='Jun 18 2009, 07:54 PM']If they truly embrace a monophysite Christology they are heretics, and not merely schismatics.[/quote]

You never responded to my question of how a Council (such as Chalcedon) could be ecumenical if a group whose Sacrament of Order is valid didn't accept it.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1895484' date='Jun 18 2009, 06:09 PM']You never responded to my question of how a Council (such as Chalcedon) could be ecumenical if a group whose Sacrament of Order is valid didn't accept it.[/quote]
If they accept orthodox Cyrillian Christology, it follows that they will accept the Council of Chalcedon, and also the Council of Constantinople II, which teach the same Christology as that great Church Doctor.

[Apotheoun]

One thing needs to be said about Chalcedon and the Monophysites, because there are many Western Christians who -- without necessarily knowing it -- read the Chalcedonian decree in a Nestorian fashion, and when that is done the Monophysites are justified in resisting any attempt to weaken the true Orthodox Cyrillian dogmatic understanding of the incarnation. The misreading of Chalcedon's decree by some individuals in the West (and even in some the East during the 5th and 6th centuries) was the reason that Justinian commanded the celebration of the Fifth Ecumenical Council (i.e., Constantinople II), which in its [i]seventh capitula[/i] clarified the teaching of Chalcedon by giving an authoritative interpretation to its (i.e., Chalcedon's decree) that was in line with St. Cyril's teaching, for as St. Cyril taught: Christ's divine nature and His human nature can only be held to be distinct τὴ θεωρὶα μόνη (in contemplation only) after the union of the two natures ([i]physeis[/i]) in His one subsistence ([i]hypostasis[/i]).

Edited June 19, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

I wonder how many of the people who voted for "one in being" would change their vote now that the newer Roman Rite liturgy translation has been use for a while?

[Apotheoun]

65,000 people chanting the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed during a prayer service in the plaza in front of Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=318z4VqCE-s

[Nihil Obstat]

I wonder how many of the people who voted for "one in being" would change their vote now that the newer Roman Rite liturgy translation has been use for a while?

Excellent question.

[Apotheoun]

I'm happy that "of the same essence" has done as well as it has in the poll.