'Catholic' or 'Ecumenical' in the Creed?

[Ryan]

I've seen translations of the Nicene creed that said "One, Holy, Ecumenical, and Apostolic Church." I know that "Catholic" and "Ecumenical" pretty much mean the same thing, but is it ok to use them interchangeably in this way?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I've seen translations of the Nicene creed that said "One, Holy, Ecumenical, and Apostolic Church." I know that "Catholic" and "Ecumenical" pretty much mean the same thing, but is it ok to use them interchangeably in this way?



But ecumenical & catholic don't mean the same thing.

Catholic was one of the first adjectives used to describe the Church and refers to the fullness of its teaching.

Ecumene is a political word which refers to the length and breadth of the Roman/Byzantine Empire. When this word was adopted by the Patriarch of Constantinople in the 5th century it was meant as a reference to his universal pre-eminence. St Gregory the Great Pope of Rome wrote a protest to the Patriarchate about a century later protesting the use of this title (St Gregory translated the word to mean 'universal rule') by any bishop of the Church.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Ryan]

Ok. I have a translation of a catechism ("The Faith of the Saints") by St. Nikolai Velimirovic, where the word "ecumenical" is used in place of catholic. Is this just a bad translation?

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Ok. I have a translation of a catechism ("The Faith of the Saints") by St. Nikolai Velimirovic, where the word "ecumenical" is used in place of catholic. Is this just a bad translation?

Actually that's a very interesting choice. In the book I have by St Nikolai called The Faith of Chosen People there is a Translators' Preface on ps. 5-8.

In it the translators write:


The Holy Fathers chose the word 'catholic' (katholiken in Greek) instead of the word 'ecumenic' for a reason, not by chance. Those who know Greek also know that 'ecumenic' means universal in a strictly geographical sense, while 'catholic' means universal in a much wider sense. Thus the Fathers wre saying that the Church is universal not just because it is located all over the world...Moreover she is universal in her doctrine; she contains all the universal truths and means necessary for the salvation of every human soul in the world.

Therefore, we feel that it is improper to use the word 'ecumenic', since the Holy Fathers who compiled the Creed believed that the term was inadequate. Moreover, in the onslaught of the rampant heresy of eccumenism, using this term may tend to confuse many Orthodox believers...


Anyway...just as to make sure not all the confusion was removed the translators chose to use the word 'universal' for catholic'. This as they say is because:


the average Orthodox Christian in America will always think of the term 'catholic' in conjunction with the Pope of Rome.

That must be the reason we are able to use the word 'catholic' during the Creed without much confusion...we're in Canada not America :)

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

So just to be clear what you are saying..ecumenical means universal in a geographic sense.

Therefore when councils call themselves ecumenical, as many do, this is because they recognise themselves as representing the ecumene, or the scope of the empire.

Peter

[John Charmley]

So just to be clear what you are saying..ecumenical means universal in a geographic sense.

Therefore when councils call themselves ecumenical, as many do, this is because they recognise themselves as representing the ecumene, or the scope of the empire.

Peter

Dear Peter,

Indeed, and I wonder whether the operative words here might be 'they recognise themselves'?

One problem I have with the approach that says 'we are the Church, everyone else split form us', is that honest though it is, it begs too many questions for a poor old Anglican. My Roman Catholic friends say that they are the orthodox Church because only they recognise ALL the ecumenical councils. The EO say something similar about a smaller number of Councils (is it 7 or 8 or 9?), whilst the OO recognise 3 of them!

In the EO/OO unity thread, Matthew made some nice enigmatic comments about what made a Council Ecumenical, about which I am still thinking, so deep were they. Are we in a solipsism here? That is, does each body recognising itself as the true Church have its own definition of what it recognises as ecumenical?

When I was a child I was always puzzled by the words 'Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church' because I was told the C of E was 'protestant'; it was only when I discovered that it thought of itself as Catholic that I felt happy with it. Now, of course, it is very difficult to support that claim - although men and women I respect and admire still make it.

In Christ,

John

[Irene]

Forgive me if I have misread, the posts, my eyes are playing up today. (Migraine problems).

John Charmley said

"My Roman Catholic friends say that they are the Orthodox Church because only they recognise ALL the ecumenical councils. The EO say something similar about a smaller number of Councils (is it 7 or 8 or 9?), whilst the OO recognise 3 of them!"

