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

The question of the status of Western councils occurring after the schism comes up here quite often, so I thought I'd post these thoughts from Fr. Michael Fahey, SJ (Dean of Theology, University of St. Michael's College), which I just recently had the privilege of reading in his Orthodox and Catholic Sister Churches: East is West and West is East: He then adds a footnote in support of this notion: Just thought you all would be interested in this. If Fr. Fahey (who has done quite a bit of work in East-West relations, including collaboration with Orthodox Fr. John Meyendorff on a book about Trinitarian theology and also work at Rome's Pontifical Institute of Eastern Christian Studies), Yves Congar (quite possibly one of the most important Catholic scholars of the 20th century), and Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) aren't enough support for these notions, you may also check out:

(1) Msgr. Francis Dvornik's historical scholarship, including his article "Which Councils are Ecumenical?" (published in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies or available online -- although I'm having problems accessing it -- here [orthodoxchristianity.net] ) and his book, The Ecumenical Councils. In the latter book, in fact, he notes that there remains doubt even now about which councils are to be called "ecumenical," and notes that the post-schism Western councils were typically not even referred to (in the East or the West, even by the popes in their professions of faith) as "ecumenical" until approx. the 17th century (and the book has the imprimatur and the nihil obstat).

(2) Furthermore, there's always the fact that Pope Paul VI published an actum of the Apostolic See in 1974 (on the 700th anniversary of the Second Council of Lyons) and remarked, in his correspondence with Cardinal Jan Willebrands (Lugduni, in urbe Galliae nobilissima), that the Second Council of Lyons (1274) was the "sixth of the General Councils held in the West."

I mention all of this only because it's seemed that some people on this forum might regard the view that the post-schism Western councils are not ecumenically binding for Eastern Christians as an "off-the-wall" and innovative idea. On the contrary, as the above should make clear, it has the support of the larger part of history (i.e., pre-17th century history), of professors at Rome's Institute of Eastern Christian Studies, of doctors of theology and other scholars, of priests, of cardinals, of popes (even ones who headed the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith), and so on. I felt that this was worth mentioning.

Fire away.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

I don't think it's off the wall at all, I think it's just a matter of how it's presented. If it comes across as "It's Ecumenical, but its only binding on the Latins", that's a really odd thing to say. After all, how many of the issues addressed in the first Seven Ecumenical Councils really, truly had to do with issues that were ripping up the Latin Church?

On the other hand, if it's presented as "These Councils are Ecumenical, but never sought to deal with expressions or theological understandings of the East, and therefore are not intended as theological straight-jackets for them, but rather as Ecumenical guideposts for theological languages unique to the West", I think it not only makes perfect sense, but even reflects the true nature of Ecumenical Councils. Should the heresies of Protestantism ever pop up in a huge way in, say, Russia, the Council of Trent and subsequent Councils can certainly serve as an awesome weapon against it. Until then they remain universally applicable, but to problems specifically arising so far in the West.

The Dogma of the Immaculate Conception, though not from an Ecumenical Council, is already viewed this way by many Eastern Catholics. It's kind of a "non-issue", and it seems destined to remain that way. In a similar vein, Iconoclasm was originally not much of a problem in the West. Sure, it was banned at an Ecumenical Council, but what Latin bishop in Scotland was going to be spoon-feeding his flock the "cure for Iconoclasm"? Icono-what? Who cares, pops, the bog people are sacrificing our young again.

The problem with saying "It's only binding on the Latins" is that it generally comes across as "Easterners can go nuts with this stuff all they want, it's only Latins that are restrained", when I don't think that's what anyone really intends. Iconoclasm is equally forbidden East and West, but the tendency towards it was not prevalent in the West (at least not really until well into the Protestant movement, and even then that was outside of the Church) and therefore it really doesn't speak on the presence, or lack thereof, of statuary and iconography in Western churches.

