www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West How Many Ecumenical Councils?

Ahh...with all due respect, Subdeacon Borislav, you are also jumping to conclusions here.

My question to Alex was simply to have him clarify what that acceptance would look like.

I find the whole question interesting for a variety of reasons.

In fact, one could say it is as fundamental as the question of the exercise of Papal primacy. In many ways this one question constitutes the convergence of all relevant issues in Orthodox-Catholic relations, since it involves questions of episcopal authority, magisterium, primacy, conciliarity and the role of temporal authority.

I do not hide the fact that I found Metropolitan Kallistos's text somewhat unsettling. How is it that the Orthodox Church (I realize that he does not speak for the whole of Orthodoxy)which lays claim to conciliarity as the basis for its ecclesial constitution cannot come to consensus on what constitutes an ecumenical council? It is a puzzle to me, and one I did not expect.

If this IS addressed elsewhere and authoritatively within Orthodoxy I would be interested in knowing. But simply repeating that the number of councils is "7" or that the number is "21" is not an argument...well, at least not a convincing one!

To be honest, my opinion of the matter has also been stated. I accept the Catholic list of councils by virtue of my communion with Rome. I believe that the first 7 (or 8 depending on how one reads them, as Father Serge pointed out) exercise a primacy of honor within the traditions of East and West. The first 4, even more so (not unlike, as St. Gregory pointed out, the four Gospels in the Canon of Sacred Scripture).

As to the status of the General Councils of the West in the hierarchy of councils, beyond them being received as ecumenical by Churches in communion with Rome, I see this as somewhat of an open question and one not easily resolved. If we use your standard of the presence of Orthodox bishops, what then of Florence and Lyon? Clearly these do not - nor should they - carry the same weight as the first seven (Vatican II may be the only exception IMHO, but we may have to just agree to disagree on that). But I do think that one could assert that there is something of a "hierarchy of councils" within both the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of ecumenical councils.

I will also say that it is an interesting question (for me at least) which General Councils or Synods of the West actually intended to address issues that pertained to the churches of East and West. Would that have any bearing on their status as ecumenical? Certainly most if not all were written in a manner that was biased towards Western expressions of the Faith and assumptions of ecclesiology. Would that somehow compromise their value or status as ecumenical? And what is the relationship between a council's status as ecumenical, the view that its teachings are irreformable, and the charism of the infallibility of the Church?

I'm honestly trying to wrestle with this myself, especially when one considers how a council might function in a situation where full communion would be restored.

Sorry for the ramblings here. It is not so easy a thing to answer as one would think. I am still looking for a book by Pere Yves Congar on the theology of reception. I believe it may have some clues to consider.

Gordo

I was not speaking about you Athanasius, I was simply responding to your point.

I never claimed that you called Orthodox - schismatics my friend, nor do I intend to offend you in any way.

Let Him, who is without sin, cast the first stone!

On a lighter note, I am hardly worthy of you calling me Father Subdeacon my friend. A simple Subdeacon Borislav will do just fine

Alex,

No worries! I'm not offended at all that you would respond! My question was not rhetorical.

So what Churches would constitute the "main Churches" of Orthodoxy? Would Moscow be on that list? If so, what other Churches would be included and how would that be determined?

And how is it that the separation of the Oriental Orthodox from full communion did not consitute a situation where it was impossible to call an ecumenical council - especially since Alexandria was part of the Pentarchy?

I'm looking for a clear and consistent principle, but am at a loss at this point.

Gordo

I think the bishops will actually have to figure this out. Looking at the history, as I have been with the thread I started, it seems to me there is no one way historically speaking councils have attained infallible status. I think an agreement would only have to be found to address the exact status of the past councils, but a new framework would have to be established for how councils would be held in the future.

Dear Gordo,

Well, if clarity and consistency is what you would like . . . I'll respond anyway . . .

For the Church of the first millennium, the Pentarchy would have been the "main" Churches, communion with which signalled that one was orthodox and catholic. Separation from them meant one was not and so didn't figure in the Ecumenical Council since one was in schism/heresy.

Today, an Orthodox Ecumenical Council would definitely include the Moscow Patriarchate and, given its size, the MP would have a great input. As to its leadership role - that would be decided by a future EC.

Alexandria was part of the Pentarchy, but after the Miaphysite break, the Greeks set up an Orthodox Patriarch of Alexandria that existed side by side with the Coptic one, a situation that persists to this day and will only be resolved when the two Churches reunite.

So an Orthodox EC would be founded upon the Orthodox Communion of Churches. "Orthodoxy" of faith and praxis is a condition of ensuring a valid Ecumenical Council can be held (ie the Robber Synod and the iconoclastic council of the 8th century are examples of councils that met most conditions of being ecumenical, save for the defect of their orthodoxy).

So an Ecumenical Council is said to have occurred when:

1) It is called by the Church (rather than by heretical bodies)

2) It calls representatives from the worldwide Church, including the "first among equals" patriarchates

3) It addresses, among other things, matters of faith that are affected and that constitute the main reason for the calling of the council

4) Its canons are assented to by the participants and are made binding upon the worldwide Church

The issue of the recognition of Ecumenical Councils by Churches that are out of communion with one another - that is a situation that the Church of the first millennium never came across before.

