Author Topic: VII and Ecuмenical councils (Read 3244 times)

confederate catholic · « **on:** January 07, 2016, 02:34:27 PM »

after the council of Council of Basle / Ferrara / Florence Abraham of Crete uniate bishop of the Greeks wrote in an official capacity that this was the 8th Ecuмenical council. Cardinals Pole and Contadini also wrote that this was fact with no censure from the Holy See. In fact until Belermine wrote up his list in the 17th cent. the number of these councils was disputed. so much so that the French and Spanish bishops at Trent refused to confirm the acts of 5th Lateran. could this be another reason to reject Vatican II?

thoughts?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #1 on:** January 07, 2016, 03:36:31 PM »

.

In the following list, the 8th Ecuмenical Council was Constantinople IV.

Perhaps the authors you're reading are talking about the Western Ecuмenical Councils, in which case the 8th would be Constance, and Florence is the 9th.

Curiously, the Eastern Orthodox do not recognize any of the Western Councils. The heresiarch of Constantinople IV is Photius (d. 891), author of the Greek schism, and I have seen Orthodox videos where they refer to him as "Saint Photius!"

Quote from: [url=http://catholicism.org/the-ecuмenical-councils-of-the-catholic-church.html

The Slaves of the Immaculate Heart of Mary[/url]]
This is our award-winning summary of the twenty-one ecuмenical councils of the Catholic Church. It has proved useful for students and others who would like a quick reference to the major facts relevant to each council.

Eastern Councils

Nicaea I
Constantinople I
Ephesus
Chalcedon
Constantinople II
Constantinople III
Nicaea II
Constantinople IV -- A.D. 869-870, Constantinople

Western Councils

Lateran I -- A.D. 1123, Basilica of St. John Lateran, Rome
Lateran II
Lateran III
Lateran IV
Lyons I
Lyons II
Vienne
Constance
Florence
Lateran V
Trent
Vatican I
Vatican II

...

It seems to me that any consideration of Vatican II as having been part of the tradition of Ecuмenical Councils in Church History needs to examine all ways that Vatican II is the same as the others and all ways that Vatican II is different from the others.

Any unwillingness to recognize the truth of this sameness and/or difference is nothing but obfuscation and distraction from the truth.

.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #2 on:** January 08, 2016, 01:40:00 PM »

Quote

The heresiarch of Constantinople IV is Photius (d. 891), author of the Greek schism, and I have seen Orthodox videos where they refer to him as "Saint Photius!"

Photius died as recognized Patriarch of Constantinople.

Quote

Fourth Council of Constantinople (879–880) restored Photius to the See of Constantinople. This happened after the death of Ignatius and with papal approval[/i].

Quote

As late as the 11th century, only seven councils were recognised as ecuмenical in the Roman Catholic Church. Then, in the time of Pope Gregory VII (1073–1085), canonists who in the Investiture Controversy quoted the prohibition in canon 22 of the Council of Constantinople of 869–870 against laymen influencing the appointment of prelates elevated this council to the rank of ecuмenical council.

The Pope recognized the validity of Photius at 4 Constantinople.

and these are not EASTERN COUNCILS they are ecuмenical (representatives of the major patriarchates were there including Rome)

Quote

Eastern Councils

Nicaea I
Constantinople I
Ephesus
Chalcedon
Constantinople II
Constantinople III
Nicaea II
Constantinople IV -- A.D. 869-870, Constantinople

this is the list that would be held according to the above Cardinals

ecuмenical
Nicaea I
Constantinople I
Ephesus
Chalcedon
Constantinople II
Constantinople III
Nicaea II
(Constantinople IV -- A.D. 879–880?)
Florence

non ecuмenical
Lateran I -- A.D. 1123, Basilica of St. John Lateran, Rome
Lateran II
Lateran III
Lateran IV
Lyons I
Lyons II
Vienne
Constance
Lateran V
Trent
Vatican I
Vatican II

Desmond · « **Reply #3 on:** January 09, 2016, 05:10:12 PM »

It stands to reason they were calling them "ecuмenical" in the sense of recognised by the East.
Before subsequent mending of the Schism at Florence (which then did not happen), the Greeks were recognising the ongoing Council as valid for them also.

After the hypothetical reconciliation they probably would have to have recognised past ones (West only) councils too as ecuмenical given they were in Schism during the time.

The participation of all/most Patriarchal Sees is not a prerequisite for a council to be universal now is it?