One of my many favourite Bible Passages is the Matthew 7:14-23 which includes "Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

If you look, you will find, in all walks of life, belonging to all different creeds, nice, kind decent people. So when I think of “By their fruits ye shall know them.” I don’t think of the people belonging to a religion as one of the “fruits”, I think of the actions of the Leaders of religion, past and present. The ones who through the centuries have sat on Church councils and passed the laws that have changed the Churches.

Many who belong to this community, (whether Roman Catholic, Anglican, Presbyterian, Orthodox or whatever), would have looked at the history of the Churches. When I read about history and the lives of some of the leaders of our Churches it amazes me. Why did some of these people ever want to join the Church? Why did anyone ever use religion to get power in the world? Our leader is Jesus Christ who told us "If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" but some people, leaders of the Church and those close to them did the opposite.

Recently I watched a program on Michelangelo, Pope Julius II who commissioned a magnificent tomb for himself and then got Michelangelo to paint the famous Sistine Chapel. I don't know .... The fact that a Pope would do this, it shows a lack of humility that I would find extremely disappointing if I had converted to RC. Pope Julius II is not the only Pope that I have heard about who had serious flaws, what I don’t understand is how anyone could believe that these men are infallible.

When you look at Icons, they are painted by anonymous people who follow a strict regime of fasting and prayer, they lived simply and humbly. So why did a Pope get Michelangelo to do any thing at all for a Church? Looking at the paintings of Michelangelo all I can think of is this man was obsessed by naked men. Not that I know anything, I am not interested enough to study his life further, perhaps he was a humble, prayerful person.

Am I wrong or is one of the original reasons the Church of England started because they were repulsed by what they saw as the corruption of the Latin Church? I have been told that England nearly decided to go with Orthodoxy before starting the Church of England.

Humility and simplicity is very appealing, the Saints like Saint Seraphim of Sarov, lived a beautiful, prayerful, humble life.

Well, in conclusion, what I am trying to say is that it is not the number of councils that matter surely? What do you think?

In Christ
irene

[M.C. Steenberg]

Dear all,

Perhaps it's just worth noting the language as well: catholic is a compound of two Greek words: kata + olos, 'throughout the whole', or across the whole', etc. (perhaps loosely 'everywhere').

The work ecumenical, when transliterated oecumenical, betrays its root in the word oikos, 'household', from which we also get words like 'economy', 'ecological', etc.

So at least in this sense of purely linguistic terms, 'catholic' has a kind of geographic sense of universality (that which is 'everywhere'), while 'ecumenical' has a sense of 'throughout the household' or, in more political lingo, 'the standard of the household/community'.

INXC, Matthew

[Peter Farrington]

My understanding is that ecumenical had the meaning of 'throughout the empire' and therefore geographically universal in a rather narrow imperialistic sense (everyone else is a barbarian). The 'household' in view is surely that of the emperor and by extension his empire.

This is why most imperial councils, whether accepted or not, or accepted and then rejected by some, or rejected and then accepted by some, all describe themselves as they were 'imperial' councils, convened by the imperial court to deal with issues within the emperors geographical remit.

Peter

[Anthony]

My understanding is that ecumenical had the meaning of 'throughout the empire' and therefore geographically universal in a rather narrow imperialistic sense (everyone else is a barbarian). The 'household' in view is surely that of the emperor and by extension his empire.

I think it it is derivative from the use of "h oikoumenh" to mean "the inhabited world", = the settled world or by extension the civilized world (over which the Roman Empire in principle claimed sovereignty).

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

I think it it is derivative from the use of "h oikoumenh" to mean "the inhabited world", = the settled world or by extension the civilized world (over which the Roman Empire in principle claimed sovereignty).

This I believe is correct and along these lines Fr Georges Florovsky writes:


In a certain sense the Ecumenical Councils as inaugurated at Nicaea may be described as "Imperial Councils," and this was probably the first and original meaning of the term "ecumenical" as applied to the Councils. The term "Ecumenical Council" — σύνοδος οικουμενική — concilium universale — occurs first in the sixth canon of the Second Ecumenical Council, the Council of Constantinople in 381. This very name refers to the οικουμένη, the orbis Romanus, the Empire. As a result the Emperor will have a special significance in connection with the Ecumenical Councils. Emperor Constantine convened the First Ecumenical Council but the idea was probably suggested to him by friends among the bishops. Rufinus tells us that he summoned the council "ex sacerdotum sententia."

