Are the Eastern Orthodox conciliarists?

[Rohzek]

Has there ever been a council wherein all Church fathers/bishops (not to mention laity) were in agreement with said council? History does not bear witness to this. In fact, even amongst the Orthodox (and theologians) there are differences on what should be considered or is ecumenical (Trullo, the 8th ecumenical council. . . etc.).

Bede rejected Trullo, while Pope Hadrian I accepted it on the condition that canons concerning depicting Christ as a lamb did not apply to the Latin West. Another would be the open rejection of the 5th Council by the papacy, for reasons which I am sympathetic to, although they eventually accepted it. The best example are the Oriental Orthodox who did not split off right away in the wake of Chalcedon. It took a long time before people considered the situation serious enough to warrant setting up their own institutional church. These are a few examples of the latitude concerning whether or not rejection of a council causes a schism.

Also, all Orthodox accept Trullo as ecumenical.

As for total agreement, no there is no record of such. However, that’s not the point. Full agreement is not necessary, nor did I ever say it was. What is important is correct doctrine.

 

[josie_L]

Bede rejected Trullo, while Pope Hadrian I accepted it on the condition that canons concerning depicting Christ as a lamb did not apply to the Latin West.

Also, all Orthodox accept Trullo.

Trullo was not accepted as ecumenical by the West (not even by the pope), moreover, how can the (Eastern) Orthodox view Trullo as ecumenical when such a council was never accepted by the West? By definition, ecumenical would infer that the “whole” Church accept said council as being ecumenical, but that is not the case with Trullo.

p.s. Sorry, I was thinking of Trullo prior to the schism (as we were then one Church).

 

[Rohzek]

Trullo was not accepted as ecumenical by the West (not even by the pope), moreover, how can the (Eastern) Orthodox view Trullo as ecumenical when such a council was never accepted by the West? By definition, ecumenical would infer that the “whole” Church accept said council as being ecumenical, but that is not the case with Trullo.

p.s. Sorry, I was thinking of Trullo prior to the schism (as we were then one Church).

Trullo was accepted by the papacy with the caveat with regards to some of the canons. Pope Hadrian I accepted it. Just because a pope rejects a few canons of a council it does not therefore mean that the council is no longer ecumenical. Under such criteria, Chalcedon would not be ecumenical due to the papal rejection of Canon 28.

As for the Orthodox view, we accepted Trullo because we never felt that papal approval was necessary. And neither did we have much trouble accepting II Nicaea without proper Frankish representation. It must be understood that in the historical sense, ecumenical only meant those within the Empire or former Imperial lands.

 

[josie_L]

Bede rejected Trullo, while Pope Hadrian I accepted it on the condition that canons concerning depicting Christ as a lamb did not apply to the Latin West. Another would be the open rejection of the 5th Council by the papacy, for reasons which I am sympathetic to, although they eventually accepted it. The best example are the Oriental Orthodox who did not split off right away in the wake of Chalcedon. It took a long time before people considered the situation serious enough to warrant setting up their own institutional church. These are a few examples of the latitude concerning whether or not rejection of a council causes a schism.

Also, all Orthodox accept Trullo as ecumenical.

As for total agreement, no there is no record of such. However, that’s not the point. Full agreement is not necessary, nor did I ever say it was. What is important is correct doctrine.

And I agree that no such council existed, however, to make a council Ecumenical, this would infer the “whole” of the Church either participating in said council or accepting it as such, so I repeat, why would the Orthodox view Trullo as ecumenical when it was never regarded as such by the West?

 

[Rohzek]

And I agree that no such council existed, however, to make a council Ecumenical, this would infer the “whole” of the Church either participating in said council or accepting it as such, so I repeat, why would the Orthodox view Trullo as ecumenical when it was never regarded as such by the West?

I’ve partially answered this in my above post. My apologies in advance for constantly editing my posts. It is a bad habit of mine. I always think of something to add.