We're equally bound by the Ecumenical pronouncement against Iconoclasm, its just a very loose bind given our build; no one is going through Latin Churches making sure they have the appropriate amount of statues/icons, and give them the proper veneration. Likewise, Easterners would find the bounds of Trent equally in force, but would not likely find them tight around their bodies, so to speak. We don't need Inquisitors roving through Greece, making sure that such-and-such a doctrine is professed "just so" in order to prevent the rampant Protestantization of Mt. Athos :p

Many of the Ecumenical doctrines from these Councils are perfectly sound, they just deal with issues that simply "aren't" in other parts of the Church. When Greeks speak in Augustinian terms about Mary, they'd better speak as expressed in Ineffabilis Deus to avoid slipping into heresy. Since the Patriarch of Constantinople is about as likely to use Augustinian theology to describe Original Sin as he is to move his See to Jupiter, I'd say it's hardly something that's gotta be beaten down in any union talks.

After all, this kind of thing already goes on in the Catholic Church. There are very clear boundaries of expression in Palamas' theology, and given the controversy that arised in Byzantium over it, they're there with good reason, but they're hardly pertinant to 99% of Latins. Although these intricacies aren't declared by an Ecumenical Council, they are definately understood in the Eastern Catholic Churches, and certainly could be proclaimed dogmatically if it ever came up. Any dogmatic proclaimations about how Palamite theology is to be expressed, however, could likely be safely ignored in most situations in the West, not because such teachings would be untrue or heterodox, but simply because they really wouldn't apply.

Interesting stuff, Ecce Jason!

Peace and God bless!

Hi again, Ghosty,

Thanks for the response. Just a few things to add/clarify:

You said: I agree that the first formulation you mention would be a problem, if not self-contradictory. The second one is somewhat better, but I still have worries about it because it seems to me that "Ecumenical" Councils, by their very nature (i.e., ecumenical = universal), address the whole Church and do not have a specificity to only East or West, even if its just in terms of language. By their nature they seem to address "universal" theology, for lack of a better expression. But this is largely a minor issue (though I will briefly address your concerns about iconoclasm).

The reason it's a minor issue is that I think the information I provided is saying something different than the things you're worried about/suggesting. It's not saying that the post-schism Western councils are "Ecumenical" Councils that deal with only Western (or Augustinian) issues, but rather that they are just not "Ecumenical" Councils at all. That's the point of Cardinal Yves Congar's insistence on a "hierarchy of councils;" truly "Ecumenical" Councils are at the top of that hierarchy, and post-schism Western councils are simpy not at that height -- this is why he contends that Orthodox who unite with Rome ought to not be asked to accept them as ecumenical but rather "only as legitimate general councils of the West." Apparently Ratzinger's ideas are similar; and this is the same language that was used by Paul VI. This is also the point of Fr. Dvornik's work showing that there is no established tradition of calling the Western councils "ecumenical;" in fact, the tradition is contrary to that. Finally, this is also the point of Fr. Fahey's work that the decisions of Western councils are just not binding (see his language) on Orthodox who reunite with Rome; it's not only that the expressions are not their's. Rather, the Orthodox will have to accept them as "legitimate," meaning that they are certainly not heretical and can even be binding on the West -- just like earlier local councils in the united Church -- but that they are not binding in any real sense on the Orthodox. For the Orthodox, they will be theologoumena rather than dogma.

Now, as for your additional concerns: No, you're right, that isn't what anyone tends. Fortunately, that's not what anyone says, nor is it what follows from the ideas I cited. All that's being said is that the Orthodox do not have to accept the post-schism Western definitions as dogma, but only as theologoumena. This doesn't mean the Easterners can go nuts -- quite the contrary. It means, for one thing, that the Easterns cannot oppose the Latin teachings as heresy, because they must accept them as "legitimate." Anything the Easterns do/say that implies that the Latins are heretics or opposes their doctrine, then, is forbidden. Furthermore, there remains the common tradition of the united, first millenium Church.

To further assuage your concerns, think of it this way: just because the Westerns are only bound by the papal definitions and councils that have occurred so far in time, does this mean that they can "just go nuts" about everything else? No, it doesn't. So, by parity of reasoning, just because the Easterns are bound by a few less councils, that doesn't mean that they can go nuts either. Don't worry about that.

