Should We Proselytize the Eastern Orthodox?

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1843227' date='Apr 21 2009, 09:08 PM']If just the Latin Church was represented at Trent, and thus it was only a Latin Council, then we can also say that at the 5th Ecumenical Council the Copts were not present, so its not fully an ecumenical council but merely a council of everyone other than the Copts.[/quote]
That's fine with me, the Copts are non-Chalcedonians. I am not in communion with them.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='goldenchild17' post='1843235' date='Apr 21 2009, 09:12 PM']I have to agree. Now if there are churches in communion with Rome who sit out of a council, then I can see an argument being made, but why does a church that is not in communion with Rome at the time of a council have any say as to the status of the council in question?[/quote]
The Roman Church accepts the seven Great Councils as ecumenical.

In fact that pope mentioned that again back in 2006 when he was visiting the Phanar. He even said that both Catholics and Orthodox accept those seven councils as authoritative for the faith and discipline of the Church. He made no mention of any other councils.

[rkwright]

Silence does not mean they are not councils.

Saying the first 7 are authoritative is correct. So are the next 14.

Edited April 22, 2009 by rkwright

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1843255' date='Apr 21 2009, 09:23 PM']Silence does not mean they are not councils.[/quote]
Silence does not mean that they are ecumenical councils either. The Council of Trent was a local council of the Roman Church, and as such it is binding upon Roman Catholics.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1843255' date='Apr 21 2009, 09:23 PM']Silence does not mean they are not councils.

Saying the first 7 are authoritative is correct. So are the next 14.[/quote]
The pope did not say that the "first" seven councils were held in the East and are authoritative for the faith and discipline of the Church; instead, he simply said: "In this part of the Eastern world were also held the seven Ecumenical Councils which Orthodox and Catholics alike acknowledge as authoritative for the faith and discipline of the Church. They are enduring milestones and guides along our path towards full unity."

[goldenchild17]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1843252' date='Apr 21 2009, 10:21 PM']The Roman Church accepts the seven Great Councils as ecumenical.

In fact that pope mentioned that again back in 2006 when he was visiting the Phanar. He even said that both Catholics and Orthodox accept those seven councils as authoritative for the faith and discipline of the Church. He made no mention of any other councils.[/quote]

agreed. But nothing he says can be used in argument against me as I don't really care what he thinks.

Edited April 22, 2009 by goldenchild17

[rkwright]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1843262' date='Apr 21 2009, 10:27 PM']The pope did not say that the "first" seven councils were held in the East and are authoritative for the faith and discipline of the Church; instead, he simply said: "In this part of the Eastern world were also held the seven Ecumenical Councils which Orthodox and Catholics alike acknowledge as authoritative for the faith and discipline of the Church. They are enduring milestones and guides along our path towards full unity."[/quote]

There is nothing in that statement that says the other 14 are not ecumenical.

[Formosus]

The objection that Copts reject the the 4-7 council is not wholly accurate. They reject the 4th, this is true, but there is pretty much nothing objectionable to them (from my understanding) as far as the 5-7th go and I imagine would accept them as Ecumenical upon reunion. As for the fourth, I have to disagree with Apo here. The Copt's rejection of the 4th was due to political pressures and fears from Rome and Constantinople that Alexandria was too powerful politically. Thus they adopted a language to describe Jesus' human and divine natures that was incompatible with their tradition in order to force them out or to squelch their ambitions to rise above the two Romes. The Miaphysite (The One Nature of the Incarnate Word that is both Human and Divine) position has been deemed to be acceptable by both the Papacy and by Eastern Orthodoxy when dealing with Orientals.

[Slappo]

[quote name='Apotheoun' post='1843258' date='Apr 21 2009, 08:25 PM']Silence does not mean that they are ecumenical councils either. The Council of Trent was a local council of the Roman Church, and as such it is binding upon Roman Catholics.[/quote]

Well... since the Council of Trent is binding upon the Roman Church, and the Council of Trent claims itself to be ecumenical, then it is binding upon the Roman Church to believe the Council of Trent ecumenical. For us to then agree with you Apo, would be to deny something binding upon our consciences as Roman Catholics.

