www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology The Ecumenical Councils: Are there 21 or only 7?

Apotheoun,

It seems like you got a good grasp on the philosphy held by the Fathers of the Eastern Church. Is there a good book you can recommend that discusses the philosophical systems embraced by our Fathers.

I have read by some Armenian Church writers that our Church was more influenced by Platonism and the Greek and Latin Churches later embraced more of Aristotle's philosophy. Do you know anything about this?

Good point Alex. And, may I add, there isn't any reason that a Latin Catholic need affirm more than seven ecumenical councils (or three for that matter).

Roman Army, you raise a very good question. To look at it another way, it would seem that those Catholics who believe in 21 ecumenical councils have (shall we say) a certain advantage over those Catholics (whether Eastern or Western) who believe in only 7 ecumenical councils: the advantage of being able to say "all Catholic dogmas have been proclaimed by an ecumenical council (or proclaimed in a way that has been declared infallible by an ecumenical council)".

But I would suggest to you that the (somewhat awkward) position in which ECs find themselves is actually not as unusual as it appears at first glance. Consider for a moments the period of time from 1854 to 1870, i.e. the period after the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed a dogma (ex-cathedra), but before Vatican I proclaimed papal infallibility. During this (admittedly brief) period, all Catholics, regardless of how many ecumenical councils they affirmed, were in the same boat with regard to the I.C. -- they all agreed that it was an RC dogma which had no direct link to any ecumenical council.

And, needless to say, they were not permitted to say "This dogma hasn't been proclaimed by an ecumenical council, so I don't have to believe it."

God bless,
Peter.

Dear Peter,

Well, I don't know about Latin Catholics in this matter!

The 14 Latin Councils did affirm themselves as being ecumenical and, until something official develops from the EC's, I hardly think any EC can openly say (as a priest or a bishop) that EC's aren't bound to say the same.

This would require the Latin Church to itself define her later 14 councils as "Universal Latin Councils" but limited to the Latin Church nevertheless.

Alex

Dr. Roman,

If you are correct it follows that communion will never be restored with the Eastern Orthodox Churches, because they have already explicitly rejected two of those fourteen Latin councils, i.e., the Second Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence. As an Eastern Catholic I don't see how any Easterner can accept the formulations on the "filioque" established at those two councils, because they are irreconcilable with the teaching of the Eastern Fathers, and even with the Latin Fathers prior to St. Augustine.

Any dialogue carried out by the Latin Church with the Eastern Orthodox Churches that holds as a presupposition the idea that the East will have to accept the ecumenicity of the councils held since the schism is disingenuous at best.

The Latin Councils apply to the Latin Church, but they do not apply to any Eastern Christian, Catholic or Orthodox, and even the Treaty of Brest can be used to show that this is true, since the Ukrainian Church was not required to accept the teaching on purgatory, nor were they required to hold the Latin position on the "filioque" (later Latinizations notwithstanding).

If anything is a theologoumenon it is giving "ecumenical" status to the Latin Councils, which are merely general councils of the Western Church, called in order to deal with particular problems affecting the life of that sui juris Church. An important point to remember in all of this, is that the enumeration of the "ecumenical" councils in the West was only established in the 16th century by St. Robert Bellarmine, and this determination was made in order to defend the Council of Trent against Protestant attacks. The Magisterium has never enumerated in a definitive manner the list of the ecumenical councils beyond the seven great councils of the first millennium.

Blessings to you,
Todd

Very interesting..... I have been following this post and now would like to ask a question. Since we have all heard that there are 21 ECs (us westerners) who is going to admit that all along that when the western theologians said that there are 21 ECs and that they are infallible that they were wrong. Think of the implication.

Interesting thoughts. In addition to those, the East would certainly never accept Vatican I. Who in the Roman church would accept the idea that these councils are not ecumenical but local councils? Are people seriously talking about that?

Andrew

I agree; I can see how an Eastern Catholic can hold that the formulations, presented with a Western perspective, are local and non-binding, at least in their cultural and philosophical frameworks.
I am not sure how they can hold that such formulations, blessed by the Roman Pontiff, are erroneous.
Indeed, it sounds dangerous.
Can you explain?
-Daniel

Dear Todd,

Please call me "Alex!"

This fascinating discussion brings us to the whole matter of EC's and their relationship to the later 14 Latin Councils.