Now, as for a few specifics. You said: No offense intended, of course, but this is just not quite historically accurate. There was iconoclasm in the West in both the 8th and 9th centuries: (1) based partly on misunderstanding and partly on genuine distrust of icon-veneration, Charlemagne and the Frankish bishops in the West convened a synod in 794 at Frankfort that rejected the 7th Ecumenical Council and condemned the Eastern empress Irene (they asked for the Pope's approval but of course didn't get it); (2) in 825, in Paris, bishops again met in a synod where they again rejected the 7th Ecumenical Council and decreed that images were acceptable "only as ornaments"; (3) in 824, the Bishop of Turin ran a campaign wherein he destroyed images and crucifixes and forbid veneration of the saints; etc., etc. This, by the way, is part of the reason that I disagree that any Ecumenical Council largely affected only the theology of either the East or the West.

Anyway, I think that's all for now.

Thanks again, and God bless,
Jason

Shlomo Ecce Jason,

I brought up this same point last week, even though no one commented on it. It is still valid. How are you in the Western Churches (which in this case is both the Latin and Byzantine Churches to us Middle Eastern Christians) going to reconcile the fact that only two (in the case of the pre-Ephesian Churches) or three (in the case of the pre-Chalcedonian Churches) are considered valid?

As you pointed out, most of the later councils did not pertain to any issue outside of the Byzantine Church. If they would be willing to state that those councils were General Councils, and that they apply only to the Churches that accept that doctrine then we could achieve full unity of all Apostolic Churches.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yuhannon,

The issue you present is a difficult one, and I am very unsure of my response right now. However, perhaps unfortunately (as far as union is concerned), I am initially a bit less inclined to say that the situation between the Chalcedonian Orthodox and the Roman Catholics that I've been discussing is analogous to the situation between the pre-Ephesian and pre-Chalcedonian churches versus the Chalcedonian Orthodox and Roman Catholics. I'll explain why by mentioning some brief points of disanalogy.

(1) The Western councils of the Roman Catholic Church, with perhaps the exception of the Council of Florence (which, by the way, was one of the only Western councils that was referred to as the "Eigth Ecumenical Council" by Easterners at one point in history), were explicitly called with only Western (Latin) bishops present. The Orthodox were simply not involved at all, nor even invited in most cases. This is not the case with either Ephesus or Chalcedon (or even with the 5th and 6th councils, as far as I am aware).

(2) As the historical work of Fr. Francis Dvornik shows, the Westerners often did not self-consciously refer to their councils as "ecumenical." As my citations show, many (even those in authority) still do not. The tradition of doing so only arose in the 17th century. Again, this is not the case with either Ephesus or Chalcedon or the other councils of the "seven."

(3) Historically, the Orthodox not involved in the Western councils were generally viewed as "schismatics" at most, rather than as out-and-out heretics. I'm not quite sure this was historically the case (regardless of present attempts at reconciliation) with either the non-Ephesians or non-Chalcedonians.

(4) The early seven ecumenical councils were either attended by or received by some representative of the ancient "pentarchy" of churches. This is not the case with the Western councils. (Even if you want to claim that those representatives of the "pentarchy" at the seven councils were not the true ones, the fact is that they did at least have apostolic succession and did represent large Christian patriarchates in the East and the West.)

(5) Historically, the rejection of the later councils of the "seven" by the non-Ephesians and non-Chalcedonians involved accusations that the later councils were heretical (i.e., some claimed that they rejected St. Cyril's theology, and so on). This is not the case with at least the early Western councils. Hence the reason that Nicetas the Greek, with regard to the Western councils, could still say: "When, prompted by circumstance, the Roman church gathers in council with its western bishops, without our presence, it is right that its bishops accept and observe the decrees with due veneration . . . But as for us, although we are not divided in our faith from the Roman church, how can we, since at present we celebrate no councils with it, accept its decrees, which are written without our knowledge or participation?" This language suggests exactly what I'm saying: that the Orthodox can regard the councils as legitimate but not ecumenically binding. The non-Ephesians and non-Chalcedonians, at least historically, believed (as far as I know) that the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon were not legitimate in any way and in fact were heretical. They thought that the Chalcedonians were divided in faith. That's another difference.

