www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West "Ecumenical" Councils

Shlomo Ecce Jason,

I think we have spoken past each other. What I was talking about are the councils after said schism. As a point of fact, the four Ecumenical council was not attended by pre-Chalcedonians not because of schism, but because they were not invited to the council nor did they attend.

Further, as I stated before the biggest issue has always been one of politics and language not theology.

I will expound more, but I have to be to Church tomarrow.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Indeed. Dioscuros attended, but as a deposed, hierarchical non-entity.

He was deposed in absentia, tried in absentia, and the verdict of upholding his deposition during the Council came down in absentia.

Peace!

I just thought of another wrinkle in the question. Byzantium wasn't anything special at the time of the First Ecumenical Council, and wouldn't gain status until Constantine moved the seat of the Empire there after the First Council. While it would definately become a key player later, it was just another bishopric at the time of the First Council. On what grounds does the "Pentarchy" concept even stand, since it was utterly foreign at the time of the First Ecumenical Council? Saying that there was some kind of "rule of five" seems to be a "reading back" onto the First Ecumenical Council that wasn't there.

There has to be another basis of acceptance. Saying that they must be accepted by the whole Church is right out, because most of the time the Councils were dealing with problems within the Church, and always led to the casting out of someone who disagreed. Most notable would be the Third and Fourth Councils, which led to a "cutting off" of nearly a third of the Church, IIRC. Added with the fact that even the dubious "Pentarchy" wasn't represented at Chalcedon, and we have a really big problem in justifying this position at all.

I also wanted to comment on something I didn't think about previously:

The non-Chalcedonians tried that, but the Eastern Orthodox wouldn't let it fly because the non-Chalcedonians flatly reject the Tome of St. Leo as a rule of faith, saying pretty much the same thing about it as the Eastern Orthodox say about the filioque, namely that it's poorly worded and leads to a confusion of doctrine at best. The problem is that the Council of Chalcedon pronounced the Tome of St. Leo as doctrinally authoritative, and its proclaimation as a rule of faith. The non-Chalcedonians won't have that, and the Eastern Orthodox won't have them until they accept it outright and definatively.

The other problem is that the Oriental Orthodox consider Dioscuros a Saint, and say he was wrongly deposed and anathemized, but the Eastern Orthodox consider that judgement to be binding since it was from an Ecumenical Council. The non-Chalcedonians aren't going to settle for that one, either (and frankly, I don't blame them one bit. The man needs to have the anathema dropped, and recognized for trying to defend the faith against Nestorianism, even if he was mistaken in how he did it).

This problem goes much, much deeper than a conflict of Councils between the Byzantine Orthodox and the Catholics. The entire justification of the Ecumenical nature of Councils seems to hinge on Chalcedon. I don't see how the non-Chalcedonians, as it stands now with the Eastern Orthodox understanding of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, will ever accept your proposal, since they will insist on the last four of the Seven also being relegated to "local" status. As you may know, that's simply not negotiable with the Eastern Orthodox.

The question I have is that, even taking the non-Chalcedonians out of the picture, can the Eastern Orthodox understanding of Ecumenical Councils stand as currently proposed?

The Pentarchy is out, since it didn't exist for the First Council, and any attempts to use representation by the insignificant Byzantium (on the basis that it later became Constantinople) at the Council runs into a whole host of problems of what makes a given See so special, espescially since it wasn't a major See at the original Council. Acceptance by the whole Church is also out, since that didn't happen by any stretch with the Council of Chalcedon and later Councils (or even the Council of Ephesus, for that matter). As a side note, this makes for an interesting bone of contention, since the Catholic understanding of Ecumenical Councils only makes the doctrinal pronouncements eternally binding, not the anathemas.

The only other Eastern Orthodox justification I've heard is ratification by a later Council makes a Council Ecumenical, but that's way out as it's not even logical, IMO, and flies directly in the face of how the Seven were applied in their day. I don't know of any other acceptable understandings by the Eastern Orthodox, do you?

It's a tough nut to crack, IMO. We'll have to keep at it!

Peace!

Ghosty,

I used to think that I wrote a lot, but now that we have you on the forum, I believe I'll have to humbly hand over my title (and that's intended as a playful quip, not a shot at you). You've written a lot here since my last post, so it's going to be difficult for me to respond to all of it. I'll try to focus on the central points. And let me just say, "You got me!" on at least one of these points. I'm going to have to change my position at least slightly, as I was hinging it on historical facts that I wasn't fully knowledgeable about.

