www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West Ecumenical Councils under the Pope?

"And, Stuart, although the historical facts are interesting (and known very well to Ghosty, I'm sure), I don't see how they directly address Ghosty's point. Could you clarify? Regardless of circumstances, it still seems large portions of the Church rejected the Ecumenical Councils."

There are very different forms of "rejection". What was rejected, in the cases of Ephesus and Chalcedon, was not the substance of the Christological doctrine those councils professed, but the manner in which that doctrine was expressed. Due to unfortunate combinations of personalities at the time, and the superheated, polemical atmosphere, the fundamental agreement of all sides was lost amidst the noise. The "Nestorians", the "Monophysites" and the "Chalcedonians" in fact all believed the same things about Jesus Christ, but refused to accept the legitimacy of how each group expressed it.

This is very different from other Councils, where there was fundamental disagreement about the doctrines being taught. Thus, e.g., the Orthodox fundamentally rejected the definition of the Filioque as it was professed by the Council of Florence (and it is interesting that the Church of Rome has also stepped back from that particular expression of doctrine, too), just as they rejected the definition of papal primacy expressed at the First Vatican Council.

Put in simple terms, the "rejection" of Ephesus and Chalcedon is akin to the rejection of equivalent mathematical expressions; i.e., 2+2 = 4, 1+3 =4, 4+ 0 =4, etc. All sides agree the answer is "4", but disagree on how to get there. On the other hand, the disagreements over the issues at Lyons II, Florence, Vatican I, etc., are disagreements about the answers themselves, with one side saying 2 + 2 = 4, the other saying, "No, it equals 5 (or 3, or 7, or whatever)". In the first case, we have a terminological disagreement, in the latter we have a substantive one.

As I noted, for all intents and purposes, the substance of both Ephesus and Chalcedon has been accepted by the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Church of the East, The process of reception is not a matter of bishops gathered in synod and saying, "Yes, we accept the acts and doctrines of this council"; it consists of the Church assimilating the teachings of a council into its Tradition, whether using the terminology of the council or not. Therefore, the process of reception, being organic, is not dependent on any formal acknowledgment of the result.

Dear brother StuartK,

It would seem this is not a specific example, but your only example. In that regard, can you please give some proof for this assertion? I've never heard that Pope St. Leo did not accept the teaching of Chalcedon until 50 years later.

Blessings

"It would seem this is not a specific example, but your only example. In that regard, can you please give some proof for this assertion? I've never heard that Pope St. Leo did not accept the teaching of Chalcedon until 50 years later."

I misspoke above. I meant to say "Cappodocian theology", as expounded by the Council of Constantinople (381), which was not in fact accepted by Rome until the Council of Ephesus (431)--a lapse of fifty years.

Leo did accept the Christological teachings of Chalcedon, though he was seriously miffed that the Council had the temerity to debate and amend the Tome, rather than accepting as written. He also rejected the famous Canon 28, that elevated Constantinople to equal in precedence to the Church of Rome.

Other councils which Rome did not "receive" immediately include the Quinisextunct Council in Trullo (though eventually its canons were incorporated into lists of canons maintained by Rome) and the Second Council of Nicaea (whose Christological rationale for sacred images was never received by Rome, according to Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger).

Rome has also been ambivalent about several later councils, accepting then rejecting, then accepting the Anti-Photian council of 869-870; accepting then rejecting the Photian Council of 879-880; accepting then rejecting the doctrine of conciliarity in the Council of Constance; and accepting then rejecting entirely the Council of Basle.

Stuart,

Thank you for your clarification. Permit me to be stubborn, will you...?

I can grant that there are very different forms of rejection, as you say. And you say that what the Orientals and Assyrians rejected were not the "contents" of the councils, per se, but merely their verbal vehicles. And although it is common nowadays to presume that it was just all semantic misunderstandings, I don't think that's been proven, but I'm willing to accept it since I don't believe it invalidates my point (see below).

Ok, so they rejected the way in which the contents were expressed, and not the contents themselves. But, if that's the case, then the fact remains that the Orientals and Assyrians rejected a valid verbal formulation of valid ecumenical councils. Just because it was not written in the language or theological vocabulary to which they were accustomed, does not mean that the way in which the contents were expressed were invalid - or worthy of being rejected. So maybe the OOs and Assyrians rejected orthodox dogma expressed in an orthodox way because they didn't understand it... but it was still rejected.

