www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life The Christian East & West How much unity do we want?

I just noticed I didn't include a link to the letter of St. Basil, just quoted it. It's letter LXX, unadressed but certainly to Pope Damasus:
http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/fathers/view.cfm?recnum=2658

Dear brother Isa,

We've never had this conversation before (though I wish we had ). And there are several points that need to be considered for a fair assessment of the matter:
(1) When it first met, the Council was not intended to be Ecumenical, but only a local Council of the East. That explains why none of the Western bishops were present (nor invited);
(2) The Council of 381 was first called "Ecumenical" only by a local Council of Constantinople in 382, but was not accepted as such by the Third Ecumenical Council of Ephesus (nor by the Latrocinium);
(3) In 381, the Latins held a local Synod condemning certain acts of the (then) local Synod of Constantinople (of 381), for what it viewed as an unnecessary prolongation of the Schism in Antioch. They sent a letter to Constantinople asserting that they "had already in their earlier missive spoken to the effect that both parties at Antioch, one as much as the other, were orthodox."
(4) This "earlier missive" was written by Pope St. Damasus in 369 A.D., which was simultaneously an orthodox exposition of the Faith on the Holy Spirit. This "missive" is the "Tome of the Westerns" (AKA, the "Tome of Damasus") mentioned in Canon 5 of the 381 Council (though the Canon probably originated in the 382 Council).
(5) I am not aware of the Acts of an Ecumenical Council being sent to bishops who were not present at the Council for their "confirmation." If a Council was intended to be Ecumenical, its Acts will be sent to non-present bishops for their submission to its decrees, not for their "confirmation." If you read the Letter of the Constantinopolitan bishops to Pope St. Damasus when they submitted its decrees to him, you will see that they were indeed trying to obtain his confirmation, and not his submission:
"Let this suffice for a summary of the doctrine which is fearlessley and frankly preached by us, and concerning which you will be able to be still further satisfied if you will deign to read the tome of the synod of Antioch, and also that tome issued last year by the ecumenical council held at Constantinople, in which we have set forth our confession of the faith at greater length..."
(6) It should be noted that Pope St. Leo seems only to deny receiving the "Acts" insofar as it referred to Canon 3 of Constantinople, which would be true, since the Western See had never received (i.e. accepted) this Canon. It should further be noted that no one denies that the Creed of Constantinople was given to the Westerns in 382. However, interestingly, many historians think that ALL the Acts of the (then) local Council of Constantinople (381) were somehow lost in the West, which required Pope St. Leo to have the Acts sent to Rome again during the Fourth Ecum. I have read of the opinion that the Acts were simply mixed in with the Acts of other local Councils since, obviously, at that time, the Second Ecum Council of Constantinople (381) was not yet considered "Ecumenical."
(7) To repeat, you are simply wrong in your assumption that Sts. Basil and Gregory Nazianzen were not in communion with Rome. A prior agreement between the two parties at Antioch stated that if one bishop dies, the remaining bishop would rule. St. Meletius died, and Paulinus should have been recognized as bishop of Antioch, but the (then) local Synod of Constantinople - [i]despite the best efforts of St. Gregory Nazianzen[/i] - elected another bishop in Meletius' place, thus prolonging the schism. This was the action which the Latin Synod condemned (as mentioned in my point #3 above). This was the action which, most of all, caused St. Gregory to resign his headship of the See of Constantinople. Of St. Basil, his numerous appeals to Rome to settle the disorder in Antioch are sufficient to prove his communion with the Apostolic See. Of St. Gregory, aside from his willingness to accept Paulinus as bishop of Antioch after the death of St. Meletius, he calls Pope St. Damasus "a holy bishop," and quoted Damasus' Tome almost vebatim for his defense of the Holy Spirit.

Well, they're wrong. But thanks for pointing it out. I would like to take issue at CAF on this historical error.

Blessings

Once Paulinus died, the so-called "Meletian Schism" at Antioch came to an end, even though Paulinus had attempted to leave a successor. But until then there was indeed a breach in Communion between Rome and Antioch, and the Cappadocians recognized Saint Meletius, not Paulinus.
Face it: Rome backed the wrong horse! And the ecclesiological implications cannot be dismissed with a simple wave of the hand.

Fr. Serge

Well said.

The bishops from Thessalonica etc. were from the West: All of Europe) (except Eastern Thrace around the city of New Rome itself) was in the Patriarchate of Rome.