In fact, let me say up-front the point where you've got me: That's a fact I simply didn't know; I was relying on a belief that the Latin pentarchical patriarchates had either been abolished much earlier or had never been established in certain Sees, but if I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

Now, moving on to other points...

You said: Lyons II, I would say no (it didn't have anywhere near real representation). Florence, yes, possibly. That's something I've been mentioning myself here. My position is coming around more and more to Florence, and you're right that it might have to be accepted. But the Orthodox response is that Florence was not ultimately received by the pentarchical churches. The question then becomes what "reception" actually amounts to, but that's another subject.

I addressed this in one of my earlier posts here. Before the pentarchy, it was Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria (and maybe Jerusalem). No problem. The pentarchy is of course only required while there actually is a pentarchy. Before that, it may have been a "triarchy," a "tetrarchy" or what have you.

But what's been asserted here is that there is "no theological difference" between the Chalcedonians and non-Chalcedonians. If that's the case, then there has to be some way of understanding the Tome of Leo that is both completely Orthodox and completely compatible with the non-Chalcedonian understanding. If there's no way of doing that, then obviously there are still theological differences. If there is a way of doing that, then they shouldn't reject it out-right.

Okay, now on to the most complex issue.

You've noted that Dioscorus was deposed prior to the council by Rome and that the Byzantines went along with this without batting an eye. I say, "Okay, fine, that's not a problem." Patriarchs were excommunicating and deposing other patriarchs throughout the history of the Church. In fact, Dioscorus had also excommunicated the Pope. The point is simply that the other major Sees, in communion with Rome, saw no problem with Rome's position, and so concurred with the deposition of Dioscorus. So, according to the remaining major Sees, the See of Alexandria was vacant. As vacant, of course it couldn't be represented at the council. The other Sees at least got together and assessed the "Robber Council" and Dioscorus' deposition together, ultimately affirming that he had acted wrongly. Then, because all of the remaining major Sees agreed, they installed a new patriarch in Alexandria that was in communion with the rest. The point is simply this: the major Sees whose status was not in question ratified the council of Chalcedon in union. All of them, together, in communion, received the council. So it still seems to meet criteria for being ecumenical. If this amounts to saying "acceptance by the Church" (plus ratification by Rome) is the criterion for ecumenicity, then so be it.

Now, you say this won't work because the "whole Church" didn't receive it. But then the question becomes, "Who is the whole Church?" As you yourself note, the councils always cast somebody out -- so it seems that either the Church is the one who cast that somebody out, or that somebody and his cohorts are the Church. This may cause some feathers to ruffle, but I'm going to say that it seems to me that the Chalcedonians were the Church. Why? Because all of the other major Sees, with the exception of one, agreed with one another. Furthermore, the one See that didn't agree was the very one that had been deposed by the agreement of the other major Sees and whose very status was in question at the council. Beyond that, those who disagreed with the council historically are now saying that really, their faith is the same as the faith of Chalcedon; so the council professed the universal faith. What's more, the history of the matter shows that Dioscorus' actions at the "Robber Synod" had indeed been highly inappropriate and not received by the major Sees. So I don't see any serious epistemological problem here in identifying the Church (although maybe someone could make the case that there is one).

Come to the Western synods, and it seems you still have something different. You have one See, Rome, eventually declaring the other Sees illegitimate, establishing its own patriarchs, and calling its own councils. None of the other major Sees agreed with Rome's decision here. No one verified their position. You have manifestly no agreement between the pentarchical Sees; in fact, here, the four eventually oppose Rome, so that the case against Rome would be strong if it weren't for the fact that it seems that Rome was a necessity for ecumenical decisions (and here I go beyond the position of some Orthodox). There's no conciliar agreement here, as there was at Chalcedon (with the exception of the one major See whose status was in question and was being opposed by all of the other major Sees). It still seems to me that the cases are markedly different.