Therefore, for you to convince us that Trent indeed is not ecumenical means we fall into sin.

Of course I'm sure that the Council of Trent stating itself as ecumenical is not a belief binding upon the Roman Church according to you since you think that is a lie.

EDIT: Lie is a bad word, has negative connotation and I mean no disrespect. You wouldn't think that it is binding on us because it is not true, it is false and the Roman Church cannot bind us to a false belief.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Slappo

[rkwright]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1843294' date='Apr 21 2009, 10:50 PM']The objection that Copts reject the the 4-7 council is not wholly accurate. They reject the 4th, this is true, but there is pretty much nothing objectionable to them (from my understanding) as far as the 5-7th go and I imagine would accept them as Ecumenical upon reunion. As for the fourth, I have to disagree with Apo here. The Copt's rejection of the 4th was due to political pressures and fears from Rome and Constantinople that Alexandria was too powerful politically. Thus they adopted a language to describe Jesus' human and divine natures that was incompatible with their tradition in order to force them out or to squelch their ambitions to rise above the two Romes. The Miaphysite (The One Nature of the Incarnate Word that is both Human and Divine) position has been deemed to be acceptable by both the Papacy and by Eastern Orthodoxy when dealing with Orientals.[/quote]

I have to say I don't know much about the Copts, I was just using them as an example in the logic.

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Formosus' post='1843294' date='Apr 21 2009, 09:50 PM']. . . The Copt's rejection of the 4th was due to political pressures and fears from Rome and Constantinople that Alexandria was too powerful politically.[/quote]
I agree with your comment about the politics that came into play, but Chalcedon (A.D. 451) must be interpreted in the light of St. Cyril's theology, and one must also take into account the 7th Capitula of Constantinople II (A.D. 553), which declared that the divine and human natures in Christ can only be held to be distinct [i]tei theoriai monei[/i] after the union. The Miaphysites should be able to accept Chalcedon as long as they follow St. Cyril and the teaching of Constantinople II.

[quote name='Formosus' post='1843294' date='Apr 21 2009, 09:50 PM']The Miaphysite (The One Nature of the Incarnate Word that is both Human and Divine) position has been deemed to be acceptable by both the Papacy and by Eastern Orthodoxy when dealing with Orientals.[/quote]
That is true, but the teaching of Severus and the later Monothelites must be repudiated in the end, because both Severus and the later Monothelites went beyond what St. Cyril taught.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Aloysius]

[quote]1. The Catholic Church holds in high esteem the institutions, liturgical rites, ecclesiastical traditions and the established standards of the Christian life of the Eastern Churches, for in them, distinguished as they are for their venerable antiquity, there remains conspicuous the tradition that has been handed down from the Apostles through the Fathers (1) and that forms part of the divinely revealed and undivided heritage of the universal Church. [b]This Sacred Ecumenical Council[/b], therefore, in its care for the Eastern Churches which bear living witness to this tradition, in order that they may flourish and with new apostolic vigor execute the task entrusted to them, has determined to lay down a number of principles, in addition to those which refer to the universal Church; all else is remitted to the care of the Eastern synods and of the Holy See.[/quote]

[quote]9. By the most ancient tradition of the Church the patriarchs of the Eastern Churches are to be accorded special honor, seeing that each is set over his patriarchate as father and head.

[b]This Sacred Council[/b], therefore, determines that their rights and privileges should be re-established in accordance with the ancient tradition of each of the Churches [b]and the decrees of the ecumenical councils.[/b](11)

The rights and privileges in question are those that obtained in the time of union between East and West; though they should be adapted somewhat to modern conditions.