The Fifth Council also did not see itself as an Ecumenical Council when called, but did within its first session.


Then it is odd that the Nestorians accept its Creed.
http://books.google.com/books?id=hr...i=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6
And that the bishop of Constantinople began acting as the chief primate in the East (c. III), presiding over synods where the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch were present. On the West, see below. The Creed of Constantinople appears in the work of St. Epiphanius within a generation of the Council.

More to it than that: St. Meletius had offered to make it that either he or Paulinus would succeed the other at the other's death. Paulinus refused, but when St. Meletius died, he agreed with Rome's backing. The Council, however, and over Rome's lourd protest, elevated St. Flavian I of Antioch. And that letter of St. Jerome, a favorite of those quote trawls of ultramontanism, where he says he needs to know who to commune with, and names St. Meletius and Paulinus. Later, Jerome was ordained by Paulinus when Rome stood by its bet on that horse (now of course all four of the Vatican's primates on Antioch claim their orders through St. Meletius.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.v.html
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.vi.html
It was written by the Western bishops(plural). Import below.

You are imposing a Vatican understanding on how a Ecumenical Council is recognized as such.
The letter you refer to begins "To the right honourable lords our right reverend brethren and colleagues, Damasus, Ambrosius, Britton, Valerianus, Ascholius, Anemius, Basilius and the rest of the holy bishops assembled in the great city of Rome, the holy synod of the orthodox bishops assembled at the great city of Constantinople sends greeting in the Lord." It then later goes on to say "In addition to all this, and on account of the narrow limits of the appointed time which allowed of no preparation for a longer journey, nor of communicating with the bishops of our communion in the provinces and of obtaining their consent, the journey to Rome was for the majority impossible. "
How about their letter to the Emperor?
To the most religious Emperor Theodosius, the Holy Synod of Bishops assembled in Constantinople out of different Provinces.

We begin our letter to your Piety with thanks to God, who has established the empire of your Piety for the common peace of the Churches and for the support of the true Faith. And, after rendering due thanks unto God, as in duty bound we lay before your Piety the things which have been done in the Holy Synod. When, then, we had assembled in Constantinople, according to the letter of your Piety, we first of all renewed our unity of heart each with the other, and then we pronounced some concise definitions, ratifying the Faith of the Nicene Fathers, and anathematizing the heresies which have sprung up, contrary thereto. Besides these things, we also framed certain Canons for the better ordering of the Churches, all which we have subjoined to this our letter. Wherefore we beseech your Piety that the decree of the Synod may be ratified, to the end that, as you have honoured the Church by your letter of citation, so you should set your seal to the conclusion of what has been decreed.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.vi.html

Then why, when Pope St. Leo found out that Pope Dioscoros of Alexandria presided at Ephesus II, did he complain that St. Flavian, the EP, did not take his place at the head of the synod?

A lot of canons of various local councils did get mixed up with Nicea, but I don't know how this has anything to do with Constantinople I.

St. Basil wrote a lot of letters to a lot of people on this issue, not just Pope St. Damasus. As for St. Gregory, Rome looked at his retirement as a dipostion, because transfering from another see. St. Gregory resigned because of the actions of the Egyptian delegation, which had nothing to do with the Melian schism.
I've often seen it asserted that St. Gregory's resigning was a protest, but never seen it substantiated. I do recall Rome agreeing with is deposition.

Dear brother Isa,

That's not the reason why I stated what I stated. I made my statement on the basis of his several statements regading the See of Rome as head and arbiter of the Churches (which I will quote in a forthcoming post).

I'm sorry if I expressed myself poorly which led to your misunderstanding. I am not saying that St. Basil had not taken sides. I only meant that he felt Rome had not given a final ruling on the matter and felt confident that, given all the facts, Rome would side with St. Meletius instead of St. Paulinus.

And I don't know on what basis you make this utterly false claim that St. Meletius was excommunicated by Rome. In fact, he was regarded as fully orthodox by Rome. I'll talk about it some more in a forthcoming post.

Blessings

Dear brother Isa,

They were under the omophorion of the Western Patriarch, but they were in the Eastern province nonetheless.

