This subject seems to be a focal point in some discussions.

What makes a council ecumenical, and how has this developed over the past 2 millenium?

To be honest, I have absolutely no idea what the answer to these questions are.

Reception, and nothing else. When the teachings of a particular council are accepted by the entire world, then it becomes ecumenical, and not before. No extrinsic set of criteria can, a priori, do so--just as no extrinsic set of criteria can, a priori, make a particular statement of the Bishop of Rome "infallible".

Then how can we say that Ephesus and Chalcedon are ecumenical? In statistical terms they were most certainly not accepted by the "entire world."

As I said before, Father, while the Church of the East and the Oriental Orthodox Churches may not have received the formulations of Ephesos or Chalcedon, they most certainly profess the faith taught by both Ephesos and Chalcedon (and the subsequent three Ecumenical Councils as well). The failure to resolve the Christological controversy in the first millennium is largely the result of historical accident (the Islamic conquest) and secular matters (the ongoing struggle for survival between Byzantium and the Muslim world), but for which, efforts to reach an acceptable common formula would have succeeded. Through the common Christological statements reached between the Chalcedonian Churches and those we can call "pre-Chalcedonian", we have managed to overcome differences in expression to arrive at agreement on the substance of faith.

This still begs the question of "when is something received by the whole world"? For centuries the split of these Churches was understood as actually having a different faith. While it may have been received, it certainly was not apparent for many centuries. So we still have the problem of universal acceptance since the first councils were understood as ecumenical assuming the Oriental Orthodox had rejected it. What we recognize today, was quite a bit different 1,000 years ago. Therefore, how could that definition had applied? The logic doesn't add up.

This was due to the failure of all involved to see beyond their own culturally and historically conditioned modes of theological expression, and a refusal to consider that there might be more than one way to express a divine mystery--in short, a belief that one's own theological expressions and usage are normative will invariably lead to conflict and schism. Gregory VII Hildebrand was right when he said, "Diversity is the mother of heresy"--just not in the way he intended.

For argument sake, if say, the Orthodox receive the western councils in a thousand years from now, do they become ecumenical then or were they always ecumenical without us truly knowing if we come to understand that the only matter was just the formulation, but not the faith?

Just for argument's sake: The Church of Rome did not receive the First Council of Constantinople until the Council of Ephesus in 431. During that fifty year hiatus, was the Council of Constantinople ecumenical or not?

Correction: Constantinople was not accepted until 451 A.D. at the Council of Chalcedon. Both Rome and Alexandria - partners in crime - did not accept Constantinople for 80 years.

And no, it was not ecumenical until then.

Blessings

Dear all,

In this thread, I propose we make a distinction between a Council's ecumenicity from it's infallibility.

Brother Stuart is correct that reception is what makes a Council ecumenical. But reception has no bearing on the infalliblity of a Council, because Truth is not determined by consensus.

Blessings

OK, i think we can all agree that that has been the universal understanding. However, has it been limited to that criteria only?
What of certain canons that were never ratified by the Pope? I know there are certain ones, but I admit i have not studied this particular subject in detail.

If I am not mistaken, reception is the same as the sense of the faithful in which the Spirit guides the entire Church of all the faithful.

-

This still does not answer the question of how the Church can determine whether or not something has been universally received. It seems that this becomes, then, a barrier to being able to declare whether or not a council is ecumenical since, at the time, no one would have affirmed what you said.

Applying this, list the ecumenical councils.

1-2-3-4-5-6-7

Glory to Jesus Christ!





Stuart, you should know he is just setting you up to then ask you about the Churches that did not accept Chalcedon (I think that's the one) and the rest afterwards.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Actually (and even better), I have now established that StuartK and Robert Bellarmine have something in common.

Glory to Jesus Christ!

Actually (and even better), I have now established that StuartK and Robert Bellarmine have something in common.[/quote]

And that would be?

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

We're both saints.

I thought saints were humble . . . :-P ;-)

The truth behind the councils already exists, and is pre-existant. The councils do the absolute minimum necessary to outline the truth as best we can. What they primarily deal with is Christology.

Maybe there are seven, maybe there are less, that's not the point. The point is the truth elucidated in the council enters in to the consciousness of the church.

There is no formula, and no clear definition for how this happens. It just does. It is one of the central mysteries of the church.

Maybe there are more. I can read this and say this applies then to all councils the Roman Catholic Church calls ecumenical.

I wouldn't want to be more humble than, oh, Cyril of Alexandria or Jerome--that would make me guilty of the sin of pride.

Glory to Jesus Christ!



Good one! Quick wits there I see :-P lol.

Kyrie eleison,

Manuel

Of course, if you believe they witness to the truth. I think the fixation on there being 7 councils is misguided, or at least misses the point. Just as the idea that there are 7 sacraments misses the point.

If it applies to all of the councils called ecumenical, then why is the Synod of 869-870 the "Eighth Ecumenical Council", while the Synod of 879-880, which overturned the earlier synod, and which was endorsed by the Pope of Rome, and entered into the Liber Pontificalis, not ecumenical?

The utterances of the Bishop of Rome are infallible only if they are true & correct. My understanding of papal infallibility is that it is negative in the sense that the charism proper to the Petrine office prevents him from defining false teachings as dogma.

I stand to be corrected on this.

Well, that certainly didn't work for Pope Honorius I, did it?

Have all the councils 1-7 been "accepted by the entire world"? In what way, on what basis, has this been determined?

Yes, they have--tacitly, if not explicitly, the faith of the first Seven Councils has been received or was always held by all of the Apostolic Churches. Only the baggage of history and the unwillingness of some on both sides to have that faith expressed in the terminology of their own school of theology prevents total and explicit unity on all points.

Then as we have Nicholas, the Wonder-worker; John, the Golden-mouth; Andrew, the First-called; etc.: now it appears, StuartK, the Self-proclaimed. And how should such a one be be represented? Ah, yes, blowing his own horn.

I will pray for you, my son.