So, anyway, obviously I'm a bit less open to the proposal regarding the Seven Ecumenical Councils, but not without reason. I'm inclined to state something like the following: a council is ecumenical if it (1) addresses a matter of dogma, (2) is attended by or accepted by representatives of the historical "pentarchy" in communion with Rome, (3) is ratified by Rome, and so on. The Seven Ecumenical Councils meet these criteria while the latter Western councils do not.

Forgive me. I have a feeling that you will disagree, but please understand that I do not say this to be polemical or non-ecumenical; this is simply the point at which I stand right now.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Shlomo Ecce Jason,

Just an FYI, when talking about the entire Catholic Church do not use the term "Roman Catholic Church, since it is insulting to and marginalizing to Eastern Catholics.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Shlomo Ecce Jason,

Actually, if you look at the writings of both the non-Ephesian and non-Chalcedonians you will see that there really is no theological difference. The only difference is in terminology.

I would recommend getting the pamplet the One Church and the Communion of Churches which explains the divisions in a non judgemental way.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yuhannon,

Forgive me if I caused offense by misspeaking. I'm quite aware of the fact that the entire Catholic Church is not just the "Roman Catholic Church," as I attend an Eastern Catholic church myself; nor did I mean to imply that I thought the Catholic Church was just the Roman Catholic Church. As I re-read my post I see that I did possibly phrase things misleadingly, but I would only like to suggest that I continued using the phrase "Roman Catholic" rather than "Catholic" in an attempt to make it clear that I was referring to the church which held the Western councils (i.e., the Roman church). My attempt may have caused me to phrase things somewhat inappropriately, but my intentions were good. Sorry about that.

I agree that that is true, at least today. I am not so sure that it is true historically, however; often people insist that it was, but the matter is still an issue of controversy. I am inclined to think that at one point there were real theological differences, perhaps not so much at Chalcedon, but definitely later, during the monothelete controversy. Many scholarly works do seem to bear this out (one that I always recommend but that is very hard to get is Free Choice in Saint Maximus the Confessor by Joseph Farrell).

On the other hand, if there is no theological difference, then why not accept the ecumenicity of the council? This is another difference between the situation between the Chalcedonian Orthodox and Catholic Churches and the situation between non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians (both Orthodox and Catholic). In the situation of the Catholic Western councils and the Orthodox, there is some theological difference; the point is only that the essential dogma is not different, but there is a (respectable and legitimate) difference in theologoumena. In the situation of the non-Chalcedonians and Chalcedonians, there is neither a difference of dogma nor of theologoumena, but only of terminology. So there is therefore additional reason to say that the latter situation is different. Why not translate the decrees of the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon into acceptable language and then accept them? I don't mean offense by suggesting that, I only mean to say that it seems to me that the difference in the situation calls for this difference in response.

I'd also like to note again, just for clarity's sake, that the above consideration is not the only one I gave for why I think the situations are different.

In any case, thanks very much for your response and also for the recommendation of that pamphlet -- I will read it as soon as I can (hopefully tonight, as I've located it online). And again, please forgive me for any offense.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Shlomo Ecce Jason,

The reason not to accept the councils would be the same as why the Eastern Orthodox Church would not accept the Western Councils; they were not there.

Also, as they point out, the issues brought up at the later councils never affected there Churches so why should they have Ecumenical standing within their Churches?

Further, what needs to be done for unity is for an Ecumenical Council to be called and have all the Churches have an equal number of bishops so that when a decission is made then no side will feel over powered by the others.