Now, ultimately, if you're like most Roman Catholics ( ), you're going to say that this position is precarious, because it might happen at some point that there is just no "clear" way to identify the Church. You'll say something like, "Here's one clear way to identify the Church: communion with the Pope! That answers the 'Chalcedonian question.'" But that doesn't give us any extra clarity either. First, there's the historical Western schism, which is a case where it is just not clear which pope is the Pope, and so referring to communion with the Pope doesn't work as an identifier of the Church (and even Cardinal Robert Bellarmine explicitly says that a pope can be a heretic and can be deposed). Second, there's the case (I almost hate to say it) of Vigilius and the Fifth Ecumenical Council. This council convened, condemned the infamous "three chapters," and excommunicated the Pope because he refused to condemn them too. The Pope opposed the council, but if you refer to the acts of the council you see them referring to Matthew 18:20 ("For where there are two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them") in their defense. Ultimately, the Pope gave in and agreed with the council, thereby ratifying the condemnation of the three chapters and in some sense thereby ratifying his condemnation by the council before he recanted. After this there was more commotion, and others excommunicated Vigilius as well. An Irish missionary named Columbanus went on to write a letter to Pope Boniface IV referring to this incident, making a sarcastic play on words in the process:

"It is sad when the catholic faith is not preserved in the apostolic see . . . Vigilant One [in Latin: Vigila], see that it doesn't turn out for you as it did for Vigilius, who was not vigilant [in Latin: qui non vigilavit] . . . [Otherwise] the lower orders will rightly oppose you and break ecclesial communion with you until all is forgotten. If these things are all too true and no invention, the normal situation of the Church will be reversed. Your children will become the head, but you -- how painful it is to say -- will become the tail of the Church; therefore your judges will be those who have always preserved the catholic faith, whoever they may be, even the youngest, for then they will be the orthodox and true catholics since they have never accepted or defended heretics or those suspected of heresy, but have remained zealous for the true faith."

As papal historian Klaus Schatz, SJ, remarks regarding this (in his Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to Present, p. 54), "the problem posed by the papacy by that council [the Fifth Ecumenical] has not really been resolved to this day."

Anyway, at this point I confess to having lost my train of thought (we've been going over a lot in these last few posts), and I think if I say more we'll get too far off-course anyway. Suffice it to say that I think reasons remain for thinking that Chalcedon and Ephesus are ecumenical while the Western councils are not because they do not have those same characteristics... And suffice it to say that, ultimately, if one has to have recourse to the claim that an ecumenical council is whatever "the Church" accepts, then so be it; while that's less helpful or informative of a claim, I don't see any decisive objection against it. There is something to faith, after all; we can't just conclusively prove who the Church is and thereby demonstrate all the contents of what has to be believed, or otherwise there wouldn't be much left for "faith" anyway. But I digress.

Thanks again, and God bless,
Jason

Oh, I remember one thing I wanted to ask, just for clarification's sake: Ghosty, on your view, what's the difference between a local Roman council and an ecumenical Western council? Is any local council that teaches something regarding theological doctrine (as, for example, the Spanish councils which added the filioque in the 6th century did) that is received by the Pope an ecumenical council? Is there any difference between a local council that is received by the Pope and a local council that is received by the entire Church (i.e., the Second Ecumenical Council)?

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Binding and non binding only makes sense in matters of discipline. Trent and Vatican I are dogmatic, whether you want to call them ecumenical or not is beside the point. They could never be reduced to the status of private theological opinion, nor could they be refuted.

When you approach the chalice you are making the truths of the church serving you the elements your truths. That is why the only thing that will make things such as these acceptable to the East will not be saying they are not binding, but by actually reformulating them.

I'm not holding my breath for that.

Andrew

Andrew,

Why? I at least don't see any prima facie reason for thinking that talk of "bindingness" is incoherent outside of the disciplinary realm, nor do I see one given here. Why, for example, couldn't someone say, "We in the Roman church profess that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son?" What is incoherent about that? What would someone in Spain in the 6th century have said about their belief that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son after their local councils had declared as much? What would a contemporary Orthodox believer say about his own belief regarding whether or not the Virgin committed actual (albeit venial) sin, a la John Chrysostom? These are not matters of "discipline," yet they're also non-binding on anybody else. I seem to understand what I mean by that just fine.