Did the Orthodox embarking on union with Rome need to accept the "fire of Purgatory?" Certainly not. But they did accept a "purgatory" where the Latins and Greeks that approved the union agreed there was a common ground on that subject. They left the notion of "fire" to ecclesial tradition.

The Greeks at Florence were not obliged to accept the Filioque into the Nicene Creed. But they were obliged to acknowledge that the Trinitarian theologies of both Churches with respect to the Procession of the Holy Spirit were the same, irrespective of how it was expressed.

This was based, as you know, on the quotations from the various Fathers on the matter, in both East and West. Since the same Holy Spirit inspired them, it was agreed that they meant the same thing etc.

This is why St Mark of Ephesus refused to acknowledge the quotations from the Latin side and said his famous "I surmise them to be corrupted." Basically, he himself agreed that IF the witnesses to the Latin Fathers were correct, then indeed East and West used different formularies to say the same thing about the Procession of the Holy Spirit.

He refused to acknowledge this and simply rejected the quotes outrightly - something that John Meyendorff actually criticizes him for doing in at least one article of his that I can remember.

But when Mark of Ephesus refused to enter into union with Rome on the basis of the Florentine talks, it is said that Pope Eugene affirmed that "we have accomplished nothing."

The Greeks that signed the union (only to repudiate it later when they arrived home) were willing to go far to try and secure military help etc. That is clear.

However, it is also clear that Florence also provided the basis for Brest and it was assumed by the Orthodox bishops who entered into that union agreement that both Churches agreed on the same basic things with regards to the matters that had divided them - only expressed them differently. Clearly, the inclusion of the Filioque was not required and was rejected by the unionists at both Florence and Brest. But that those same unionists agreed that the Filioque was not heretical, an acceptable Latin Church expression, cannot be called into question - otherwise they would have not signed the instrument of union.

No one is saying that an EC who doesn't accept the 14 Latin Councils as anything but Councils of the Latin Church is heretical. Personally, I relate only to the 7 ecumenical councils, period. For me, there is really nothing in the Latin Councils that add anything substantial to what the East has always believed, including the exercise papal authority - even though the manner of its exercise is something that the Latin Church must still work out, including with respect to the Eastern Catholic Churches.

However, by what authority does an EC say he or she does not accept the 14 Latin Councils as anything but what they themselves have said they were, namely, Ecumenical?

There is no such authority which does not mean it cannot be pronounced in future during Catholic-Orthodox unity discussions.

As the Administrator has said (he is also one of the "Only Seven" party, but I've yet to hear him announce this formally to his Metroplitan ), Popes in the past have suggested this division into "Seven Ecumenical" and "14 Local."

Again, the term "Ecumenical" NEED NOT apply to the entire Church i.e. including the East.

It could also apply to the universal Roman Church alone. The Orthodox Church, as you know, also has its local Councils, certain decisions of which have been accepted universally by Orthodoxy.

Alex

Dear Alex,

Speaking for myself, I am in the Latin Church (officially -- I attend a Melkite parish) and I agree with those who say that there have only been seven ecumenical councils, although I am willing to entertain the possibility that there are an additional five, namely Florence, L5, Trent, V1, and V2.

Many years,
Peter.

Dear Peter,

Then you are a very enlightened Latin!

However, all Catholics, at present, may only entertain the 7/14 viewpoint with respect to Ec. Councils.

It's like what happened this week with one of our priests.

He got ahead of himself and said that we could call Pat. Lubomyr Husar a "pope" since, as patriarch, he's on the same plane etc.

I said to him, "Fine, when I see Vladyka I'll mention this about "HIs Holiness Pope Lubomyr" and indicate that I got this from you."

"Don't try to be funny with your jokes again, Alex . . ." said the somewhat jittery pastor.

Alex

Assuming that isn't some kind of euphemism, thank you very much!

BTW, concerning

correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the only ones that did that are the five which I mentioned above.

Blessings,
Peter.

At the risk of appearing dense, I'm not at all sure what the substance of the argument may be.

No "magisterium" (to use a term not in the vocabulary of the Christian East) has ever taught the infallibility of ecumenical councils. Nor has anyone ever even attempted to issue an infallibly accurate list of the ecumenical councils.

The list currently used by the Roman Church most of the time is not an "official" one, nor am I familiar with any pronouncement demanding authoritatively that one must acknowledge those 21 Councils - and no other - as being Ecumenical Councils.