Poosh BaShlomo,
Yuhannon

Yuhannon,

I've already mentioned what I think are some relevant disanalogies here. First, Nestorius was at Ephesus and Dioscorus was at Chalcedon. There was participation at these councils. Second, there was representation of and/or acceptance by the "pentarchy" at the seven councils, but not at the Western councils (possibly excepting Florence). Third, the Western councils were not historically regarded as ecumenical by Westerners or Easterners; this is not the case with the seven councils. Fourth, the vast majority of the Western councils were for only Latin bishops; the seven councils were for bishops of the world. Fifth, regarding the Western councils, the current position is to allow that their decisions are legitimate theologoumena but not ecumenical dogma; are we going to allow that the following are not dogma: (1) Christ was fully divine and fully human, without confusion, composition, or change; (2) Christ has both a divine and a human will, for what was not assumed was not saved; (3) the veneration of icons, saints, and so on, is valid because at the Incarnation the divine Logos (Christ) took on humanity and deified it? Those do not seem to me to be things of which we can just say, "They are legitimate theologoumena, but not necessarily dogma." This seems manifestly different, at least to me, than when it comes to ideas such as the definition of the Immaculate Conception or the understanding of what it means for the Holy Spirit to proceed from the Father through the Son.

So, the reasoning goes far beyond a simple "we weren't there." If "we weren't there" alone is a valid reason, then the Second Ecumenical Council also possibly comes into question, as it was originally held as a local council and did not have the participation of all the bishops. It doesn't seem to me that it's a stretch, if we allow that principle, to just end up declaring that there were no ecumenical councils at all (God forbid), for there was always somebody who wasn't at a council or could claim they weren't represented. This is perhaps the basis of my fears; if you can assuage them somehow, I would be overjoyed.

It seems to me that, historically, the accepted conditions for an ecumenical council have been at least: (1) participation and/or acceptance by the "pentarchy" (or, prior to the pentarchy, by the "big three" of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria), and (2) ratification by Rome. Those conditions were met with regard to the seven councils. The only potential way I can see for a non-Chalcedonian to claim that those conditions were not met is to claim that the representatives of the pentarchy were not the valid representatives of the pentarchy. But why would they claim this? Were they heretics? (Obviously, if there really was no theological difference but just a difference in terminology, the answer has to be no.) So, again, it seems the best option for safeguarding the universal faith is to accept that these seven councils were indeed ecumenical, and then allow the non-Chalcedonians to use their own terminology as long as the theology is the same.

I agree with you that an ecumenical council involving an equal number of bishops from the churches would do quite a bit toward unity; so we're of one heart there, at least.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

Interesting views.

Jason and Yuhannon, thank you both for your insights. This thread is helping me continue to open my eyes to re-examine many of my preconcieved beliefs. It is a good thing.

Michael

Ecce Jason: Thank you for your corrections and clarifications.

I do, however, think that the Council of Chalcedon espescially is a hang-up in the theory you're presenting, as it's the Council that serves as the precident for the later Western view.

Patriarch Dioscuros was indeed present, but not as an active representative. When he tried initially to claim he was acting as Patriarchal representative of Alexandria, there was quite an uproar and he was told that, since he was a schismatic, he could only hold the place of a person on trial. He was not allowed to take his seat, and was escorted out, only to be brought in as needed for the purposes of trial. Dioscuros was not yet considered a heretic at all, but rather was being tried for his work on the "Robber Council". Dioscuros was present, but as a person on trial for schism.

The problem that arises is this: if you say he was removed because he was schismatic for running the "Robber Council", you've negated at least a major point of your argument, since a schismatic Patriarch should still be required to ratify a Council. He was not present, however, acting in any capacity as Patriarch, nor was anyone yet acting in the capacity of Patriarch of Alexandria. If you argue that it's because he was a heretic, the only authority that had spoken officially as proclaiming Monophytism to be heresy was Pope Leo I (Tome of St. Leo, which was written before the "Robber Council" and rejected by it), giving the Pope the authority to make such proclaimations unilaterally. The "Robber Council" had actually professed Monophytism to be orthodox, and was attended by representatives of the whole Pentarchy and supported by the Emperor.

Patriarch Dioscuros was not present at the Council only to reject it later, he was there to be tried for his crimes and possible heresy. It is on these very grounds that the Oriental Orthodox have refused to acknowledge all subsequent "Ecumenical" Councils, even those proclaimed by the Eastern Orthodox. Since Dioscuros was not permitted to act as Patriarch, and was not given the right to represent the Church of Alexandria, and the Council seemed to proclaim a faith foreign to the Fathers, Chalcedon was a "robber council" in their eyes. After Dioscuros was illegally replaced by a Byzantine Patriarch a year later, the rightful Patriarch of Alexandria (the Coptic one) was never invited to the later Councils and therefore they are illegitimate as well.

