**Post 1 of 2
**
I’ve answered this question before a while back elsewhere, so I’m just going to copypasta it wholesale. Apologies in advance for any off the wall remarks. Undoubtedly it will cause a lot of responses and all I can say is that if it appears to me that someone didn’t read the whole thing, I won’t even bother responding to them:
With regards as to what makes an ecumenical council ecumenical, well that’s certainly a matter of great debate for Orthodoxy. I have a pretty organic view of the matter, which is to say that I think it must be well received by the Church at all levels (bishops and laity) for a long period of time to really know for sure. That’s one criteria, at least. At this point, however, it’s asked whether this entails a simple majority of adherence or universal adherence. If it is the latter, then no council meets this criteria, and therefore there are no ecumenical councils. That seems to be a rather distasteful answer to say the least. There must be ecumenical councils since we have letters from the Fathers naming them by number. So clearly they had some sort of distinct category of councils that we would call “ecumenical.” But if it is simple majority, then why wouldn’t the Arians have won out? Why wouldn’t Florence (if we’re going by the numbers of bishops only) be correct? Or dare I say, why wouldn’t Chalcedon be disqualified considering the fact that the largest population centers of the Church rejected it? So it cannot be the former option either, for Catholics and for Eastern Orthodox. It is at this juncture that an appeal to Rome’s confirmation seems to be a very enticing solution. What is ecumenical is necessarily what the pope confirms to be ecumenical. But this theory too has its historical problems, which are notably the Council of Trullo in 692 and the Councils of Constantinople in both 869 and 879.
Let’s look at the first of the two, Trullo. It’s commonly asserted that the papal legate present at Trullo was not legitimate, therefore there was no papal representation. Alternatively, the
Liber Pontificalis alleges that the legate(s) were forced to sign under duress. Whatever the case, these objections don’t really matter. Although Pope Sergius resisted signing the canons, his successor Pope John VII apparently did, which is further bolstered by the fact that he avoided placing new representations of Christ as a Lamb in churches, which Trullo strangely forbid. In any case, we have specific letters of Pope Hadrian I to both the Byzantine empress and to the Franks, recognizing the Council of Trullo as part of the Sixth Ecumenical Council. The Second Council of Nicaea further recognizes Trullo as having been a part of the Sixth Council. Furthermore, the Frankish Church, in its explicit rejection of II Nicaea (known as the
Opus Caroli regis contra synodum or
Libri Carolini) also recognized Trullo as part of the Sixth Council, and in fact tried to use one of its canons as supporting their rejection of some of II Nicaea’s doctrines on icon veneration. But Catholics commonly answer this with Pope John VIII’s conditional acceptance of Trullo’s canons except those contrary to Roman customs. This of course is nearly 80 years after Pope Hadrian and nearly 150 years after John VII’s apparent acceptance of them. They will says that these qualifications shows that Trullo was not ecumenical. But this reasoning is unacceptable. Would they be willing to say the same thing for Chalcedon because the Roman Church rejected Canon 28? Furthermore, it contradicts the supposed magisterial ratification of Trullo by Pope John VII, and most certainly Pope Hadrian I. In short, the Catholic appeal to Pope John VIII’s qualification as meaning it wasn’t regarded as ecumenical just doesn’t add up. I’ve recently become aware of an article titled “The Council of Trullo Revisted” (
cdn.theologicalstudies.net/71/71.3/10.1177.004056391007100307.pdf). I haven’t read it, but it might be worth reading. Another good, but brief treatment of the subject can be found in John Meyendorff’s Imperial Unity and Christian Divisions: The Church 450-680 A.D. On a random note, he also has a very interesting treatment of the Acacian Schism. Why the Catholic Church today refuses to acknowledge Trullo as ecumenical is puzzling, but clearly presents a huge problem for their doctrines even if they were to reverse course.
As for the Council of Constantinople (879), I won’t go into full details, but it is historically demonstrable that the Church of Rome accepted 879 as legitimate. It only rejected this council in the second millennium because of a wide variety of factors that are too complicated to summarize here. Needless to say, before the eleventh century, neither 869 nor 879 were held as ecumenical in either the West or East. They were just regarded as legitimate. I highly recommend reading a book by Francis Dvornik, who was a Catholic priest and scholar, titled The Photian Schism: History and Legend. I’m not certain if you have read it already, but I do see that you’ve mentioned it on your post on the Filioque and 879. While his book is nearing 70 years old and therefore has erroneous details here and there, it still remains the fundamental historical read for the subject. In short, there was never a second Photian Schism, just one. Dvornik seems to advocate accepting 879 as ecumenical in addition to 869. Now most Orthodox reject 869 as even legitimate. I personally have no problem with 869, although whether it should be regarded as ecumenical is another matter. Photius’ ascendency to the patriarchal throne was technically uncanonical. It should be recognized however that these canons were being violated for centuries in Constantinople. Photius just happened to have a poor luck of the draw.