However over time a secondary meaning of 'ecumenical council' has arisen which is more connected to the following (again from Fr Georges):



But all this amounted to vain effort in the ultimate sense and final reality if the episcopacy; that is, the Church Universal, rejected those decisions. Bishops could be banished; decrees could be enforced by arms; depositions and exile could flourish. But everything that the imperial authority accomplished was of no avail in terms of the validity of the doctrine proclaimed by an Ecumenical Council if that council was not ultimately accepted by the entire Church.

Where the two meanings overlap is in the conviction that this doctrine as it is correct is seen as applying to the whole Church. So juridically a Council was called Ecumenical from the whole Empire, but in teaching its doctrine is ecumenical in the sense that it is now seen as being univerally applicable.

It's interesting and instructive I think to see how these words of the Church shift over time. The word catholc for example may well have shifted in meaning from very early times.

For example St Cyril of Jerusalem writes:


the Church is called ‘catholic’ for being in the entire world from one end of the earth to the other and for teaching wholly “KATHOLIKOS” and lacking nothing of all the doctrines that must become part of man’s knowledge… and for subjecting every race of men… to godliness and for curing completely (KATHOLIKOS) and healing every sort of sin, commited either through the soul or the body, and for being of possession of every notion of virtue in word or in deed that can be named, as well as every spiritual gift.

In a way this is very similar to the shift in how we use the word 'ecumenical' when referring to a council. Like the word catholic it originally had more of a juridical and 'spread through the entire world' sense. Now it has for us more of the meaning of a universally applicable doctrine; ie we're referring to the fullness of the doctrine proclaimed by the Council.

Maybe this is why then St Cyril could further comment:


If it happens that you visit some town, do not simply inquire where is the cathedral, because all other heresies of the impious attempt to call their caverns “cathedrals”, nor where is simply the church, but where is the catholic church, because this is the specific name of this holy Mother of us all.’

Here we're getting closer to what I think Irene was getting at in her post.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Peter Farrington]

Dear Father

I must admit to still having great problems understanding the exact meaning of your points.

Firstly it is clear that Chalcedon as an event was never universally received, therefore it is problematic to see how reception is the determining factor for ecumenicity. You must employ a rather deficient argument which says that the council has been received by all those who have received the council and therefore it has been received by all those who recieved it. This says nothing in truth about the value of such a reception.

Secondly, you speak about the teaching of a council being ecumenical when it is part of the universal deposit of the Faith. Yet I have constantly and repeatedly expressed my agreement with the content of these councils but you have never gone beyond saying that agreeing to the councils does not mean a person has an Orthodox Faith. This is a rather difficult position to understand since it would mean that in truth you could not be in communion with anyone because you could never be sure that when they said they accepted the councils they actually did in an Orthodox manner. In fact you have refused to explain what the substance of these councils is which I have missed.

So I am still at a loss to know what ecumenical means to you.

It cannot be held that it means universally received, because you know that Chalcedon was not and the latter councils had a very limited attendance entirely within the compass of the Eastern empire and entirely within the power of the Emperor. Neither the 5th nor the 7th councils were welcomed in the West. Indeed the veneration of icons was considered idolatry by the West.

It cannot mean that the councils contain that which should be universally believed because I have shown that I accept all of these things and you have said that does not matter since it does not make me Orthodox.

So I still do not know what ecumenical really means to you.

And we still do not know what more than accepting these teachings as Orthodox is required to be Orthodox. Something, obviously.

I am not sure how anyone could become Eastern Orthodox since it seems so hard to be told what the content of the Eastern Orthodox Faith actually is.

:-)

Best wishes

Peter

[Anthony]

So I am still at a loss to know what ecumenical means to you.

It cannot be held that it means universally received, because you know that Chalcedon was not and the latter councils had a very limited attendance entirely within the compass of the Eastern empire and entirely within the power of the Emperor. Neither the 5th nor the 7th councils were welcomed in the West. Indeed the veneration of icons was considered idolatry by the West.

This last point seems to be greatly simplified. Though I am not familiar with the ins and outs of this story, I understand that Papal legates were present at the 7th Council and it was approved by the Pope. However it was rejected by the Council of Frankfurt (called by Charlemagne), apparently on the basis of faulty Latin translations. The Latin translations used by the Papacy were subsequently updated.

On the more general point, I would like to reiterate from earlier posts that Ephesus (431) was not accepted by the East Syrian / Assyrian / Persian church. Yet it is regarded by EO and OO alike as ecumenical, and I think that both alike would have reservations about any claim to believe the "substance" of the council without accepting the council itself.