You can see in their argument a perfect mirror of the one you are proposing, but one that is actually much more solid since it rejects such Councils from the very first of its kind, rather than four later.

Most interesting is the fact that Dioscuros was deposed without immediate replacement on the basis of prior schismatic activity. There was no effort to get a new Patriarch of Alexandria in to ratify the Council. The seat remained vacant throughout, and wasn't filled for at least another year. Another point of interest is that it was Pope Leo's letter that was used as the basis of orthodoxy, over the decisions of the previous "robber" Council that had been attended by all Patriarchs/representatives. In fact, this Tome of St. Leo is still upheld today by the Byzantines, Catholic and Orthodox, as the litmus test for orthodox belief on Christ's nature.

In short, the reason that the Oriental Orthodox do not accept the Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Eastern Orthodox is exactly the same reason, albeit more consistantly applied I think, as the Eastern Orthodox say they don't accept the later Western Councils. There was no representative for the Alexandrian Patriarchate at the Council of Chalcedon, because the rest of the Church considered Dioscuros deposed until proven innocent (he wasn't found to be innocent), and no attmepts were made to give the Patriarchate representation.

The reason that the Catholic Church developed its understanding about "what makes an Ecumenical Council" is precisely because of this particular issue of Patriarchal representatives. The Catholic solution, of Ecumenical Councils being those ratified by the Papacy as representing the faith for the whole Church, is the only real solution to the "Chalcedonian Problem" I'm aware of. Any new proposals have to carefully navigate the Council of Chalcedon espescially, and to a lesser extent the Council of Ephesus, if the Seven Ecumenical Councils are going to stand intact at all.

If you're interested, Ecce Jason, I can put you in contact with a rather scholarly Copt who has joined the Coptic Catholic Church from the Coptic Orthodox Church, and has done a lot of research on this very issue, specifically the Council of Chalcedon. He doesn't seem to believe that there can be anything in between the Catholic Church's current stance, and that of the Oriental Orthodox, but he might be able to give you a lot of info on the subject, espescially since he comes from the Oriental Orthodox perspective.

Peace and God bless!

Ghosty,

I'll have to write this quick, as there's church in the morning.

First, to be clear again, there are manifold differences between the early ecumenical councils (including Chalcedon) and the Western councils of the Roman church. Without going over the details again, some of them are: (1) the early councils were self-consciously ecumenical or were shortly regarded as such, but this does not seem to be the case with at least the early Western councils (they wanted to call Florence the 8th, after all); (2) the early councils were attended by or received by some representative of each of the pentarchical patriarchates (whether you end up considering these representatives the valid ones or not), while the Western councils simply were not; (3) the history of at least the early Western councils shows Orthodox willing to regard them as fine for the Latins but not binding on the Easterns, whereas the history of Chalcedon and the early councils does not show the dissenters regarding them as "fine but not binding" but rather as heretical and betrayals of Orthodoxy; (4) with regard to the Western councils, it is now acknowledged that they do express different (but legitimate) theological opinions -- which is apparently part of why both sides aren't being required to accept them -- but with regard to the early councils it is maintained that there are "no theological differences" but only differences in terminology (so the same reason for not accepting them just isn't there); (5) a majority of the Western councils were explicitly called for only Western (Latin) bishops, but this is not the case with the early ecumenical councils. And so on and so on. My points don't rest on any single one of these considerations.

Now, on to the other concerns. Regarding Dioscorus at Chalcedon, you say: I don't hold that a schismatic patriarch should be required to ratify a council. My position has been a bit more nuanced. My position has only been that some intended representative of the pentarchical patriarchates must receive or be represented at the council for it to be ecumenical. This is the case for Chalcedon even if you think that the eventual Alexandrine patriarch was invalid. There was an intended representation of all patriarchates. This is, as far as I know, not the case for the Western councils (except possibly Florence).