A different session within the same Council is different from a whole different Council (the Councils of 381 and 382 were separate, though the 382 Council seems to have appended certain canons). By the same principle, the Council of Trullo, while often regarded as Easterns as part of the Sixth Ecum Council, was clearly a separate one and did not obtain Ecumenical standing as it was rejected by the Westerns. It's simply a biased double standard to claim (as you so often do) that the Westerns cannot declare something Ecumenical w/o the agreement of the East, while claiming simultaneously that a local Eastern Council can be considered Ecumenical without the agreement of the West.

What of it? The Creed itself has never been in dispute. St. Photius even asserted himself that Pope St. Damasus accepted the Creed of Constantinople when it was sent to the Westerns in 382 A.D. Why are you contradicting him?

That is only as far as the East is concerned. But the East is not the entire Church, is it? In any case, the Emperor at that time had a great say in the matter, and he was often the one to appoint the council president. I don't see why an appeal to caeseropapism supports your case.

Again, what of it? There are many local Councils that professed orthodox Creeds, but does that mean that those local Councils are ecumenical?

Not Rome's, but St. Gregory of Nazianzen's (the president of the Council after St. Meletius' death). Rome was not represented at the local Council (as you have constantly asserted), so I don't know how you can claim now that the Council made its decision "over Rome's loud protest."

I don't know what this has to do with our discussion. We're discussing your wrong insinuation that St. Basil was not in communion with Rome just because she had sided with Paulinus. We're not talking about the papal claims. Perhaps we can discuss this in another thread. If you read the OP, you will find that the topic was originally about how rival claimants to a see would work out in a united Church. This discussion on the Meletian schism has direct relevance to the OP, but not a discussion on papal prerogatives.

What of it? St. Meletius was declared orthodox by Rome, so it doesn't matter. In effect, Rome considered itself in communion with both claimants.

Yes, under the headship of the bishop of Rome. Contrary to polemic opinion, the Pope never acts alone in defining matters of Faith and/or morals for the Church.

Who doesn't recognize that the bishop of Rome was the head bishop of all these Western bishops, and that, according to the most ancient apostolic Tradition, a group of bishops can never act without the confirmation of its head bishop?

What does this prove? At that time, the Council of 381 was still only a local Council of the East. In any case, it doesn't do anything to refute what I stated about the difference between confirmation of decrees, on the one hand, and submission to decrees, on the other.

At the time, he did not consider Pope St. Dioscoros as orthodox, so what does that prove?

I'm only explaining why it might have been deemed "lost." Since Constantinople I was not considered ecumenical, then its decrees would not have any special prominence - just as prominent as any other local orthodox, catholic council.

I don't understand how this is a response. Please explain.

It was not a deposition (see below). Regardless of how it was looked upon, St. Gregory Nazianzen was in communion with Rome.

The Alexandrian delegation headed by Pope St. Peter had a definite dislike of the Meletian party. But apart from that, the Alexandrians were not so submissive to Canon 3 of Constantinople as you like to portray. The Alexandrians were rivals with the powers-that-be in Constantinople for the headship of the Eastern Church, and this is what spurred them to oppose St. Gregory, since one of their own, Maximus, had recently been deposed in favor of Gregory. In any case, the Alexandrians (nor the Macedonians) succeeded in deposing St. Gregory, who had the Emperor Theodosius' favor. St. Gregory did indeed resign his See, and was not deposed.

At the request of Pope St. Damasus, over his concern that the election of Flavian to the See of Antioch by the Council of 381 was exacerbating the schism at Antioch, Emperor Theodosius summoned the Council of Constantinople in 382. When St. Gregory heard of the endeavor, he wrote to the Court in Constantinople:
I am philosophizing at leisure. That is the injury my enemies have done me...For it happnes that those who are wronged get a benefit, while they, whome we would treat well, suffer injury. That is the state of my affairs. But if I cannot make every one believe this, I am very anxious, that at all events you, for them all, to whom I most willingly give an account of my affairs, should know, or rather I feel certain that you do know it, and can persuade those who do not. You, however, I beg to give all diligence, now at any rate, if you have not done so before, to bring together to one voice and mind the sections of the world that are so unhappily divided; and above all if you should perceive, as I have observed, that they are divided not on account of Faith, but by petty private interests. To succeed in doing this would earn you a reward; and my retirement would have less to grieve over if I could see that i did not grasp at it to no purpose...

Blessings

P.S. I'll have those quotes I mentioned earlier in my next post.

I am going to break it down, due to length.