It is true that “ecumenical” denotes the whole world, but it wouldn’t be fair to say that such has ever been the case. Christianity spanned all the way to India and perhaps further by the time of the First Council of Nicaea, yet there were no bishops from those lands there. Again, it must be understood that “ecumenical” in this sense only denotes those from the Empire or former Imperial lands. Perhaps now due to high speed travel Catholics and Orthodox can hold true “ecumenical” councils according to your definition, but it wasn’t always so in the past.

 

[josie_L]

Trullo was accepted by the papacy with the caveat with regards to some of the canons. Pope Hadrian I accepted it. Just because a pope rejects a few canons of a council it does not therefore mean that the council is no longer ecumenical. Under such criteria, Chalcedon would not be ecumenical due to the papal rejection of Canon 28.

Acceptance of said canons does not mean that it was regarded by the Pope as ecumenical in status, nor for that matter was it accepted as such by the fathers/bishops of the West.

Moreover, Chalcedon was already ecumenical in spirit and format, i.e., papal legates, bishops that were called from both East and West, as such, its status as ecumenical should not be doubted. Also, the very essence of canon 28 defies the ecumenical spirit of Chalcedon by catering to the whims and goals of certain part of the Church at the expense of the whole, hence, why Pope Leo rejected canon 28 (it defied the prerogatives of Alexandria and Antioch as per Nicea).

As for the Orthodox view, we accepted Trullo because we never felt that papal approval was necessary. And neither did we have much trouble accepting II Nicaea without proper Frankish representation. It must be understood that in the historical sense, ecumenical only meant those within the Empire or former Imperial lands.

Then please refrain from stating that Pope Hadrian I referred to Trullo as ecumenical, i.e., the West never regarded it as such.

Now, I never stated that a lack of Western representation in an ecumenical council would render any of the councils as un-ecumenical (I would have to disavow certain councils to believe this), but rather that it’s ACCEPTANCE by the “whole” Church would render it ecumenical (prior to the schism). Therefore, how do you reconcile calling Trullo ecumenical despite the fact that the East represented only part of the Universal Church and not the whole of it? Am I to assume from your definition of ecumenical that any and all councils can be viewed as ecumenical, just because a portion of the Church viewed it as such, obviously there is something lacking in your definition?

p.s. Bishops from the WEST were as much successors to the apostles as those from the EAST, so how does the EAST condone IGNORING a huge portion of Church fathers from the West considering Trullo??

 

[josie_L]

I’ve partially answered this in my above post. My apologies in advance for constantly editing my posts. It is a bad habit of mine. I always think of something to add.

It is true that “ecumenical” denotes the whole world, but it wouldn’t be fair to say that such has ever been the case. Christianity spanned all the way to India and perhaps further by the time of the First Council of Nicaea, yet there were no bishops from those lands there.

I am not stating that every part of the Church needs to be represented at a council in order for it to be ecumenical, what I’m saying is that of those parts that were known, and those parts that were able to participate and/or accept a given council (because they were part of the Universal Church), should be REGARDED when declaring a council ecumenical!! This should be the logical conclusion to the meaning of “ecumenical”, and why I cannot believe that the East would state that Trullo was ecumenical, despite the fact that it was never viewed (or even applied) as such by the “whole” Church.

Heck, maybe the West should have reconsidered its position regarding the council of Sardica (initially it was meant to be ecumenical, and regarded as such by the West, but the East disregarded it).

Again, it must be understood that “ecumenical” in this sense only denotes those from the Empire or former Imperial lands. Perhaps now due to high speed travel Catholics and Orthodox can hold true “ecumenical” councils according to your definition, but it wasn’t always so in the past.

Yes, but those under the empire included the West, hence, how can a council be regarded as ecumenical while disregarding this portion of the Church??