There is the outstanding question of what is sometimes called the "First-and-Second Council" or the "Double Council"; this is much to the point because the Pope recognized it as an ecumenical council and no Church authority has ever withdrawn that recognition - it was forgotten in the West after two or three centuries but there is no objection to it.

There is also the somewhat more controversial Council in Trullo, which John Paul II certainly seems to have recognized.

The discussion rather reminds me of controversies over some long-past disputed elections to various thrones, including Rome. In the case of the Great Western Schism, for example, there are canonized saints on both sides of the controversy, and I cannot even imagine anyone in this present year of grace trying to penalize someone for preferring the claims of the later Avignon Popes to the claims of their competitors in Rome.

And there is the matter of Saint Meletius of Antioch - anybody want to fight the Melitian Schism all over again?

Incognitus

The wording to describe the councils (ecumenical, not ecumenical, etc.) is not really the important part. As long as the Roman church is willing to back down from some things it has claimed in the post schism councils and admit parts were erroneous, then I think there will be a way forward in dialog. Otherwise, I don�t think there�s much to talk about.

Andrew

Alex,

What is often forgotten in the West is that the Eastern Churches nullified and anathematized both the Council of Lyons and the Council of Florence. In the case of Lyons, that council and all its defintions was reprobated at the Council of Blachernae in A.D. 1285, so anything agreed to there is null and void having no dogmatic authority in the Orthodox East. The same holds with the Council of Florence, because the Eastern Churches nullified and reprobated that Council at the Synod of Constantinople in A.D. 1484, so it really is irrelevant what was agreed to at that council, because it has no authority at the present time, nor will it ever have any authority in the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Moreover, Rome, by its own ecumenical practice, has accepted the fact that those councils are dead and will not be the basis for the restoration of communion with the Orthodox. This is clear from the fact that Rome opened up dialogues with the Orthodox on the very issues that were supposedly dogmatically settled at those two councils.

Florence has no dogmatic authority for the East and never will have, and the Roman Catholic theologians who have been participating in the dialogues with the Orthodox in North America clearly recognize this fact, because in their agreed statement with the Orthodox theologians (which can be found on the USCCB website) they said the following:

Clearly, from what has been said in the agreed statement cited above, Florence has not dogmatically established the "filioque" as a legitimate teaching of the whole Christian world. It may have an important place in the theology of the Latin Church, but it is nothing more than a theologoumenon, and so Florence is a dead letter.

In your post you asked the following question:

My response is quite simple: the Magisterium has never definitively listed the ecumenical councils of the Church, and so I reject the binding force of all fourteen of the Latin councils upon Easterners by the authority of sacred tradition. I do not consider St. Robert Bellarmine's opinion about the councils as binding upon anyone. So, by tradition, as commemorated within the divine liturgy, I accept the seven ecumenical councils as authoritative, but none of the fourteen Latin councils are commemorated in this way, nor is it likely that they will ever be a part of the divine liturgy of the Byzantine Church. Unless of course the Eastern Catholic Churches decide to utterly abandon their Byzantine heritage and become Latin Churches.

The acceptance of the fourteen Latin Councils by Roman Catholics is a theologoumenon of their Church, and they are free to embrace it, but Easterners (both Orthodox and Catholic) are not under any compulsion to accept those councils, and in fact they must reject two of them as incompatible with their own tradition as it concerns the procession of the Holy Spirit.

One final comment: I agree that it is unlikely that any Eastern Catholic bishop in the United States is going to openly say that the fourteen Latin Councils are not binding, and sadly until the Pope stops appointing our bishops that will continue to be the case.

Blessings to you,
Todd

I think Todd has a good point here. Another interesting aspect of this discussion is Pope Benedict's comment that the Eastern Orthodox would only have to accept the first 1000 years as a standard with regard to Rome's Primacy. Granted there is considerable disagreement regarding Rome's power in that first thousand years but if the later fourteen councils are truly ecumenical then how could Pope Benedict make this statement? Truly ecumencial councils should be binding on everyone. I believe, though I could be wrong about this, that the Eastern Orthodox would still make the Non-Chanceldonians accept seven councils were reunion between the two groups to take place. That makes sense given that the EO's view those seven councils as truly ecumencial, and therefore binding on everyone in the church. Just some thoughts anyway.