The fact remains that the Orthodox Church has tended to affirm that there have been NO ecumenical Councils since the schism between East and West. The West has affirmed 14 ecumenical Councils since that time.

The rest is up for debate and definition by a future union Council.

Alex

I don't see Subdeacon Borislav's issue here.

From a Catholic persepctive, why can't we go ahead and have ecumenical councils like we have? The ratification of schismatic bishops has never been a necessary criterion for having a council be deemed ecumenical.

From an Orthodox perspective, the question seems a bit stickier since things such as, "Does Rome have to be present?" are asked. But from our (Catholic) end of things, we don't have to ask questions like "Does Constantinople have to be present?" for a council to be deemed ecumenical after the split of the two Churches.

Anyway, there were Catholic patriarchs of the four Eastern patriarchates for the last few hundred years, and there still is one of Jerusalem (well, there are a couple of Catholic patriarchs of Jerusalem I guess, Latin and Eastern).

L

Alex,

Thanks for your meaty response. (Christ is Risen, BTW! )

Of course, there are some that would assert that the schism was not formalized until Florence (I believe that this was Fr. John Meyendorff's contention...) and that the events of 1054, while significant, do not actually constitute anything by way of a definitive date of "schism". (The quotations are deliberate.)

Gordo

Dear Alexis,

Actually, you are right and you stated it very succinctly.

Alex

Andrew,

I noticed the two threads were starting to converge a bit.

I'll have to think more about what you have written. It would be an interesting study to determine how the infallible and irreformable status was reached with each.

And yes - ultimately we must leave it to our shepherds. But rest assured, I do not see how a consensus can be reached on a reunion council among all the various Orthodox jurisdictions. At present, I would predict that any attempt at a reunion council would fracture the communion of Orthodoxy, with certain groups claiming the council to be uncanonical. (the recent reactions of the Monks of Mt Athos to the efforts of Pope Benedict and Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew would be a foretaste of things to come, in my opinion - perhaps not from them, but from others). Hence consensus around the definition of what constitutes a council as ecumenical is vital to reunion.

God bless,

Gordo

Exactly. In his paper on the topic, Fr. Dvornik said this


http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net...nt&task=view&id=22&Itemid=28

The issue of numbering the councils pre-dates even the Great Schism itself. So the matter is not so clear in my estimation. The part where he discusses Cardinal Bellarmine is particularly interesting.

Dear Gordo,

Truly He is Risen!

You put your finger on THE issue regarding this topic. From my point of view, I would love it if Orthodoxy defined, once and for all, at which point in history the schism between East and West was formalized. Some push it forward, until Florence, while others try to go before 1054, to Photius etc.

With respect to calling an EC, Orthodoxy has yet to address two contemporary issues that affect Ecumenical Councils - who calls and legitimates them in the secular sphere? There is no Emperor today and there need not be for an EC - but how does it then work? Who is the "authority" who sends the call out, "Guys, we're going to meet at this time, in this city, get your passports updated and contact El Al etc?"

Also, the fact remains that Orthodoxy is no stranger to theological wrangling and infighting. Historically, this has meant that Orthodoxy NEEDED a Pope in the West to act as a kind of "referee" to over-rule the Emperor and hierarchs who, while heretical/schismatical, nevertheless had the Emperor's support.

Orthodoxy is more than capable of conducting an EC without a Pope - but what if that EC turns out to be a "main event" between Constantinople and Moscow over primacy? WHO will decide who is right and who should shut-up?

Before, there was always Rome to rely on and one could always count on Rome to "do the right thing" as far as Constantinople was concerned (which is also why the Church of Constantinople has historically praised the role of the papacy more than the most extreme Western ultramontanist - i.e. the Sixth EC).

What that SEEMS to mean is that the Orthodox East may not be rushing into a new Ecumenical Council without some sort of external arbiter, as it always had before. That is doubtless very wise, given the politics conducted at the historical EC's. My guess is that the Moscow Patriarchate is so strong that it would dwarf the Ecumenical Patriarch of New Rome at any EC.

This is why I believe there will be NO future Ecumenical Council in Orthodoxy without an arbiter and, in today's situation, this STILL means Rome.

Even in our neck of the woods with the problems the Anglicans are having, I picked up an Anglican newsletter and there, in black and white, were letters to the editor talking about why the Anglicans are not yet in union with Rome since the "Bishop of Rome would take steps to resolve our current crisis since our Anglican bishops are unable to."

The good old Roman arbiter is still in demand today, and not only by the East!

(Do you think I was nasty to Tobit - it's beginning to bother me . . . sniff . . .)

Alex

As we have seen in the opening message from Ad Orientum this is denied on the website of the Melkite Eparchy of Newtown.


The Melkite Archbishop Zogby is quite unequivocal in stating that Vatican I is not ecumenical and was unable to produce binding dogma.

"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"

~Melkite Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998.

'Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians.'
~The Catholic Encyclopedia article 'General Councils'

Trent, if you are trying to offend as many people as possible with the fewest words, you are succeeding remarkably well. Your ultra montaine reasoning might fly on a Blue Army or Latin Trad site, but not on an Eastern Christian Forum. While those from the West are welcome to come and learn, please spare us the Triumphalism lecture.

Alexandr