 

[Rohzek]

Actually Pope Hadrian I regarded Trullo as part of the 6th Ecumenical Council:

Pope Sergius refused to sign the decrees when they were sent to him, rejected them as “lacking authority” (invalidi) and described them as containing “novel errors.” With the efforts to extort his signature we have no concern further than to state that they signally failed. Later on, in the time of Pope Constantine, a middle course seems to have been adopted, a course subsequently in the ninth century thus expressed by Pope John VIII., “he accepted all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and the decrees of Rome,” a truly notable statement! Nearly a century later Pope Hadrian I. distinctly recognizes all the Trullan decrees in his letter to Tenasius of Constantinople and attributes them to the Sixth Synod. “All the holy six synods I receive with all their canons, which rightly and divinely were promulgated by them, among which is contained that in which reference is made to a Lamb being pointed to by the Precursor as being found in certain of the venerable images.” Here the reference is unmistakably to the Trullan Canon LXXXII.

ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xiv.ii.html

Invenimus autem in praedicta synodica epistola sanctitatis vestrae, post plenitudinem fidei et confessionem sacri symboli et omnium sanctarum [Col.1236B] sex synodorum, et de sacris ac venerabilibus characteribus miraculum laude ac veneratione dignissimum contineri: Quia et easdem sanctas sex synodos suscipio, cum omnibus regulis quae jure ac divinitus ab ipsis promulgatae sunt. Inter quas continetur: In quibusdam venerabilium imaginum picturis agnus digito praecursoris exaratus ostenditur [demonstratus exaratur], qui in figuram praeteriit [Gr. assumptus est] gratiae, verum nobis per legem praeostendens agnum Christum Dominum nostrum.

Pope Hadrian I to Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople Epistula 57, PL 96: 1236A-1236B

Translation: Edit: the link I initially provided was a different letter. Look in the quote above for the translation of the important part. If necessary I can translate this chunk in its entirety.

 

[Rohzek]

I am not stating that every part of the Church needs to be represented at a council in order for it to be ecumenical, what I’m saying is that of those parts that were known, and those parts that were able to participate and/or accept a given council (because they were part of the Universal Church), should be REGARDED when declaring a council ecumenical!! This should be the logical conclusion to the meaning of “ecumenical”, and why I cannot believe that the East would state that Trullo was ecumenical, despite the fact that it was never viewed (or even applied) as such by the “whole” Church.

Heck, maybe the West should have reconsidered its position regarding the council of Sardica (initially it was meant to be ecumenical, and regarded as such by the West, but the East disregarded it).

Yes, but those under the empire included the West, hence, how can a council be regarded as ecumenical while disregarding this portion of the Church??

Because the Orthodox never cared if everyone in the imperial lands and former accepted it. What mattered was the truth of its doctrines. Chalcedon wasn’t accepted in the imperial lands of Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. It didn’t stop us from regarding it as ecumenical. Sure attendance was important, but not necessary.

 

[twf]

According to Orthodoxy, all of the bishops and arguably the laity as well hole the power to bind and loose. As for the Fathers, they condemned those who challenged the councils unless they felt those councils were wrong.

shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/on-the-issue-of-infallibility-an-absolute-value-or-just-an-honorific/

Yes of course. All bishops exercise the power of binding and loosing. This is fundamental to all branches of traditional Christianity. In Catholicism, every priest exercises the power of the keys when he bonds and looses sin in the confessional. My point is if the bishops have this power, granted by Christ, why don’t their pronouncements bind the faithful. You make it seem like the laity need to judge their bishops and only acknowledge their rulings as binding if they happen to be true. What’s the point of bishops at all? What’s the point of the power Christ gave them?

 

[Wandile]

Pope Sergius I protested against the council, and refused to sign the canons. At Sergius’s refusal, Justinian dispatched a military delegation to Rome to induce Sergius to sign; the imperial army at Ravenna, however, composed mainly of native Italians, rallied to support the Roman Pontiff, marching on Rome. Meanwhile, in Visigothic Spain, the council was ratified by the Eighteenth Council of Toledo at the urging of the king, Wittiza, who was vilified by later chroniclers for his decision Fruela I of Asturias reversed the decision of Toledo sometime during his reign (757–68).