Perhaps you're thinking that these matters are non-binding because, by their nature, they're always non-binding (since theological opinion can't be binding at all), and so that's why it doesn't make sense. I would respond first that I don't see any reason for granting the premise that "theological opinion can't be binding at all" without some argument for it. Why can't they -- when agreed to at a local church's council -- be locally binding for that church (at least until addressed at an ecumenical council)? If this premise is the basis for your conclusion (not saying that it is), then I'm afraid you may be begging the question (since the very thing we're discussing is whether or not they can be binding). Furthermore, I think your own admission that discipline can be binding or non-binding only makes the case here stronger. If disciplines can be binding for only one church but not for another, and can vary between churches, and if some theological opinion can vary between individuals (something admitted by all), then why can't theological opinion vary between churches? Why can't something be binding in one context but not in another (as it can with discipline)?

Perhaps you're taking "binding" and "non-binding" in a very literal and restricted sense whereby it only applies to canon law or some such thing. In this case, I would think we are just using words differently. If it makes it easier, perhaps you could think of the different "bindings" of a church as part of that church's "discipline" in some loose sense?

This is simply an assertion that, taken at its strongest, appears contradictory to the numerous documents and individuals I cited. The contention is that they will not be binding for the Orthodox. So, presumably, the Orthodox will not have to accept them as dogma (unless there's some deceptive language going on in the original sources I cited).

I agree when it comes to absolutely ecumenical dogma. I don't agree when it comes to theologoumena. If an Orthodox believer who believes that the Virgin was free from actual sin communes with an Orthodox believer who believes that the Virgin committed venial sin, do they ipso facto hold the same theological "truths?" Were the Orthodox who were in communion with the Western churches in Spain in the 6th century implicitly making the filioque in the Creed their truth too?

Thanks for your thoughts, and God bless,
Jason

For all involved,

Just to let you know, I'm planning on posting a "reading list" some time tomorrow for all of us interested in these issues, if you'd like to look into things further. I've obtained a bibliography on ecumenism by Fr. Michael Fahey, SJ, called Ecumenism: A Bibliographical Overview, and it's 300+ pages of virtually nothing but sources. There are least 20 books or so that seem to address these issues in various ways, so instead of being selfish and keeping them to myself I figured I'd put them all out there for everyone to see.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

I'm not sure that I agree with your requirements for a council to be ecumenical, specifically ratification by the Bishop of Rome. This seems to be a common notion among Catholics, both Western and Eastern (a Byzantine Catholic seminarian first exposed me to this idea during a visit to the seminary a few years ago). Perhaps I am missing something, but I just see no evidence to justify this claim. Was there a council where Rome did not ratify the decision? Not that I am aware of. What if another sister church in good standing were to reject it? Would it still then be eccumenical? Would it be valid? One could try to point to the 3rd and 4th councils for the answer to that question, which is why I added "in good standing", although I'm not sure that is a proper way to phrase it. The answer to this is not clear, for all the reasons discussed in depth in prior posts of this thread.

Of course, this leads us back to one of the fundamental questions of this thread, what does make a council eccumenical? I'm afraid I don't have a clear idea at the moment. I used to believe it was one accepted by the entire undivided church, but I recently started to question that idea based on the fact that parts of the church did not accept the 3rd and 4th councils, nor the subsequent ones. The only way around this is to claim that the pre-Chalcedonian churches were heretical, or in some other way not a part of the Apostolic Church (a view I do not take, but some of my Orthodox brethren do). In light of things discussed in this thread, I will have to give this question more thought and research.

To add even more confusion is the issue of the "8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils". Some Eastern Orthodox consider the Fourth Council of Constantinople #2 (879-880) and Fifth Council of Constantinople (1341-1351) to be ecumenical. I don't believe this is the prevailing opinion, and they seem more like local councils to me, especially the 5th Constantinople, since it was well after 1054 and was mostly only concerned with the theology of St. Palamas.

The Fourth Council of Constantinople is even stranger, since there were two of them. The first one in 869 deposing Saint Photius as Patriarch of Constantinople is accepted by the Catholic Church, while the second one restoring him is accepted by the Eastern Orthodox, and to make things more confusing, Rome originally accepted the second Fourth Council of Constantinople, but later changed her mind, upholding the original one!

Of course, there is the Quinisext Council in Trullo after the Sixth Ecumenical Council that raised some local canons to ecumenical status but was mostly administrative. The Eastern Orthodox consider this part of the 6th Council, but that is rejected by Rome. I don't know much about this, but it could be used as an example of an ecumenical council not ratified by Rome, except that it is not considered a full-fledged council in its own right, but more of an addendum to the Sixth.