I am not sure how anyone could become Eastern Orthodox since it seems so hard to be told what the content of the Eastern Orthodox Faith actually is.

:-)


Many of us who have had the experience of becoming Eastern Orthodox are, on the contrary, very grateful for the clarity of the teaching we have received.

[John Charmley]

Dear Anthony,

Many of us who have had the experience of becoming Eastern Orthodox are, on the contrary, very grateful for the clarity of the teaching we have received.


I suspect Peter's comment derived from the frustration he is finding in getting an answer on some post somewhere as to what the hard doctrinal things are which still divide the EO and the OO. On the EO/OO thread sometime ago, Peter outlined the OO position and asked for one of our EO brothers or sisters to do likewise; he is still waiting!

What we see here, again, as with the EO/OO thread, is that words such as 'ecumenical' and 'church' get treated at times as though they are unproblematic and uncontested, when, as the various discussions going on across this site have shown, this isn't the case.

Matthew has helpfully written elsewhere that:

Concrete doctrinal expression will always divide those who subscribe to it from those who do not -- this is precisely its purpose. Yet while there are genuine issues of true doctrinal division between pro- and non-Chalcedonians, issues which Chalcedon rightly and properly stands to separate, there are also others based on perceptions of content, language, vision and confession that stem more from the troubled history of Christological dialogue than matters of genuine content. That everyone who preaches mia physis is a heretic, is a statement immediately countermanded by the fact that Cyril of Alexandria, for whom it is a favourite phrase, is a canonised saint in 'diophysite' Chalcedonian Orthodoxy.

What Peter has been after is a statement of what the 'genuine issues of true doctrinal division' actually are; we are fairly clear what the 'perceptions of content, language' etc. might be; but clarity eludes us on the first point.

This is germane to this theme, since it has often been said that the OO have to accept the Ecumenical Councils as recognised by the EO; would that be the 7 or the 9 of them? And how are we going to define ecumenical? Father Raphael helpfully tells us:

Now it has for us more of the meaning of a universally applicable doctrine; ie we're referring to the fullness of the doctrine proclaimed by the Council.
But who decides it is 'universally applicable'? If the answer to that is 'the Church', then we are back in the unhelpful solipsism. The Romans have a larger number of Councils their 'Church' calls ecumenical, and regards the EOs as being schismatic, but will accept them 'back' when they 'accept' their number of Councils, the 'filioque' and Papal infallibility etc. None of which sounds as though it would lead to anything very useful by way of discourse.

What would your understanding of 'ecumenical' be?

In Christ,

John

[Anthony]

Dear John,



I suspect Peter's comment derived from the frustration he is finding in getting an answer on some post somewhere as to what the hard doctrinal things are which still divide the EO and the OO. On the EO/OO thread sometime ago, Peter outlined the OO position and asked for one of our EO brothers or sisters to do likewise; he is still waiting!

I think this frustration has been amply expressed already, and occasionally (though more courteously) by yourself and Athanasios. But as you yourself have pointed out, I think it is unfair to expect hasty statements on developments in inter-Church dialogue which are somewhat recent and need time to digest. But if the main thrust of the question is "why do the EO insist on the literal acceptance of Chalcedon", then I have tried in another thread to draw an analogy with Ephesus and the Assyrians - for which I in my turn have as yet had no reply, though all in good time. (There should be a smiley at this point, though I haven't succeeded in formatting one.)

If your last question was addressed to me ("you singular"), I am not a theologian or a historian, and have nothing to add to Timothy Ware's (Bishop Kallistos') discussion (The Orthodox Church, p.256f).



...What then is the criterion for determining whether a council is ecumenical?

This is a more difficult question to answer than might at first appear, and though it has been much discussed by Orthodox during the past hundred years, it cannot be said that the solutions suggested are entirely satisfactory. All Orthodox know which are the seven Councils that their church accepts as ecumenical, but precisely what it is that makes a council ecumenical is not so clear. There are, so it must be admitted certain points in the Orthodox theology of Councils which remain obscure and which call for further thinking on the part of theologians....


Following his discussion, I think we would probably all agree in rejecting both the following propositions:

(i) that every council which claims to be ecumenical is ecumenical (counter-examples: the Iconoclast council of Hieria, or the "union councils" of Lyons and Florence).
(ii) that in order to be ecumenical a council has to be received by the whole Christian world (counter-examples: Ephesus 431, and EO's would would of course add Chalcedon).