What of it? The Creed itself has never been in dispute. St. Photius even asserted himself that Pope St. Damasus accepted the Creed of Constantinople when it was sent to the Westerns in 382 A.D. Why are you contradicting him?[/quote]

The Creed itself IS the Council: the Dogmatic Definitions are the embodiment of the Fathers of Ecumenical Council.

You made the claim that it wasn't Ecumenical until after Ephesus and Ephesus II. The claim is often made (CAF and elsewhere) that it wasn't Ecumenical until Chalcedon, thus the filioque doesn't come under the condemnation of corrupting the Creed ennuciated by the canons of Constantinople I and Ephesus. And of course the claim is made that the Pope of Rome didn't accept it as Ecumenical until Chalcedon, so it wasn't Ecumenical until Chalcedon, blah, blah, blah.

By Chalcedon the Nestorians had cease to care what the Pope of Rome said, and what the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church said in Council. They accept no Councils after Constantinople I, seeing themselves as the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church they parted ways from us. And yet we have the same Creed, a relic of when they were with us.

Btw, many of your fellow supporters of the Vatican dispute St. Photius on this point, because he is calling Rome to account, back to how the Church of Rome was run in unison with the other Patriarchates. As you point out, the Fathers labeled the Council as Ecumenical a year after it to the Pope of Rome, and as you admit Pope Damasus accepted their Creed. So what is with the claim that it wasn't Ecumenical nearly a century latter?

Btw, we all call it the Nicene Creed, when we mean the Nicene Creed as revised by Constantinople I. The evidence points to the Fathers similarly speaking.

Dearest Father Serge, bless.

I agree with most everything you say. From my own investigation, your assertion is no doubt correct that "Rome backed the wrong horse," as I had admitted at the very start of this discussion. It is also true that there was a breach between Rome and Antioch. But if “a simple wave of the hand” has been attempted, it would have to be brother Isa’s simplistic notion that just because St. Basil (or the Cappadocians, as you stated) sided with St. Paulinus, this meant he was out of communion with Rome. Far from effecting “a simple wave of the hand,” I am asserting that the situation was a lot more complicated than brother Isa’s simplistic assumptions. A thorough investigation of the facts will evince the actual matter. This discussion demonstrates nothing more than brother Isa’s bias and prejudice, since Pope St. Athanasius and his successor were likewise not in communion with St. Meletius, but he has nary a thing to say about that.

At this point, I would like to offer some other facts for consideration - not for your sake since I am certain you are already knowledgeable on these matters.

(1) The lack of communion between orthodox parties was strictly in regards to the parties in Antioch, and not between parties outside, regardless of who they supported. St. Basil admits often that the purpose of his pleas to Rome was to reconcile ORTHODOX Christians in Antioch, a united stand against the heresies being most effective (see Epistles 66, 67, 69, 70, 82, and many others).

(2) The basis of St. Basil’s complaint against Paulinus and his party was the fact that they had at one time admitted Marcellus (who was a Sabellian) into communion (Epistle 66). This mere circumstantial evidence was not sufficient to sway Pope St. Athanasius, who admitted fellowship with St. Paulinus in 365 A.D after a failed overture to St. Meletius. After Paulinus and his party were finally accepted by Rome in 375 A.D., Basil became more direct in his attacks, and instead of merely insinuating a relationship with Marcellus, actually accuses Paulinus and his party of heresy (Epistles 214, 263).

But St. Basil could no more doubt the orthodoxy of Rome and Alexandria as he could his own, so there is absolutely no grounds for claiming that Basil was out of communion with Rome and Alexandria just because Rome and Alexandria were not in communion with St. Meletius.

(3) If it can be assumed that the Cappadocians generally supported St. Meletius right to the See of Antioch (through the singular efforts of St. Basil), it cannot likewise be assumed that St. Basil’s accusations of heterodoxy against Paulinus and his party was shared by the other Cappadocians (i.e., St. Gregory of Nyssa has not a thing to say on Paulinus [interestingly, others had accused him of the same thing that St. Basil had accused St. Paulinus of – see Gregory’s Epistle 2]; St. Gregory Nazianzen, definitely supported Paulinus’ claim to the See of Antioch after the death of St. Meletius).