I look forward to the reading list! I've done some studying on the council of 451, monophysitism and the issues around the Patriarch of Alexandria at the time, but I really know very little about the Assyrian Church and their objections to the Council of Ephesus. Reunion with the Oriental Orthodox communion is talked about a lot in Orthodoxy, but communion with the the Assyrians is a rare topic. Perhaps this is why I have not studied the subject.

God bless,
NF

Interesting thread. I have been watching its progress closely and I must say I'm quite interested in finding out what makes a Council Ecumenical myself. Studying Byzantine Church at University has really opened my eyes on this issue because from the stuff I've been reading in Chadwick and Dvornik etc. its quite obvious that not even the Fathers knew which Councils were Ecumenical. NF is right about the contrasting views of Ecumenical Councils and I would add that there are times in fact when Rome sorta 'forgot' about the 9th century Councils. The gradual recognition of which Councils were and were not Ecumenical e.g. Constantinople I etc. has left me quite perplexed on the question as to what makes a Council Ecumenical since there seem to be very few established guidelines for this.

However, Jason picked up an issue from the 5th Ecumenical Council to do with the position of the Pope. The Jesuit quoted seems to have misunderstood what Rome means when she says the Pope is infallible and indeed seems to not be fully acquainted with the writings of the great minds of his order, here thinking of St Robert Bellarmine. Here is a solid explanation of The Vatican Definition [newmanreader.org] by Venerable Cardinal Newman, which working from the foundations laid by St Bellarmine explains what Catholics are and aren't bound to believe about Papal infallibility.

Myles hit on the key problem, I think, which is that no conception of what makes an Ecumenical Council was held within any Communion until after the Great Schism, and most certainly after the Schism of the non-Chalcedonians. Each of the three Communions formulated its own system of understanding later. Now this isn't to say that they disagree on those "Ecumenical" Councils held in common (first through third, and fourth through seventh, depending on the Communions in question), just that there was no agreed upon method until after all three had split.

See, it's not so much that the Catholic Communion developed some "novel" idea of the assent of the Papacy determining an Ecumenical Council that was unheard of in previous centuries, although this is certainly true, it's that the Catholic Church realized, thanks to the Protestant Reformation, that there never had been a rule established on what makes a Council an Ecumenical one. Martin Luther personally grabbed hold of this ambiguity and used it as a powerful weapon against Apostalic Authority, going so far as to say that Councils of any kind were not binding on the heart of a good Christian. It was during that time period that the current Catholic model became generally accepted in the Church, but as we've seen it is not a binding rule in the eternal sense, and it's up for discussion even within the Catholic Church itself. The general accepted rule for the moment, however, keeps the Seven intact as is, and is understood as the jumping-off point for determining later Councils' natures. Most notably it easily resolves the "Chalcedonian Question" without being overly strict on its application (disciplinary Canons and decisions can be rescinded, for example, since discipline is necessarily transitory). The hang-up is that it leaves a lot of room for declaring Councils Ecumenical that really weren't ever intended to be, and this is being thoroughly evaluated, as Ecce Jason rightly brings up.

The Eastern Orthodox position seems at once to be both more rigid and less defined. There is no concensus on what makes an Ecumenical Council, and there isn't even concensus on which Councils after the Seventh are or arent's Ecumenical. There is a strong insistance, however, that absolutely nothing can be taken away from the Seven, which are Ecumenical by virtue of....well that's another question. What this amounts to is a strict lock on those Councils and how their Canons are to be interpreted, but no clear reason for saying why they should be. Some in recent years have tried to come up with formulas, but each one has been lacking, and has called into question at least one of the Seven. I've yet to see the "Chalcedon Question" addressed head on by Eastern Orthodox (I'd love to see it, if anyone knows of a good resource), for example, and it's beginning to cause some problems given the recent Joint Christological Statement between the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, because the non-Chalcedonians essentially tried to "slip the noose" of the heresy issue (Eastern Orthodox insist on the strict adherence to every aspect of the Council, which means believing that the early non-Chalcedonians absolutely were heretics, and they just "came around" later. Naturally the non-Chalcedonians find that position....unsatisfactory). While they've made a somewhat-Joint profession of faith (the non-Chalcedonians will not accept the Tome of St. Leo as the defining reading of St. Cyril's work, as they believe it's "too Nestorian"), they're pretty much dead-locked at that. Any more unity than that, I believe, is pretty much perceived as a no-go. For some interesting, and scathing, Byzantine critiques of the non-Chalcedonian stance, check here [orthodoxinfo.com] .