So maybe there is no difference in Christological belief, but it seems there is a difference about whether or not an ecumenical council can err. And anyway that's the Eastern Orthodox response to Oriental Orthodoxy that I've heard: "They're outside the Church because they reject that the Church is infallible by way of her ecumenical councils."

But the OOs don't accept the Fourth Ecumenical Council as being ecumenical, which leads us back to the question of how one determines what is and isn't an ecumenical council.

Alexis

And Alexis, this, I believe, is not something that can be objectively determined. In fact, the latest Ravenna document essentially says this. There are no sure signs of an Ecumenical council. It is simply the fact that some have been received and some have not that makes them ecumenical.

Joe

So, Joe, since very large segments of the Church did not accept the Third and Fourth Ecumenical Councils, why are they ecumenical?

Alexis

It depends on who you ask!

Joe

I'm asking you.

Alexis

Truth is its own criterion - and the standard for accepting an ecumenical council is that it teaches the truth, not that it is received by such-and-such a percentage. The iconoclast Council of Hieria had an impressive attendance, but we do not accept it today because its teaching is not Orthodox.

Fr. Serge

Then if today's Oriental Orthodox accept that the disagreements about the Third and Fourth E.C. were largely just misunderstandings, then why do they not accept them as ecumenical?

Sorry for all the nagging questions, but someone has to ask.

Alexis

Forgive me for being so forward, but isn't just a matter of begging the question? If truth is its own criterion then there is really no reason for an Ecumenical Council in the first place. We must simply follow what is true, simple as that. If Ecumenical Councils must play a role in the proper determination of truth, as the Church seems to have held over the millenia, then we can't simply say "they're Ecumenical because they're True". The Council of Chalcedon was unimportant, because all people really did was follow the Orthodox faith that they already had, not the Council per se. Same with all the others, regardless of how many we believe there have been.

On top of all of that, we're still left with the question of how a Council can be said to be Ecumenical. I disagree with StuartK's assertion, because the Oriental Orthodox still haven't signed off on Chalcedon so we can't argue that it was accepted "rather late indeed". Even if they did sign off on it tomorrow we'd still be left with the fact that we are wrong to call it Ecumenical now. Also, what if a Council is initially accepted, but later rejected?

There must be a determining factor that goes beyond "they taught the Truth" and "all the Patriarchates received it" if Ecumenical Councils are to have any solidity. As problematic as the "Papal acceptance" solution is (and, just to be clear, I don't accept this solution in its most basic "the Pope called it Ecumenical, so it is" form) it at least provides a clear criteria for determining the difference between an Ecumenical Council and a Robber Council.

Peace and God bless!

One way or another, it comes to the same thing. If a "Council" does not conform to the Faith once delivered to the Saints, it is not an ecumenical council in the evaluation of the Church, no matter who or how many may think otherwise.

This does not make Ecumenical Councils a worthless activity. Presumably such a Council is not called unless there are matters to be decided and problems to be resolved, which require an orthodox exercise of the catholic consciousness of the Church.

Fr. Serge

And when one group says the Council does conform, and another says it doesn't (i.e. Chalcedon, Ephesus, Florence, ect) then how are we to make a determination? If a Council can't actually resolve such a dispute then all it does is serve to highlight the differences between two possible orthodox interpretations, but not settle any disputes. Chalcedon, for example, shows us that one group believes this, the other believes that, but that's all the Council can tell us.

The problem still goes back to "in the evaluation of the Church". Who does the evaluating, and how is the evaluation settled? Is Chalcedon an Ecumenical Council in the evaluation of the Church, or not? Obviously the Chalcedonians accept it, and the non-Chalcedonians don't, and both claim to represent the Truth.

Peace and God bless!

And this is why I believe that the matter cannot be settled objectively. I really do not think that there are any arguments or positions that are not question-begging. I think that the best we can do is offer explanations that are coherent and plausible. But it is up to each one's conscience to determine which point of views are the most plausible. And I believe that this is a matter of faith and not certitude. When it comes to epistemology, I confess that I am moderately skeptical and somewhat of a fideist and my personal opinion is that one may find certitude subjectively (in one's own experience) but I do not think it is possible to communicate that certitude to others.

Joe

So, Ghosty, et al., what's the problem with the papal ratification theory? Just the amount of time that passes? 50 years, as Stuart posits, being too long a time for the theory to be credible?

Alexis