I am curious as to why the OO, although they have to reject proposition (ii) in order to regard Ephesus as ecumenical, seem to be making tacit appeal to it in relation to Chalcedon. This is, of course, the point of my analogy, and it was meant not as an ad hominem argument but as a contribution to our discussion of ecumenical councils.

I should add that this exchange of views with Athanasios and yourself has greatly aroused my interest and also pointed out whole areas of my ignorance, and I am grateful for all of this. I am very positive about the apparent non-contradiction between EO and OO views on Christology, as it appears to be accepted by the leaders of my church (I am EP), and hope very much that further dialogue will bear fruit. That is really about all I can say at the moment.

In Christ,
Anthony

[John Charmley]

I think this frustration has been amply expressed already, and occasionally (though more courteously) by yourself and Athanasios. But as you yourself have pointed out, I think it is unfair to expect hasty statements on developments in inter-Church dialogue which are somewhat recent and need time to digest. But if the main thrust of the question is "why do the EO insist on the literal acceptance of Chalcedon", then I have tried in another thread to draw an analogy with Ephesus and the Assyrians - for which I in my turn have as yet had no reply, though all in good time. (There should be a smiley at this point, though I haven't succeeded in formatting one.)


I am curious as to why the OO, although they have to reject proposition (ii) in order to regard Ephesus as ecumenical, seem to be making tacit appeal to it in relation to Chalcedon. This is, of course, the point of my analogy, and it was meant not as an ad hominem argument but as a contribution to our discussion of ecumenical councils.

I should add that this exchange of views with Athanasios and yourself has greatly aroused my interest and also pointed out whole areas of my ignorance, and I am grateful for all of this. I am very positive about the apparent non-contradiction between EO and OO views on Christology, as it appears to be accepted by the leaders of my church (I am EP), and hope very much that further dialogue will bear fruit. That is really about all I can say at the moment.

In Christ,
Anthony

Dear Anthony,

Many, many thanks for this. As you write, I quite understand the need to hasten slowly here, and your points about the Councils are well made and pose interesting questions for the OO. I shall be interested to see the answers.

What is most important, I suspect, is that what you say in your final paragraph should be the case. Dialogues which achieve the twin purposes of arousing interest and dispelling points of ignorance, can truly be said to be blessed, and I do think our on line conversations have achieved much in these spheres.

I look forward to continuing here with this, and other dialogues; you, and the other Eastern Orthodox posters have aroused my interest, dispelled at least some of the ignorance of an ageing Anglican, and stimulated me; of one thing I have no doubt, and that is that it is only in embracing Orthodoxy that I can find the fulness of the Christian life. It occurs to me that some of my (not doubt at times misplaced) eagerness for unity comes from this source. How I wish I had been able to be here a decade ago - let alone three decades ago when I was first told that Orthodoxy was not for me because of my ethnicity! Of course, had I been a little more robust back then, or had it been meant for me then, I should, I am sure, have persevered.

My thanks to you, Anthony, and to my other EO brethren (not the least of whom has been Father Raphael) - and I look forward to continuing our dialogues here. (Courtesy, of course, of the estimable Matthew, to whom thanks would seem inadequate!)

In Christ

John

[Peter Farrington]

..then I have tried in another thread to draw an analogy with Ephesus and the Assyrians - for which I in my turn have as yet had no reply, though all in good time.

Dear Anthony

Do please forgive the frustration that does sometimes spill into my posts. I try at least not to be rude!

This is a good question and I believe that for myself the important issue is what the Assyrians actually believe. I have long wanted to dialogue with some of them and try to understand some of the more ambiguous elements of their position.

I would want to say that if it were shown that the Assyrians did confess Mary as Theotokos in the manner which is intended within Orthodoxy, and if they confessed, in whatever words they wanted as long as it meant the same, that one of the Holy Trinity was crucified, then the issue of accepting Ephesus I is secondary.

The councils are witnesses to the faith that has always been there, they cannot make a new faith, which is one of the reasons why Chalcedon was rejected since it seemed to be defining a new faith. That is why those who say that Christ was made Divine at Nicaea are wrong. The councils only bear witness, in a more or less effective manner, to the faith that has always been held.

If it could be shown that the Assyrians held to the faith then the issue of Ephesus I could be dealt with in the way that I have suggested for Chalcedon onwards with respect to the anti-Chalcedonians.

If we have the same faith about Christ then I consider this most important.

The understanding of particular events is entirely secondary. Theodoret NEVER accepted Ephesus I as far as I have found and was accepted at Chalcedon merely on the basis of anathematising Nestorius.

Peter