I haven't seen it on this particular forum, but in others I've seen some Eastern Orthodox absolutely rip into Oriental Orthodox over this issue. It made the polemical debates between the Eastern Orthdox and the Latin Catholics seem warm and lovable by comparison; at least with Catholics, no Ecumenical Council officially and directly declared their stance heretical, after all. It makes the Papacy/filioque problem look like child's play, IMO.

The Oriental Orthodox seem to have a solution that's very simple, but also extremely problematic in its own way. For them, since they weren't there to have any input, all subsequent Councils are purely local in nature. They're willing to concede to not anathemizing them outright, but that's it. They will not be accepted as norms of faith. In many ways their view is like the one you're proposing, Ecce Jason, but the hang-up you might have is that it only accounts for Three, rather than Seven. We know that isn't going to fly with the Eastern Orthodox. It also calls into question how anyone can be excommunicated from the Church by an Ecumenical Council, since those heretical groups were inside the Church by definition, and didn't "receive" the Council that kicked them out. Of course, the Oriental Orthodox position has all the same problems that Myles pointed out, and which all groups share in common, and that's that there's no clear historical basis for it.

Notice I didn't deal with the non-Ephesians, as I have no idea what their basis is, though I'd imagine it's similar to the non-Chalcedonians.

Now to address the specific points Ecce Jason has raised in his recent posts.

This runs smack into the "Chalcedon Question", since the Council of Chalcedon did not have the representation of Alexandria, and even explicitely recognized that in Canon 30 of the Greek accounts. We know from history that the Alexandrian Bishops who were allowed to await a successor to the deposed Dioscuros chose to follow the man that Dioscuros picked, rather than the Byzantine, and under his leadership rejected the Council of Chalcedon. If you claim that the Byzantine Patriarch of Alexandria was the only real authority who could later ratify the Council, you have to deal with the fact that Dioscuros was deposed before the Council was ratified, and the fact that the Latins had Patriarchs for all the ancient Sees since the time of the Crusades, accounting for almost every Council during the period of the Great Schism, making any kind of "pentarchy" argument a double-edged sword that twists upon the Council of Chalcedon.

I think that what you've heard asserted is akin to when the Latins say that there is no theological differences between East and West. There ARE differences, but the differences are not significant enough to render the other group heretical. The problem is that, within Eastern Orthodox understanding, that isn't always the case. Just look at how the filioque controversy continues to play out.

For the non-Chalcedonians, the Tome of St. Leo is most definately a Nestorian document. That's how it translates into their languages. In fact, the similarities between the Tome debate and the filioque issue are striking. Any insistance by the Eastern Orthodox that it be taken as is, as the rule of faith (which is how it's presented in the Council of Chalcedon, and how the Eastern Orthodox have demanded it be understood) is going to be met with, at best, polite refusal by the non-Chalcedonians.

In fact, this gap is even larger than the filioque issue, since the filioque is merely a local practice, and the theology and language can ultimately be explained to the satisfaction of most Eastern Orthodox, while the term itself is removed. The Tome of St. Leo, however, is canonized by Ecumenical Council; it would be as if the filioque itself was absolutely and formally upheld as the new way of saying the Creed, and that all who do not recite the filioque are anathema. Both sides can say that the difficulty is just a matter of language, but that language is called the Tome of St. Leo, and the Eastern Orthodox consider it a rule of faith.

And here's the biggest problem you've brought up, Ecce Jason:

You've just described down to the letter the Catholic definition of Ecumenical Councils

We know that "majority rule" has never been upheld, since the time of the Church Fathers, as the rule of Faith. The rule, at least in my opinion as far as records have shown, has been "follow your bishop, and appeal to Rome when in doubt" (whether because of Peter, or because of Peter and Paul together founding that Church is irrelevant in this case). This much, I understand, is even accepted by the Eastern Orthodox. You yourself even open this up a bit by admitting that it was the other Sees in communion with Rome that agreed with the depostion of Dioscuros. Why didn't Dioscuros have a say? He wasn't in Communion with Rome, and had excommunicated the Pope.