Especially since at least 2 Sees were lost to Moslems during the majority (I'm guessing) of the Councils listed.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2016, 09:45:45 PM »

the point is that eminent roman cardinals called Florence 8 not the Greeks

Desmond · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2016, 11:27:42 PM »

Quote from: confederate catholic

the point is that eminent roman cardinals called Florence 8 not the Greeks

Well we would need a bit more context and information about that.

Also, wouldn't that, assuming it actually proves some earlier councils were indeed non ecuмenical in nature, only imply just that... and not that future (post Florence) wouldn't be ecuмenical also?

PPS: and if you were right, it would also mean one would be free to reject Trent and Vatican I among others.. sounds like a bigger headache than juggling around Vatican II to make it fit one's personal ecclesiophily.

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #6 on:** January 11, 2016, 04:06:26 AM »

There has been no clarification in this thread so far regarding what constitutes an ecuмenical council.

Hint: it has nothing to do with "ecuмenism."

.

Desmond · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2016, 05:28:51 AM »

Quote from: Neil Obstat

There has been no clarification in this thread so far regarding what constitutes an ecuмenical council.

Hint: it has nothing to do with "ecuмenism."

.

I think Confederate knows what the definition is, ergo what are the prerequisites, but he's saying it might be wrong in light of the declaration by the two cardinals cited.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2016, 10:22:16 AM »

Quote

Also, wouldn't that, assuming it actually proves some earlier councils were indeed non ecuмenical in nature, only imply just that... and not that future (post Florence) wouldn't be ecuмenical also?

PPS: and if you were right, it would also mean one would be free to reject Trent and Vatican I among others.. sounds like a bigger headache than juggling around Vatican II to make it fit one's personal ecclesiophily.

actually the definitions of Trent and Vatican I and the other councils would be held de fide by those who juridically are under the Patriarch of Rome...ie..the Supreme Pontiff, but not necessarily by those Catholics under other patriarchal jurisdictions since they have other theological systems and as such these definitions while true, may need to be expressed in those other rites in their own system. for example a man who studies quantum mechanics will not express how an airplane flies in the same way as a pilot or a mechanic. this is why the church has always tried to express itself in precise definitions. after all the definition of flight may be simple or complex and the truth is not hurt by more than one definition of the same thing

confederate catholic · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2016, 10:31:29 AM »

the theory was promoted by the following with Romes approval

Quote

Gasparo Contarini (16 October 1483 – 24 August 1542) was an Italian diplomat, cardinal and Bishop of Belluno. He was one of the first proponents of the dialogue with Protestants, after the Reformation.He participated at the Congress of Ferrara in 1526 as the Republic's representative;, he assisted in reconciling the emperor with Clement VII, whose release he had obtained.

As Cardinal, Contarini figured among the most prominent of the Spirituali, the leaders of the movement for reform within the Roman church. In April 1536 Paul III appointed a commission to devise ways for a reformation, with Contarini presiding. Paul III received favorably Contarini's Consilium de Emendanda Ecclesia, which was circulated among the cardinalate, but it remained a dead letter. Contarini in a letter to his friend Cardinal Reginald Pole (dated 11 November 1538) says that his hopes had been wakened anew by the pope's attitude. He and his friends, who formed the Catholic evangelical movement of the Spirituali, thought that all would have been done when the abuses in church life had been put away. What Contarini had to do with it is shown by his letters to the pope in which he complained of the schism in the church, of simony and flattery in the papal court, but above all of papal tyranny, its least grateful passages. Paul's successor Paul IV, once a member on the commission, in 1539 put it on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum.

Ignatius Loyola acknowledged that Cardinal Contarini was largely responsible for the papal approbation of the Society of Jesus, on September 27, 1540. Meanwhile, Rome had drifted further into reaction, and Contarini died while legate at Bologna, at a time when the Inquisition had driven many of his friends and fellows in conviction into exile.