The Eastern Orthodox churches hold this council be part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, adding its canons thereto. In the West, Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a “reprobate” synod, and Paul the Deacon an “erratic” one. For the attitude of the Popes, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons see Hefele.However, Pope Hadrian I did write favourably of the canons of this council. The Catholic Church has never accepted the council as authoritative or ecumenical.

The mere fact that Bede could speak of the synod in such a manner centuries after it was held shows the western point of view concerning the synod. If it were ecumenical then he wouldn’t even dare speak of it as such.

The west never universally accepted it as ecumenical. Odd persons here and there did but the church consistently even up to this day views trullo as a byzantine eastern local synod

 

[Abu]

More evidence of a papal final decision, subject to no Ecumenical Council bishops:
In *A Catechism Of The Catholic Church *by Fr Robert J Fox, Franciscan Herald Press, 1979, on the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, Fr Fox records that “One decree, passed in the earlier stages of the council, asserted the superiority of an ecumenical council over the pope; this was later rejected.” (p 246).

This is recorded here also: “Sixteenth Ecumenical Council – Constance: 1414 -1418
Pope Martin ratified the council …except the decrees which proposed conciliarism.”
The Council of Constance is recognised by the Catholic Church as the 16th Ecumenical Council – its valid decrees were approved by Pope Martin V, and the decree purporting to make a pope obey a Council was struck down (the thesis of Gallicanism – see note 6 of The Gift of Infallibility, Fr James T O’Connor, Ignatius, 2008, p 25-6).

‘The Catechism of the Catholic Church is similarly definitive in this regard. Citing Vatican II’s Lumen Gentium 22, which traces the unhindered and universal teaching authority of the Roman pontiff through the ecclesiastical history of Eusebius back to apostolic times as relayed in Matthew’s Gospel, “there is never an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor.”

 

[Rohzek]

Pope Sergius I protested against the council, and refused to sign the canons. At Sergius’s refusal, Justinian dispatched a military delegation to Rome to induce Sergius to sign; the imperial army at Ravenna, however, composed mainly of native Italians, rallied to support the Roman Pontiff, marching on Rome. Meanwhile, in Visigothic Spain, the council was ratified by the Eighteenth Council of Toledo at the urging of the king, Wittiza, who was vilified by later chroniclers for his decision Fruela I of Asturias reversed the decision of Toledo sometime during his reign (757–68).

The Eastern Orthodox churches hold this council be part of the Fifth and Sixth Ecumenical Councils, adding its canons thereto. In the West, Bede calls it (De sexta mundi aetate) a “reprobate” synod, and Paul the Deacon an “erratic” one. For the attitude of the Popes, in face of the various attempts to obtain their approval of these canons see Hefele.However, Pope Hadrian I did write favourably of the canons of this council. The Catholic Church has never accepted the council as authoritative or ecumenical.

The mere fact that Bede could speak of the synod in such a manner centuries after it was held shows the western point of view concerning the synod. If it were ecumenical then he wouldn’t even dare speak of it as such.

The west never universally accepted it as ecumenical. Odd persons here and there did but the church consistently even up to this day views trullo as a byzantine eastern local synod

Bede lived and died before Pope Hadrian I, who accepted Trullo as ecumenical. By your own criteria, if the pope accepts it as ecumenical, then you must accept it as ecumenical. I really wish you took the time to read my previous post. This should have been clear from the get-go. As for consulting Heefle, he is the one that points out what I did. Again, did you read my post with the quotes? I’ll go ahead and translate the entire passage. This is a rough translation, so if anyone is naturally picky, please forgive me.

Invenimus autem in praedicta synodica epistola sanctitatis vestrae, post plenitudinem fidei et confessionem sacri symboli et omnium sanctarum [Col.1236B] sex synodorum, et de sacris ac venerabilibus characteribus miraculum laude ac veneratione dignissimum contineri: Quia et easdem sanctas sex synodos suscipio, cum omnibus regulis quae jure ac divinitus ab ipsis promulgatae sunt. Inter quas continetur: In quibusdam venerabilium imaginum picturis agnus digito praecursoris exaratus ostenditur [demonstratus exaratur], qui in figuram praeteriit [Gr. assumptus est] gratiae, verum nobis per legem praeostendens agnum Christum Dominum nostrum.