Yes, but it was not ultimately received. In fact, from what I understand, the papal legates left early because they feared for their safety, as did many of the attendants, and there are reports of physical violence and coercion regarding those who did attend. But, even so, the major point is that it was not ultimately received.

I'm not quite sure why you say Dioscorus was illegally replaced here, or that his successor was the rightful patriarch. After Chalcedon, Dioscorus had indeed been deposed, and this by all of the other patriarchs in unison. When the entire remainder of the pentarchy gets together and deposes you, that's just about the strongest case you can make for a legitimate deposition.

The following are not major points, but I'll mention them anyway: regarding Dioscorus at the council itself, from what I understand he was not allowed to sit as a bishop by the joint actions of the papal legates, the imperial representatives, and Eusebius and others who accused him of heresy (not just the Pope as you seem to suggest). Still, the entire Acts of his "Robber Synod" were read, so his actions and words there seem to have spoken for him in some sense. Also, part of the reason that he was deposed, from what I understand, is that he refused to answer the charges against him... So it seems he at least was given the opportunity. Furthermore, Dioscorus had excommunicated the Pope, and yet the other bishops remained in union with the Pope, so why would Dioscorus be allowed to sit with bishops that he had ipso facto virtually excommunicated (or at least had declared, by his actions, to be in communion with a schismatic or heretic) anyway? But anyway, like I said, these don't seem to be essential to my points.

Not yet I don't. I've mentioned many differences I see between my position and theirs above.

Actually, St. Cyril of Alexandria's work functioned more as the "basis of orthodoxy" than Leo's letter. If you read the Acts of the council, it's clear that the bishops read Leo's letter, had some concerns about it, and asked for some time to compare it to Cyril's theology first to make sure it was acceptable. They recessed and then after assuring themselves that the Pope's letter was a suitable declaration, declared that it was the faith of the Church and so on.

And again, the "Robber Synod" had not ultimately been received into the mind of the Church by the patriarchs. Some of their representatives may have been present, but that hasn't been all I've been suggesting as necessary.

I disagree.

Suppose we accept that, then. The history shows that the Popes did not represent the Western councils at least until Florence as ecumenical, so they weren't necessarily "representing the faith for the whole Church" at the Western councils. Pope Paul VI also suggested this. Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Benedict XVI) has suggested something like this. Cardinals, priests, and professors have suggested this. The same is not the case regarding the early ecumenical councils, including those after Chalcedon.

In any case, I agree that the ratification of the Pope is also necessary. But for that ratification to be ecumenical the council has to attempt to involve the pentarchy, too.

Sure, that'd be nice! Thanks. I have a few Coptic Orthodox friends myself, and actually (believe it or not) flirted with Coptic Orthodoxy for a while. Your friend's name wouldn't be Mike, by any chance, would it? (That'd be a weird coincidence.)

In any case, hopefully I addressed everything semi-coherently, but as it stands, I've got to go to bed.

Thanks, and God bless,
Jason

The Patriarchate of Alexandria was not represented at all at the Council of Chalcedon. The few Egyptian bishops who attended refused to recognize the Council, and the Patriarchate was considered empty by the rest of the Church before the convening of the Council.

Neither was the Council of Chalcedon. The Alexandrian Church never "received" it, only the "puppet" Byzantine Patriarch, who was never supported by the Coptic Alexandrians, "received" it. If you want to use that as an out, remember that the Latin Church also had such Patriarchs for the schismatic Sees during the dogmatic Ecumenical Councils during the Schism; the Latin Patriarchates of the Eastern Sees weren't abolished until 1964, and the Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem still stands today. Every Ecumenical Council, therefore, has been received by a Patriarch of the Pentarchy, even the post-Schism ones.

The only way to dodge this is to somehow say that the Byzantine Alexandrian Patriarch was the "real" Alexandrian Patriarch, but the later Latin one wasn't. That's not gonna float with the Copts, I'm certain.

I was speaking from the Oriental Orthodox perspective.