There's something important to remember in your analysis, which is that the acting Patriarchs of both Constantinople and Antioch had not only been in communion with Dioscuros, but had actually been appointed by him as a result of the "Robber Council". These two Patriarchs were Anatolius [answers.com] and Maximus [answers.com] , respectively. They had not been in communion with Rome when Dioscuros tried to excommunicate the Bishop of Rome, as Rome still recognized Flavian and Domnus (both deposed by Dioscuros) as the Patriarchs of those respective Sees. These were not two fellows who were personally outraged by Dioscuros' actions, but rather owed their Sees to him. With Flavian dead, however, and Domnus deciding to return to monastic life, those two fellows were recognized by Rome as rightful Patriarchs after they made a profession of Faith and agreed to the Tome of St. Leo. Both did, and were allowed to sit as Patriarchs at the Council of Chalcedon. Dioscuros, on the other hand, did not, and being personally responsible for the Robber Council was deposed and held to trial anyway.

Had it not been for their acceptance of the Tome of St. Leo, and Rome's reluctant approval, they would not have been Patriarchs of those Sees, as they had been appointed over the heads of their respective flocks. The only thing that kept it from being a trial of three Patriarchs instead of one was their insistance on being recognized by Rome, and their willingness to explicitly proclaim the faith that had been condemned at the Robber Council, the same Council they had worked on with Dioscuros and had been appointed as a result of.

Ultimately of course they assented to the Pope's moves against Dioscuros, but the order of events is crucial to understanding the Catholic claim. These two Patriarchs were illegitimate, and only made legitimate by recognition from Rome before the Council of Chalcedon, and only then after they had been obligated to express their Faith in union with the Bishop of Rome, as expressed in the Tome of St. Leo, and had rejected Eutyches, a man whom they themselves had honored at the Robber Council. In otherwords, they were Patriarchs solely by virtue of recognition by the Bishop of Rome; that's what kept Anatolius from being dragged out and put on trial along with Dioscuros for his part in deposing Flavian, the original Patriarch of Constantinople.

Furthermore, it shows that the Tome of St. Leo had been agreed upon as the authentic expression of Faith prior to the Council, and was indeed the measuring stick by which people were judged to be orthodox until the Council of Chalcedon was resolved; agreement upon it beforehand was what gave Anatolius and Maximus a vote as Patriarchs, and not a trial as usurpers.

In short, we have the "pentarchy", but what made the pentarchy (minus Alexandria, of course) was pre-recognition/acceptance by Rome. That is what had validated the otherwise extremely questionable Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch. In other words they sought recognition as Patriarchs, Rome laid down the conditions with the understanding that the previous Patriarchs were no longer around to reclaim their rightful places, and they accepted the terms, even denouncing Eutyches openly, whom they had previously defended.

Without direct Papal approval/disapproval of Patriarchs, you don't have the Council of Chalcedon as history has brought it to us. In other words, be careful what you say, Ecce Jason, because you might end up making the Catholic case without intending to. :p

Peace and God bless!

Jason

Let me use an example because I may very well be using incorrect terminology. Clerical celibacy to me is a discipline, and an example of something that could be binding in one church and not another. Papal infallibility is not something that could be true in one church and not church in another. It is binding by the nature of its definition. It has a reach and scope that make it impossible to reduce to the level of private theological opinion.
I can only repeat this makes no sense to me, and if this is the way the theologians view some sort of restoration of communion coming about I think it will fail. What�s important to me is not whether something is binding or not, but whether it�s true or not. I could not accept communion from a church if I felt their own definition of themselves was wrong, even if that definition was not �binding� on me.
At the point that it went from being the product of a local council to a dogma the danger was there. I would say what this introduced was a tension that had to be resolved, because there cannot be contradictory truths in one faith.

Andrew

Myles,

I share a lot of your concerns regarding "forgotten" councils (I assume you refer to the Photian Synod of 879-880?) and the fluidity of which councils are "ecumenical." I have familiarity with Dvornik's work, but who is Chadwick? Would you mind posting some sources?