But we have come in the aforementioned synodal letter of your sanctity, after the fullness of faith and confession of the holy symbol (the creed) and everything contained within the six holy synods, and on the sacred and venerable characters with wondrous praise and the most dignified veneration: Since I receive those six holy synods, with every rule which is just and binding they are promulgated by them [the synods]. Within which [six synods] are contained: In certain of the venerable images the Lamb is shown being pointed to by the Precursor [John the Baptist], which in the figure he is assumed with grace. The truth [is shown] to us through the prophesying law, [that is] our Lord Christ the Lamb.

Pope Hadrian I to Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople Epistula 57, PL 96: 1236A-1236B

The bold underlined part is a direct reference to Canon 82 of the Trullan Council. Hadrian numbers this canon as being among the six ecumenical councils. Therefore, Hadrian considered Trullo ecumenical.

 

[josie_L]

Bede lived and died before Pope Hadrian I, who accepted Trullo as ecumenical. By your own criteria, if the pope accepts it as ecumenical, then you must accept it as ecumenical. I really wish you took the time to read my previous post. This should have been clear from the get-go. As for consulting Heefle, he is the one that points out what I did. Again, did you read my post with the quotes? I’ll go ahead and translate the entire passage. This is a rough translation, so if anyone is naturally picky, please forgive me.

Even if the pope favoured some of its canons, many of which were already stipulated in previous councils, it does not mean that ipso facto, Pope Hadrian endorsed Trullo has ecumenical in status. In fact, he himself conditioned his approval of certain canons with:

“quae jure ac divinitus ab ipsis promulgatae sunt (“those alone which were lawfully and divinely promulgated”).”

Hence, even if Pope Hadrian gave the Greeks the benefit of the doubt in that Trullo was indeed part of the 6th ecumenical council (which it was not), his acceptance of its canons were qualified, i.e., on condition that these canons were truly part of the 6th council.

Moreover, his successor Pope John VIII was not convinced that Trullo was ecumenical, i.e., he maintained that this was what the Greeks believed.

Now, the reason the West did not ratify Trullo as ecumenical is multifold, but it stems mostly from the irregularities of that council, i.e., there was a format in which the Church followed that was not adhered to by the participants of Trullo. If Trullo were truly intended to be ecumenical in format/spirit than why was it:

“convoked and presided independently of papal authority or any other real participation by the patriarchate of the West, with which the East was not in schism.”

Moreover,

“The claim that this was a continuation of the Sixth Ecumenical Council is untenable, since the general council had been canonically closed and confirmed by the bishops, the Emperor, and the Pope. There is no precedent in Church history, before or since, of reopening such a council, and even if it were possible, this would have to be executed by the same authority that closed the council, and here the authority of the Pope was absent. Therefore, in its origin, the Council in Trullo was a regional synod of the East, notwithstanding its pretensions.”

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment06q.htm

It is rather indicative that Emperor Justinian and those participating at Trullo did everything they could to get the Pope’s approval, even to the point of falsifying or rather producing a papal legate (even though he was not commissioned by the pope to do so) in order to fix said irregularities:

Since the Council in Trullo did not involve dogmatic matters, but only disciplinary canons, it is understandable why the Greek bishops might not see the need for prior papal approval. Nonetheless, it was highly irregular for an ecumenical council not to be presided by papal legates. The Greeks were evidently aware of this, so Archbishop Basil of Gortyna (in Crete) added to his signature, “Holding the place of the Holy Church of Rome in every synod,” just as he had done at the Sixth Ecumenical Council in 680, though there is no evidence he received a perpetual commission from the Pope."

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment06q.htm

So, I’d like to ask you a hypothetical, if for example there were to be a part of the Orthodox Church, let us say the Russian Orthodox Church that convened an ecumenical council without the consent and/or participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, without, in fact, inviting him to said council, would this council then be considered binding on all Orthodox churches in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church? And if the Patriarch refused to ratify it because it was critical of the disciplinarian practices of other Orthodox churches (even though differences in such areas are allowable), would you fault him for not accepting it as ecumenical, i.e., binding on the WHOLE church??