The patriarchs with their synods are the highest authority for all business of the patriarchate, including the right of establishing new eparchies and of nominating bishops of their rite within the territorial bounds of the patriarchate, without prejudice to the inalienable right of the Roman Pontiff to intervene in individual cases.[/quote]
Second Vatican Council, Orientalium Ecclesiarum

at the very least, the Second Vatican Council is considered by Rome unequivocally to be an Ecumenical Council

[quote]51. This [b]Sacred Council[/b] accepts with great devotion this venerable faith of our ancestors regarding this vital fellowship with our brethren who are in heavenly glory or who having died are still being purified; and it proposes again the decrees of the Second Council of Nicea,(20*) [b]the Council[/b] of Florence (21*) and [b]the Council[/b] of Trent.(22*)[/quote]
Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium

what is considered an ecumenical council by Rome re-affirms at least that it considers Florence and Trent to be councils as well. I believe it also re-affirms the other councils somewhere, but I could not find that reference again...

it is very clear to me that no Roman Catholic may believe that the last 14 councils are not true ecumenical councils without being disloyal to his patriarchs (who promulgate at the very least Vaticans I, II, Florence, and Trent) and disloyal at least to a synod of the Roman Church which they must believe is an Ecumenical Council under the authority of their pastors.

Apo, when I asked the question I was asking if the patriarch of your Church rather than the Melkite church had affirmed the position against the last 14 councils, if you identify with the Melkite Church now and are planning to switch jurisdictions, then it makes sense... but did the patriarch of your previous church reject the last 14 councils?

among Romans, we must all accept 21 Ecumenical Councils, because our patriarch and our bishops tell us to, if nothing else. among Eastern Catholics, the question is in the air and there is division within those Churches as to whether to accept them or not. Not all the Eastern Catholic patriarchs are in agreement there, or at least not all have voiced agreement; nor are all Eastern Catholics. but no Roman can deny these councils.

[Aloysius]

basically, I am saying, by your logic:

assuming, that the last 14 councils were particular synods of the Roman Church
then, they would be binding upon all Roman Catholics in that Church
because, these synods call those councils Ecumenical Councils
then, all Roman Catholics are required to believe them as Ecumenical Councils
therefore, because Romans must see them as ecumenical, Romans must consider Eastern Catholics to also be required to assent to the same thing, that they are ecumenical and binding upon the whole Church

this would not settle the issue of how the East may see them, but until Rome itself says otherwise, the West sees them as ecumenical, as do all Roman Catholics who submit to the authority of their own sui juris Church. so I, myself, submitting to the authority of my sui juris Church, would say that your sui juris Church must accept these councils as ecumenical .

and the Pope speaking of the first Seven Ecumenical Councils is not the pope speaking against the others, but merely the Pope speaking about what is in common with the Eastern Catholics he is meeting. Rome would have to pretty clearly state that Roman Catholics are no longer required to believe that Vatican II was an Ecumenical Council, or that any of the other ones were. You see, the list is not just non-canonically supported by the seventeenth century saint who first made the list; we have, at the very least, particular synods of the Roman Church binding us to that list as to what the Ecumenical Councils are.

[Apotheoun]

Most of the documents issued by Vatican II are vague in their theological teaching (when they even deal with matters of theology), and only one document really has anything to say to or about the Eastern Catholic Churches, i.e., the Decree on the Eastern Churches, and its impact on the East has been negligible at best, because -- as Melkite Catholic Archbishop Zoghby pointed out -- it tends to speak about the Eastern Catholic Churches as if they are simply appendages of the Roman Church.

Moreover, the issues dealt with at Vatican II concerned the Latin Church and its attempt to reform itself, which primarily dealt with the revision of the Roman Missal after the council.

Ultimately, I agree with the hierarchy of the Melkite Church in accepting only the seven Great Councils as truly ecumenical.

[Aloysius]

and I agree with the hierarchy of the Roman Church in accepting 21 councils as ecumenical. you see the impass, don't you? would you not say that Romans are bound by the decisions of particular Roman synods while Easterners are not? well these particular roman synods bound Romans to think them to be Ecumenical Councils of the whole Church.

are you telling the Romans not to obey their "particular synods"?