Regardless, Dioscuros was deposed before his trial. He was not allowed to take his Patriarchal Seat on the grounds that he was not the rightful Patriarch. It was a case of "guilty until proven innocent", which was the law of the land at the time. His trial at the Council failed to exonerate him, so his deposition stood.

Incidently, he was initially recognized as deposed on the authority of the Papal Legate, Paschanius, who was presiding at that Council. Dioscuros arrived, thinking it was going to be a typical Ecumenical Council, and the Legate basically said "No, not you, your trial is later," and he wasn't allowed to take his seat at all. He arrived as a criminal already, a schismatic, and would be given the chance to defend himself or recant later. He did neither, and his deposition was upheld by the Council, which was indeed ratified as you suggest, but only after the initial deposition.

The Byzantines didn't bat an eye at this, but rather enthusiastically supported the move. They didn't want to see Dioscuros, who's "robber council" had deposed their Patriarch, given any leeway. As a result, the Council of Chalcedon never convened with representation of the Patriarch of Alexandria, as the other Egyptian Bishops present threw their lot in with Dioscuros. Again, no effort whatsoever was made to make sure that the Patriarchate of Alexandria was being represented, or that their utter rejection of the Council from the word go was taken into consideration. It was understood as a given that they'd lost their right to speak due to the schism they had engaged in, and this proclaimation was issued by the Papal Legate at the very opening of the Council.

That's why his deposition was upheld, not why he was deposed. He was deposed before the Council even began, as can be seen by the fact that he was never allowed to take his Seat, and never allowed a vote in the proceedings. It wasn't a matter of him being allowed to sit with the other bishops, it was a matter of him being treated as any kind of Alexandrian representative.

In contrast look at the deposition of St. Theodoret (who had been deposed by the "robber council"), which was rescinded during the Council after he denounced Nestorianism, but upheld at the beginning. Even though he had been anathemized and deposed by Dioscuros as well, his deposition was upheld until he was cleared of the (false) charges against him. Upon denouncing Nestorianism, which is what he had been accused of by Dioscuros, he was allowed a vote in the Council.

It's Cyril's theology that is cited as the reason for rejecting the Council of Chalcedon, by the Oriental Orthodox. Cyril's theology can cut either way; it was Pope Leo's interpretation, as presented in the Tome, that was accepted. This is why the Tome of St. Leo is upheld in the Canons of Chalcedon as the authentic representation of the theology.

To this day the Oriental Orthodox insist that they were merely upholding the teachings of St. Cyril, and have cited his work against the Tome of St. Leo. The question was how to read Cyril's work, not if Cyril was orthodox. It was Leo's understanding that was proclaimed as the universal, orthodox teaching on it. Both sides used the same teacher, only one side's view was considered correct.

Yes, that's another question indeed. Can a Council that is not understood as being Ecumenical at the time it's convened be called Ecumenical? That is a question that would have to be deeply explored, as I'm not aware of any official, binding Church ruling in that regard. If any progress in the direction you're proposing is going to be made, I think it will be at this angle.

There is one hang-up, though, which is that the two Councils that most annoy the Eastern Orthodox, Lyons II and espescially Florence, have a heavy claim to the position of Ecumenical, as they were indeed attempting to reunite the Church, and were understood as such from the get go. Kinda funny, actually :p

Then you're back at square one, because one fifth of the Pentarchy was not consulted in the Council of Chalcedon, and was considered outside of the voting process before the Council began. The trial was to see if the Patriarchate of Alexandria would even be allowed to be Patriarch again, not to see if he should be removed. Plus, the Pentarchy was represented in "Latin form" (which Oriental Orthodox would say is just as good/bad as the "Byzantine form") at all the Councils from the Fourth Lateran on to Vatican II. The only Councils that didn't have such representation were the First through Third Lateran Councils, which made no declarations of Dogma that I can recall off-hand.

Remember, just because the Eastern Orthodox don't recognize the Latin Pentarchy doesn't automatically invalidate its claims. If it does, then it also invalidates the Pentarchal claims of four of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, and we're left with the "Union of the Three Ecumenical Councils"

I'll see if I can get a hold of my Oriental Orthodox friends. Together we can solve this Schism yet!

Peace and God bless!