 

[josie_L]

And Hefele who you yourself sourced stated that

The idea that the Trullan council was a continuation of the sixth general synod does not reflect historical reality. As Hefele proved, this council was convened more than a decade later, in 691 or 692. The list of signatories further shows that the Quinisext Council was not constituted of the same bishops who had attended the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was really a new council,** especially since the ecumenical council had long ago been formally closed and ratified. **

arcaneknowledge.org/catholic/councils/comment06q.htm

 

[Rohzek]

Even if the pope favoured some of its canons, many of which were already stipulated in previous councils, it does not mean that ipso facto, Pope Hadrian endorsed Trullo has ecumenical in status. In fact, he himself conditioned his approval of certain canons with:

Hence, even if Pope Hadrian gave the Greeks the benefit of the doubt in that Trullo was indeed part of the 6th ecumenical council (which it was not), his acceptance of its canons were qualified, i.e., on condition that these canons were truly part of the 6th council.

You’re mistranslating the Latin. “cum omnibus regulis quae jure ac divinitus ab ipsis promulgatae sunt” does not render “those alone which were lawfully and divinely promulgated.” Not even Heefle’s translation renders such. You’re adding a meaning that isn’t there. I’m not sure where you are getting the word “alone” from. And even if he was adding conditions, it doesn’t change the fact that he regarded it as part of the previous six ecumenical councils. The papacy added conditions to a number of canons from previous councils before, so this isn’t the first time (which your linked article mistakenly believes otherwise).

It is rather indicative that Emperor Justinian and those participating at Trullo did everything they could to get the Pope’s approval, even to the point of falsifying or rather producing a papal legate (even though he was not commissioned by the pope to do so) in order to fix said irregularities:

While the representative’s legate status is disputed, your accusation of some sort of grand conspiracy is outrageous.

So, I’d like to ask you a hypothetical, if for example there were to be a part of the Orthodox Church, let us say the Russian Orthodox Church that convened an ecumenical council without the consent and/or participation of the Patriarch of Constantinople, without, in fact, inviting him to said council, would this council then be considered binding on all Orthodox churches in communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church? And if the Patriarch refused to ratify it because it was critical of the disciplinarian practices of other Orthodox churches (even though differences in such areas are allowable), would you fault him for not accepting it as ecumenical, i.e., binding on the WHOLE church??

The Russian Church alone holding a council and claiming it to be ecumenical is a big stretch. You would be better off if you said all but one of the churches were represented. At that point would come down to the truth of its doctrines. The alternative would be to accept it, but with conditions as the the Church of Rome had done with not only Trullo but other ecumenical councils as well, most notably Chalcedon.

 

[Rohzek]

And Hefele who you yourself sourced stated that

Primary sources trump secondary sources. I cited Hefele mostly for the translation before I did my own. I don’t have to agree with him on everything, especially when I base my position and differences upon primary sources. The Roman Church’s recognition of Trullo as ecumenical is indisputable in Hadrian’s letter. I’ll admit that Trullo is somewhat irregular in its conduct, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Hadrian explicitly considered it a part of the six previous ecumenical councils. Even though Pope John VIII later claimed exemption from some of its canons, it does not change this fact.

 

[twf]

According to Orthodoxy, all of the bishops and arguably the laity as well hole the power to bind and loose. As for the Fathers, they condemned those who challenged the councils unless they felt those councils were wrong.

shamelessorthodoxy.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/on-the-issue-of-infallibility-an-absolute-value-or-just-an-honorific/

I think the author in your link above is getting hung up on the definition of infallibility. I have seen Orthodox writers refer to the ecumenical councils as infallible or to the Church as a whole as infallible. Its just a word - some Orthodox use it and some prefer not to. Certainly when Catholics use the word “infallible” we are not equating it with the “inspiration” of Scripture. For example, we acknowledge that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is framed within the context of Latin theological constructs. Eastern Catholics are not obliged to use said Latin theological constructs…but all those in communion with the Catholic Church accept that that there is an underlining truth (most importantly, that Our Lady is All-Holy). At the end of the day, whether we use the word infallible or not, we both believe there are binding truths and that the Church knows Her faith.