As for "The Jesuit [Klaus Schatz, SJ] quoted [who] seems to have misunderstood what Rome means when she says the Pope is infallible and indeed seems to not be fully acquainted with the writings of the great minds of his order, here thinking of St Robert Bellarmine," I would simply suggest that you read the book I cited if you're interested, and maybe look into some of his other work too. The book is Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present. Schatz received his doctorate in Church history -- at least I think that's what it was in, as that's what he teaches now -- from Rome's Gregorian University, and his book makes clear that he's quite familiar with Bellarmine and also the definition of papal infallibility. He cites and engages Bellarmine explicitly, in fact, both regarding the question of which councils are ecumenical and regarding the possibility of a heretical pope, so he's quite familiar with him. And, as for the limits and extensions of papal infallibility, well, that's one of the major themes of the whole work. There are at least three chapters that deal explicitly with Vatican I, there is a subsection in a different chapter entitled "Origins of the Doctrine of Papal Infallibility" (wherein he engages the current historical scholarship), and the book includes the text of the Vatican I definitions as an appendix. When it comes to his comments on Vigilius, I would suggest that he is just being honest about the conclusions of his research. You may disagree with his conclusions, but that's another matter than suggesting that he simply wasn't familiar with the material. Don't worry, though; in the end he still supports papal infallibility and so on.

Apparently he has some work in German on the first millenium ecumenical councils, too, if you can read German.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

NF,

I don't have much to add to your comments, as you raise good questions that concern me as well. Since you ask for examples about councils that were held to be ecumenical but then were not ratified by Rome, I thought I'd also just mention the issue of the 28th canon of Chalcedon. This is the canon that was drafted by the Council of Chalcedon which attempted to move the See of Constantinople to the second place in the "pentarchy" after the See of Rome. The problem with the canon was that it read that "the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city," implying that the primacy of Rome was based only on the fact that it was originally the capital of the empire. The Pope ratified the Council of Chalcedon and 27 of its canons, but refused to ratify this 28th canon. Now, this remains a matter of controversy, but I believe that the history suggests (this can be found in Dvornik's Byzantium and the Roman Primacy) that the published canons of Chalcedon (at least those that were published immediately after the council) did not include this canon. It was not even included in the collection of Eastern Canon Law. Johannes Scholasticus (of Antioch) does not include it in his "Collection of fifty titles," nor does Gratian, in his later collections of canon law, include it (on these points, see Milton Anastos' Aspects of the Mind of Byzantium). However, it was eventually considered as imperial law by the Eastern emperor Justinian in the 6th century, and it was recognized as part of Byzantine Canon Law by the Council in Trullo in the 7th century -- but, as you've noted, Rome also doesn't accept the Council in Trullo. The Byzantines thereafter began acting as if it were a received canon, but Rome continued to refuse its recognition throughout pre-schism history.

Anyway, just thought I'd mention that.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Andrew,

Maybe this is the crux of our problem. I don't think that I'm saying that the Orthodox will have to say something like, "It's true for them but not true for us." Rather, the question of its truth will simply be held as not ecumenically settled. The Orthodox will not have to accept it as true dogma (I know that's a redundancy, but bear with me for the sake of discussion). The Roman church may believe it is true -- that is, the Orthodox will admit their belief is "legitimate" and, since it was declared by a Western council, to be believed by the Westerners with due reverence and "bindingness" -- but it is not established ecumenically as true and binding on the Orthodox. In other words, I think what's being proposed is an agreement to disagree, leaving this as something that is binding on Westerners due to their church's history, but not ecumenically binding on Orthodox. A later, truly ecumenical council would therefore be able to discuss the matter again.

Now, this is why I mentioned my concerns about the possibility of "deceptive language" (whether intentional or not). If this is not what all of the theologians, priests, cardinals, and pontiffs meant when they made their suggestions that the Western councils were lower than ecumenical councils, that they would not bind the Orthodox, and that the Orthodox would only have to accept them as "legitimate," then I don't know how to make sense out of what they're saying, and I'm more or less with you. I don't know what it would mean to say that the pope is truly infallible and yet not truly infallible somewhere else. But I don't think that's what's being said, as per my comments above. What's being said is that some people can believe that the Pope is infallible (and they can even collectively believe this as a local church and hold it as binding for their Western church) and therefore take it as true, and some people (the Orthodox) can believe that the pope is not infallible in the way these Westerners believe, while allowing that these Westerners may legitimately believe such things and even take them as locally binding. The question will be settled definitively for both parties only at a truly ecumenical council.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason