www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West How many councils

How many Ecumenical Councils have there been? 3? 7? 8? 21? More importantly, what is your reasoning for your answer?

Is there room for debate over the number of Ecumenical Councils (from a Catholic's perspective)?

Jason

How many Ecumenical Councils have there been?

My Latin Rite friends think that any council in which the Latin Rite was involved was, consequently, Ecumenical. The Orthodox seem to disagree because they were not involved after the first seven, thus preventing them from being Ecumenical.

More importantly, what is your reasoning for your answer?

You are looking for reason on this board? Please - go lie down for awhile and you will feel better. LOL. This is probably too emotional an issue for reason to prevail. Discussions I have seen on this point usually were a bit hysterical.

Is there room for debate over the number of Ecumenical Councils (from a Catholic's perspective)?

Now that, I don't know. I don't know if the Byzantine Church has an official position on this. It may have, I just haven't seen it in print.

Charles

After a good night's sleep I have come to my senses. I withdraw the question.

Jason

Dear Friends,

I think there is a lot of reason on this board, most of which I'm not at all responsible for .

When the question was put to him, our Byzantine Catholic guru, Anthony Dragani said, as a member of EWTN, that there are 21 Ecumenical Councils that all Catholics accept, even EC's.

But to paraphrase St Thomas More, the matter is capable of question . . .

There is no doubt that the 14 Councils of the Roman Church following the Seven Ecumenical Councils are not "Universal" as the first seven were.

The East and West had, by then, fully parted their ways and the East did not have representatives on the Latin Councils.

Now, the Councils of Lyons and Florence did indeed have Eastern bishops present at them.

We know that those Greeks that accepted union with Rome did indeed consider those two Councils as "Ecumenical" and therefore binding on the Eastern Catholics of the day. But they seemed not to ever have considered other Latin Councils as anything more than "local."

The Eastern Catholics of the Union of Brest (or, as they called themselves, "Orthodox in union with Rome") based their union agreement with Rome on the foundation of the Council of Florence, although there was never any tacit affirmation or acknowledgement by them of Florence being an "Ecumenical Council." This came later in the 19th century.

As Byzantine Catholics or "Orthodox in communion with Rome" recover more fully their heritage today, they have come to realize that the fullness of Catholic faith and practice from within their Particular spiritual heritage is to be found completely in the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

New dogmas expounded by the later Latin Councils have been given us via the Pope as universal Teacher. And apart from the papal doctrines, there is nothing contained in the later 14 local Councils that we don't already believe.

While this has yet to be affirmed by Rome, there is no doubt but that Eastern Orthodoxy will not accept the later 14 councils of the Latin CHurch as anything but "local." Orthodoxy too has its local councils, nothing is wrong.

And Oriental Orthodoxy is telling Byzantine Orthodoxy that the later four Ecumenical Councils don't teach them anything they didn't already believe and were, in fact, meant to address internal conflicts of faith of the "Western" Church ie. Roman/Byzantine and, in the case of the Seventh Council, the conflict within the Byzantine Orthodox world alone, although Rome was also involved in that one.

I think we EC's of the Byzantine tradition have something to offer Rome in developing our view of the Seven Ecumenical Councils as normative for both Rome and Constantinople with everything that occurred later as "Local Councils" of the respective Churches.

The great Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff (+memory eternal!) discussed how a special union council between Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy could get together and declare the (second) council that restored St Photius as the "8th Council" and itself as the "9th" council.

There are Orthodox who believe there are nine councils already, if one factors in the "Hesychast Councils."

One problem with Meyendorff's approach, as some have said, is that the so-called 8th Council was never considered as such by the participants at the time - it was merely called to restore peace and to confirm St Photius. Furthermore, it lacked one important characteristic of an Ecumenical Council, namely, to define and defend a doctrine or dogma of the Church that had come under attack.

I'm happy we have professional theologians that are paid to think about these things all day . . .

God bless,

Alex

Hello Alex,

By this definition alone, how does the Second Vatican Council meet the standard. I do not remember any dogmatic/doctrinal results of the council.

Please help me with this.

In Christ,
Michael

Dear Michael,

That's why we would regard it as a Local Latin Council (LLC)!

Patriarch Josef did speak at the Council in favour of married priests.

But as they didn't listen to him . . .

Alex

Jason's question is reasonable and there is no need to withdraw it. The list of Ecumenical Councils presently used by Rome is not official and has no particular standing, so the matter is certainly open to discussion. So is the definition of an Ecumenical Council.
Incognitus

A Modest Proposal:

Hows about you all joining the Oriental Orthodox and recognize three Councils as Ecumenical. We could all agree to this in honor of the All Holy Trinity. How could anyone refuse an offer like that?

If anyone's interested in some background on the Council of Chalcedon from the Oriental Orthodox perspective, I have a page devoted to this and to recent ecumenical progress between our two ancient, historic Churches.

The Council of Chalcedon
http://www.geocities.com/derghazar/chalcedon.html

Trusting in the Holy Spirit's Illumination,
Wm. Ghazar Der-Ghazarian

You have my support!

Oύτις ημιν φιλει ου φροντίδα | Nemo nos diliget non curamus

Ghazar's proposal is interesting. But where would that leave the Assyrian Apostolic Catholic Church of the East?
Incognitus

Its no problem, really. They believe in the Trinity too.

Dear Ghazar,

With respect to the Oriental and Eastern Orthodox Churches, if it should ever come to pass that the Miaphysites can agree that Chalcedon was not heretical, but affirmed Orthodox doctrine, then that would be good!

In a reunited "One, Holy, Orthodox-Catholic and Apostolic Church" as the Commission stated, the Miaphysites could continue to liturgically commemorate the Three Councils alone.

They could, without doing violence to their traditions, acknowledge the other four as Orthodox and leave it at that.

Alex

Dear Orthodox Catholic
Brother Alexander,

Actually from what I have read of my own Church's understanding, it was the choice of words used in Pope Leon's definition that were questionable, whereas we all agree on the basic Orthodox teaching that Christ was true God and true man. We just were unhappy with the way it was defined. If there weren't so many political factors in that day, perhaps all sides would've listened to one another and worked out a definition together without one side pontificating to the other.

I'm thankful to God that these things now can be discussed by our leaders in productive ways. What is needed now, in my humble opinion, is not so much a recognition of the other Councils but a joint statement on Christology which all sides can find acceptable. In so doing we would be thus completing the restoration of communion based on a common confession on Christolgy, which the earlier councils sought to accomplish.

Weren't even the current seven Ecumenical Councils of the "Chalcedonians" not ALWAYS regarded as ecumenical (this implies that even the first three were not ALWAYS regarded as ecumenical)? If that is the case, there is certainly room for discussion here.
The only problems I can foresee in such future discussions is Vatican Council I. But I guess one can consider that even NOW, the primary dogmatic decree of that Council is being open to discussion (not in its decree as such, but in its interpretation). If ever there was rapprochement on the issue of papal primacy and infallibility, then the problem should be solved. With regards to the issue of jurisdiction, I believe this is a canonical issue, and as I recall, Rome refused a particular canon of the Second ecumenical Council and the fourth ecumenical Council, yet this did not break communion.

Blessings,
Marduk

Brother Ghazar,

The OO and the EO already have a common Christological accord. The EO and the CC already have a common Christological accord. The OO and the CC already have a common Christological accord. Are you saying that what we need is a Christological statement signed by all three parties TOGETHER?

Blessings,
Marduk