 

[Wandile]

Primary sources trump secondary sources. I cited Hefele mostly for the translation before I did my own. I don’t have to agree with him on everything, especially when I base my position and differences upon primary sources. The Roman Church’s recognition of Trullo as ecumenical is indisputable in Hadrian’s letter. I’ll admit that Trullo is somewhat irregular in its conduct, but that doesn’t negate the fact that Hadrian explicitly considered it a part of the six previous ecumenical councils. Even though Pope John VIII later claimed exemption from some of its canons, it does not change this fact.

By this faulty reasoning it means that 2 Lyons is ecumenical for the Eastern Orthodox or at least the patriarchate of Constantinople…

The truth is that besides one pope, no other pope can be said to have explicitly confirmed it as part of the sixth council but we know that numerous popes rejected it as such and up to this day the Roman church does not recognise it’s ecumenicity.

Further if the Roman church does recognise it as ecumenical then that would still be the case today.

As Hefele proved, this council was convened more than a decade later, in 691 or 692. The list of signatories further shows that the Quinisext Council was not constituted of the same bishops who had attended the Sixth Ecumenical Council. This was really a new council, especially since the ecumenical council had long ago been formally closed and ratified.

Pope Sergius steadfastly refused to sign the acts of the council, claiming he would rather die than endorse its errors

Pope John VIII (872-882) referred to the Trullan canons as those which the Greeks “maintain” (perhibent) to be from the sixth general synod, so the question of the council’s ecumenicity was by no means considered decided. The Greek claim was based on the belief that the same bishops of the Sixth Ecumenical Council issued the Trullan canons just five years later, but we have seen that this belief is historically inaccurate.
John VIII, who accepted from that council “all those canons which did not contradict the true faith, good morals, and decrees of Rome.” In particular, the Apostolic See now accepted all eighty-five of the so-called Apostolic Canons, whereas previously it had only accepted the first fifty. Apparently, even at this late date, the Romans had not generally accepted the Trullan canons, which could hardly be the case if Adrian I or any other pope had truly declared the council to be ecumenical.

Relatively few of the Trullan canons were explicitly identified as approved by the Pope. Only the eighty-five Apostolic Canons (mentioned in the second canon of Trullo) are known to have been approved by John VIII, while Adrian I approved at least the eighty-second canon of Trullo. For the remainder of the canons, we are left to apply John VIII’s principle of consistency with “the true faith, good morals, and decrees of our Rome.”

Lastly numerous sources throughout the medieval period indicate that that Rome recognized that Trullo was binding law for the Greeks (i.e., Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholics who follow the Byzantine Rite) even though it had no binding status for Latin Catholics.

 

[Rohzek]

By this faulty reasoning it means that 2 Lyons is ecumenical for the Eastern Orthodox or at least the patriarchate of Constantinople…

No, because Lyons taught heresy. Remember as I have stated numerous times before: for Orthodox, ecumenical status is achieved by either wide attendance or acceptance, in addition to that the council did not teach heresy.

The truth is that besides one pope, no other pope can be said to have explicitly confirmed it as part of the sixth council but we know that numerous popes rejected it as such and up to this day the Roman church does not recognise it’s ecumenicity.

So you want to continue to deny its ecumenicity? According to Catholic dogma, if Hadrian recognized it as ecumenical, which you’ve finally admitted that he did, then you have to recognize that it is so. Otherwise, it undermines the whole Catholic dogma of papal supremacy.

Further if the Roman church does recognise it as ecumenical then that would still be the case today.

That’s based on the assumption that either the Catholic Church never historically forgot Hadrian’s words, which seems to be the case OR that you are in the wrong church, my friend.