Quote

Reginald Pole (12 March 1500 – 17 November 1558) was an English cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church and the last Roman Catholic Archbishop of Canterbury, holding the office from 1556 to 1558, during the Counter Reformation.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2016, 10:34:55 AM »

also by

Quote

Catholicos Abraham III (also Abraham of Crete or Abraham Kretatsi d. 1737) was the Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church between 1734 and 1737. Born in Heraklion, Crete, to a Greek mother, he was bishop of Rodosto, Thrace and then Armenian prelate of Thrace in 1708–1734. At this time he went on a pilgrimage to eastern Armenia, at that time under Persian rule, which now make up the area of modern day Armenia and Nakhichevan. Abraham is said to have become Catholicos by chance, because while he was on his pilgrimage to Etchmiadzin Catholicos Abraham II died. Abraham of Crete had impressed many with his religious devotion during his stay there, and so they decided unanimously to elect him the new Catholicos. Abraham III was old at this point and unfamiliar in the workings of Etchmiadzin, so he protested, but despite that in November 1734 he was named the 110th Catholicos of the Armenian Church.

Abraham III came to the throne at a volatile time in the region. Nader Shah of Persia was reconquesting areas which had been lost by his predecessors to the Ottomans including Armenia. Abraham wrote a chronicle of Nader's campaign against the Turks and of his coronation as Shah when in the area. It is a helpful history because it is one of the few non-Persian sources about these years in the Transcaucasus. Abraham wrote that many villages had been left destitute by the Ottoman invasion and that the area was sufferingly greatly. Abraham was invited as a guest of honor at Nader's coronation and Armenian princes were granted autonomy. Abraham recorded detailed conversations he had with the Shah, most likely partly to serve as a record of the many privileges granted to Armenians by the shah and to serve as an example to the Ottomans who also ruled over a large Armenian population. Nader Shah visited the Armenian mother church of Etchmiadzin and reconfirmed its tax-exempt status.

Abraham III died in April 1737 at Etchmiadzin and was buried there after his short but successful reign.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2016, 10:38:12 AM »

these three held this theory mentioned previously that unless multiple patriarchates were present than a council is not ecuмenical. however they are not the only ones. they were the latest to express their opinions publicly as current cardinals under the reigning pontiff of the time as far as i know

Desmond · « **Reply #12 on:** January 11, 2016, 12:20:30 PM »

Quote from: confederate catholic

these three held this theory mentioned previously that unless multiple patriarchates were present than a council is not ecuмenical. however they are not the only ones. they were the latest to express their opinions publicly as current cardinals under the reigning pontiff of the time as far as i know

Ok, so I understood your argument.

Personally, I do not think their position is valid, as, for instance, it ignores the fact the Sees were outside the Church.
Makes no sense. If a See is lost to Heresy or Schism, why would they ever participate to an Ecuмenical Council, or even be invited to one by the reigning Pontiff.

And it would limit the Supremacy and Sovereignty of the Pontiff by means of collegiality with the other "patriarchs", closely to a primus inter pares as the Eastern Schismatics understand it.

Also, what is even the position of the Church about the very nature of the 5 Sees?
Do they eternally have an actual higher status, canonically, than any other Cardinalate?

Neil Obstat · « **Reply #13 on:** January 11, 2016, 01:08:02 PM »

Quote

Personally, I do not think their position is valid, as, for instance, it ignores the fact the Sees were outside the Church.

Makes no sense. If a See is lost to Heresy or Schism, why would they ever participate to an Ecuмenical Council, or even be invited to one by the reigning Pontiff.

That's exactly what happened at Vat.II -- the schismatic Russian Orthodox were invited to attend by John XXIII, in fact, when they proposed that the only way they would show up was if the Council would not denounce Communism, John XXIII agreed to abide by that policy in order to make the schismatics feel respected. Consequently, the single greatest threat to the Church at the time was entirely ignored by fiat of the liberal (and Modernist) leadership.

This, among other things, sets Vat.II apart from the rest of the 20 great Councils of the Church.

You have to know what is essential and what is nonsense. The whining of a bunch of wildcat malcontents has no bearing on whether particular councils were ecuмenical or not.

.

confederate catholic · « **Reply #14 on:** January 11, 2016, 03:19:30 PM »

Quote

Also, what is even the position of the Church about the very nature of the 5 Sees?
Do they eternally have an actual higher status, canonically, than any other Cardinalate

the first councils are clear that patriarchs are heads of their particular churches. cardinals are not as old an institution as the patriarchates.

Quote

Personally, I do not think their position is valid, as, for instance, it ignores the fact the Sees were outside the Church.

the church itself held them non ecuмenical as i pointed out this position not ratifying 4 Const. until 200 years later, how then could its decisions have been retroactively infallible? as i pointed out the bishops of France and Spain refused to confirm the acts of the last Lateran council,how could they do this if those councils were truly ecuмenical?