(4) Everywhere in his letters, St. Basil admits that Rome's backing of St. Paulinus is based merely on inadvertence due to lack of evidence (e.g., Epistle 69, and others). Thus, we see why he could not have possibly been out of communion with Rome. He utilizes similar rationale to explain why Pope St. Athanasius was likewise not in communion with St. Meletius. Basil was not willing to assign any ill-will or heterodoxy to anyone outside of Antioch who were orthodox by renown (unlike his attitude towards the supporters of Paulinus within Antioch, whom he suspected of Sabellianism). NOTE: A council of Rome in 380 finally and formally condemned Marcellus – unfortunately, this came about after the death of St. Basil)

(5) Pope St. Damasus did not actually accept St. Paulinus’ claim to Antioch until 375 A.D., influenced by St. Jerome, Evagrius, and Pope St. Peter of Alexandria, the successor of Pope St. Athanasius (who died in 373 A.D.). So the See of Alexandria had been separated from the See of Antioch much longer than the See of Rome was separated from the See of Antioch. Even after this approval by Rome of Paulinus, we see that St. Basil maintains his position that it was only through ignorance of the facts that Paulinus was accepted by the Westerns, demonstrated by his letters afterwards still hoping to persuade the Western See to accept Meletius.(Epistle 239, 242, 243, and others)

(6) Given that St. Paulinus was not accepted by Rome until 375 A.D., then the See of Rome was not actually out of communion with the See of Antioch until that time (though IMO, it cannot even be stated that Rome was out of communion with the See of Antioch since it communed with one who was believed to be a legitimate claimant to the See). This breach (at least with the Meletian party, if not the See of Antioch) was healed at the Council of Antioch in 379 A.D., wherein St. Meletius not only extended a brotherly hand to St. Paulinus and agreed that Paulinus should keep the churches loyal to him, but also utilized almost ad dictum several of the condemnations that Rome had pronounced on Apollinaris in a previous western Council (377 A.D.). That Rome considered this circumstance acceptable is proven by the fact that a council of Latins in 381 A.D. accused the (then local) Council of Constantinople of exacerbating the schism at Antioch by electing Flavian to succeed Meletius, whereas Paulinus should have been the natural successor. (See also point #8 below) So Rome was out of communion with Antioch for a total of about 4 years (375 – 379 A.D.) by virtue of its own actions. It was out of communion with Antioch from 381 A.D. until the accession of St. Chrysostom by virtue of the actions of the (then local) Council of Constantinople. In distinction, Alexandria was out of communion with Antioch by virtue of its own actions since 365 A.D. (when Pope Athanasius admitted communion with Paulinus after a failed overture to Meletius).

(7) St. Basil admits in several places that the See of Rome is the head of the Churches (hearkening back to Apostolic Canon 34/35). I was going to give the quotes, but as I thought about it, I realized this would be outside the bounds of this thread. For anyone reading this thread, if you want to press the issue, I would suggest starting a new thread on St. Basil’s view on the headship of the Roman See, or, more generally, the patristic view on the matter – though I am sure this topic has been done to death. However, I do mention this point in passing simply to indicate that St. Basil would not be so willing to break communion with Rome as brother Isa has suggested.

(8) St. Meletius had to prove his orthodoxy to Rome, which he did by submitting to the “Tome of Damasus” (369 A.D.) at the Council of Antioch (379 A.D.). For this reason, Rome asserted, as mentioned in my previous post, that both parties were orthodox. It did not heal the schism in Antioch, but by that decree, the supporters of Paulinus could at least no longer refute St. Meletius’ claim to the See of Antioch based on false allegations of heterodoxy.

(9) St. Basil’s several respectful correspondences with Western bishops prove that he was in communion with Western bishops (e.g. Epistles 90, 91, 92, 197, and many others). As these Western bishops were in communion with Rome, there are no grounds to support the claim that St. Basil (nor the Cappadocians) were out of communion with Rome.

If there is any “ecclesiological implication” to be obtained from this episode, it is certainly not the extrapolated assumption made by brother Isa. At most, I believe it demonstrates that the bishop of Rome is not above correction on non-dogmatic matters (generally, no one, not even bishops gathered in ecumenical council, are above correction when it comes to condemnations of PERSONS, though indeed infallibility applies to condemnations of TEACHINGS).

Humbly,
Marduk

Dear brother Isa

I think you're confusing the orthodoxy and catholicity of the Creed, on the one hand, with the Ecumenical character of the Council per se, on the other. The Council ruled on other matters that the Western See did not accept. As a whole, the Council was not Ecumenical in character.

No need to exacerbate your bias against historical fact with inappropriate mockery.

What does this prove? The Nestorians were in the Eastern province, and the Council of Constantinople (381) was a general council of the East. So why shouldn't they accept the Creed? This circumstance does absolutely nothing to prove that the Council per se had an Ecumenical character at that time.

So? What's your point?

Yes, I already stated that, but these Fathers were from the East and is certainly no proof that it was actually Ecumenical at that time (unless, you want to apply the double standard mentioned in an earlier post).

Acceptance of the orthodoxy of the Creed professed at a certain Council is not sufficient to establish the Ecumenical character of the Council per se. Once again, you're confusing the orthodoxy and catholicity of the Creed, on the one hand, with the Ecumenical character of the Council per se, on the other.

Well, that's it from me on this issue of the Ecumenicity of the 381 Council of Constantinople. It's not really conducive to the OP of this thread. If you wish to press the matter, I suggest starting another thread.

Blessings

In my humble opinion, this thread is far afield from the original question. Let's move back to the original or start a new thread about what constitutes an Ecumenical Council.

Bob

I'll hold off to reply, until we get a ruling on this, but as it is relavent to the OP:

Synod of/from the East? Ordinarily Mardukm is, correctly, pointing out that there is no such thing as "East." There are Easterners/Byzantines, Orientals (themselves heterogenous) and then Maronites and Chaldeans/Assyrians still. We might all look the same to Westerners, but that is rather avoiding the issue, and rather contributes to ignorance on how we all got to the point where legitimate differnces created schism. And knowlege of that is part of the solution. So coming to terms over how and when Constaninople was Ecumenical according to the various groups, and if Mardukm is right then the two Churches at Alexandria, Two and perhaps Three Church at Antioch, and the Assyrians/Chaldeans, the Churches of Armenia and Georgia all have differences that go farther back then hereto admitted.

On what constitutes an Ecumenical Council, recourse to the recent Ravenna Statement is appropriate:

35. In the course of history, when serious problems arose affecting the universal communion and concord between Churches - in regard either to the authentic interpretation of the faith, or to ministries and their relationship to the whole Church, or to the common discipline which fidelity to the Gospel requires - recourse was made to Ecumenical Councils. These Councils were ecumenical not just because they assembled together bishops from all regions and particularly those of the five major sees, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, according to the ancient order (taxis). It was also because their solemn doctrinal decisions and their common faith formulations, especially on crucial points, are binding for all the Churches and all the faithful, for all times and all places. This is why the decisions of the Ecumenical Councils remain normative.

36. The history of the Ecumenical Councils shows what are to be considered their special characteristics. This matter needs to be studied further in our future dialogue, taking account of the evolution of ecclesial structures during recent centuries in the East and the West.

37. The ecumenicity of the decisions of a Council is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration, according to which the people of God as a whole - by means of reflection, discernment, discussion and prayer - acknowledge in these decisions the one apostolic faith of the local Churches, which has always been the same and of which the bishops are the teachers (didaskaloi) and the guardians. This process of reception is differently interpreted in East and West according to their respective canonical traditions.

38. Conciliarity or synodality involves, therefore, much more than the assembled bishops. It involves also their Churches. The former are bearers of and give voice to the faith of the latter. The bishops' decisions have to be received in the life of the Churches, especially in their liturgical life. Each Ecumenical Council received as such, in the full and proper sense, is, accordingly, a manifestation of and service to the communion of the whole Church.

39. Unlike diocesan and regional synods, an ecumenical council is not an "institution" whose frequency can be regulated by canons; it is rather an "event", a kairos inspired by the Holy Spirit who guides the Church so as to engender within it the institutions which it needs and which respond to its nature. This harmony between the Church and the councils is so profound that, even after the break between East and West which rendered impossible the holding of ecumenical councils in the strict sense of the term, both Churches continued to hold councils whenever serious crises arose. These councils gathered together the bishops of local Churches in communion with the See of Rome or, although understood in a different way, with the See of Constantinople, respectively. In the Roman Catholic Church, some of these councils held in the West were regarded as ecumenical. This situation, which obliged both sides of Christendom to convoke councils proper to each of them, favoured dissentions which contributed to mutual estrangement. The means which will allow the re-establishment of ecumenical consensus must be sought out.

We are off-topic here, and it had been requested to start another thread regarding Ecumenical Councils. Since that request was not heeded, this thread is now closed.

In IC XC,
Father Anthony+
Administrator