No Pope = No Ecumenical Council

[ConstantineTG]

To put what you are saying in a logically rigorous form, a pope’s acceptance (or ratification) is a necessary condition of a council being recognized as ecumenical, but not a sufficient condition.

I wouldn’t actually go as far as that. I think in Orthodox ecclesiology it is presently unclear whether a pope’s ratification is a necessary condition. I’m not sure that question will ever be, or ever need to be, resolved. Hopefully not. Hopefully the next ecumenical council will be unquestionably ecumenical, with full and equal particpation by the Bishop of Rome and all canonical bishops.

Ecumenical means “the whole world”. And that means all canonical Bishops, and that includes (or included) the Pope. So it doesn’t become Ecumenical because it is by some authority of the Pope that he accepts it. Rather it becomes Ecumenical because all bishops accept it including the Pope (he being one of many, not THE one).

Of course this also is not a cut and dry process, often it takes decades for a council to be recognized Ecumenical. They don’t just finish up a council, everyone signs the canons, and all the bishops walk out holding hands and singing “Kumbaya”. There is still much contention and much discussion after, often still leading to persecution and martyrdom to the defenders of orthodoxy, before light is shed on the matter.

 

[Montalban]

There were many independent synods east and west. Over time they came to be known and acceptable or not to other jurisdictions.

I agree. So you’re saying that this was only a ‘local’ council until accepted in the west?

The Council of Trullo is one we (Orthodox) accept as a continuation of an Ecumenical Council - even though the RCC does not.

All the Ecumenical Councils were called for by emperors.

 

[Montalban]

To put what you are saying in a logically rigorous form, a pope’s acceptance (or ratification) is a necessary condition of a council being recognized as ecumenical, but not a sufficient condition.

I wouldn’t actually go as far as that. I think in Orthodox ecclesiology it is presently unclear whether a pope’s ratification is a necessary condition. I’m not sure that question will ever be, or ever need to be, resolved. Hopefully not. Hopefully the next ecumenical council will be unquestionably ecumenical, with full and equal particpation by the Bishop of Rome and all canonical bishops.

Sounds like they needed to call an Ecumenical Council to decide the matter

 

[Montalban]

Ecumenical means “the whole world”. And that means all canonical Bishops, and that includes (or included) the Pope. So it doesn’t become Ecumenical because it is by some authority of the Pope that he accepts it. Rather it becomes Ecumenical because all bishops accept it including the Pope (he being one of many, not THE one).

Of course this also is not a cut and dry process, often it takes decades for a council to be recognized Ecumenical. They don’t just finish up a council, everyone signs the canons, and all the bishops walk out holding hands and singing “Kumbaya”. There is still much contention and much discussion after, often still leading to persecution and martyrdom to the defenders of orthodoxy, before light is shed on the matter.

Not cut and dried, indeed. As I noted above Trullo is considered by Orthodox as an extension of one Ecumenical Council

 

[Schism_hater]

Sounds like they needed to call an Ecumenical Council to decide the matter

Well done, sir.

 

[Vico]

I agree. So you’re saying that this was only a ‘local’ council until accepted in the west?

The Council of Trullo is one we (Orthodox) accept as a continuation of an Ecumenical Council - even though the RCC does not.

All the Ecumenical Councils were called for by emperors.

Yes, The First Council of Constantinople (381) was a local council of the east. The creed revision from it was not received by the Latin Church until Chalcedon (451), after Pope St. Leo had already dogmatically approved the filioque. And the The First Council of Constantinople (381) was not accepted by Rome until the Council of Constantinople II (553) which was ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate). Not everything was acceptable from a council either, for example canon 28 from that local council was not accepted by Pope St. Leo the Great.

 

[Montalban]

Yes, The First Council of Constantinople (381) was a local council of the east. The creed revision from it was not received by the Latin Church until Chalcedon (451), after Pope St. Leo had already dogmatically approved the filioque. And the The First Council of Constantinople (381) was not accepted by Rome until the Council of Constantinople II (553) which was ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate). Not everything was acceptable from a council either, for example canon 28 from that local council was not accepted by Pope St. Leo the Great.

The 1st is counted as Ecumenical. It’s creed was accepted, by another Council. It’s canons were read into the ‘minutes’ of the 2nd

I mentioned Canon 28 already - though rejected by the Pope it was still accepted by the east - thus the east at least didn’t think that papal approval was necessary. Catholics might think it is.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

True, but Ecumenical Councils are called as such because it is universally accepted. So it is true that the Pope needs to accept a council to make it Ecumenical. What is false here is the assumption that it is the Pope’s acceptance because he is the supreme pontiff of the entire Church that makes a council Ecumenical. A pope can accept a council but if the Patriarch of Alexandria or Constantinople does not accept it, it still doesn’t make the council Ecumenical. That little detail is conveniently left off by Apologists.

Catholics would say such councils are ecumenical because they are universally binding, not because they are universally accepted.

It would be difficult to argue, for example, that Chalcedon was universally accepted. Further, as I’m sure you’re aware, Catholics have never regarded ‘acceptance’ of authoritative teaching as a mark of its authenticity. While consensus is ideal, it’s almost never to be had in the face of heresy.

Universal participation is a nice goal, and AFAIK, the Catholic Church tried to invite the Orthodox to most of its post-schism councils. But, as has already been noted on this thread, universal participation was never the rule, even for the first seven councils.

The Catechism’s presentation is that 'there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor”(CCC 884).

If Petrine recognition is not the standard, we’re left with post facto ‘reception’ as the only standard, which means it would always take centuries to know if a council were ecumenical or not.

 

[ConstantineTG]

Catholics would say such councils are ecumenical because they are universally binding, not because they are universally accepted.

It would be difficult to argue, for example, that Chalcedon was universally accepted. Further, as I’m sure you’re aware, Catholics have never regarded ‘acceptance’ of authoritative teaching as a mark of its authenticity. While consensus is ideal, it’s almost never to be had in the face of heresy.

Universal participation is a nice goal, and AFAIK, the Catholic Church tried to invite the Orthodox to most of its post-schism councils. But, as has already been noted on this thread, universal participation was never the rule, even for the first seven councils.

The Catechism’s presentation is that 'there never is an ecumenical council which is not confirmed or at least recognized as such by Peter’s successor”(CCC 884).

If Petrine recognition is not the standard, we’re left with post facto ‘reception’ as the only standard, which means it would always take centuries to know if a council were ecumenical or not.

Not centuries, but at least decades. But that is how it really was. We’re not saying this for the sake of disproving the Papacy, that is how it actually happened.

Ecumenical Councils are binding precisely because they were accepted.

And Chalcedon was universally accepted, by those who remained in the communion of both Rome and Constantinople. Universal acceptance doesn’t mean including those who schismed. If that were the case, then none of the councils would be ecumenical. Schism, unfortunately, is a byproduct the contentions that happen within a council. But if a bishop and his church has left the communion, they don’t count anymore. It’s like asking of a Catholic council can only be valid if the Anglicans and Lutherans both accept it.

 

[smad0142]

Yes, The First Council of Constantinople (381) was a local council of the east. The creed revision from it was not received by the Latin Church until Chalcedon (451), after Pope St. Leo had already dogmatically approved the filioque. And the The First Council of Constantinople (381) was not accepted by Rome until the Council of Constantinople II (553) which was ratified by Pope Vigilius (537-555 pontificate). Not everything was acceptable from a council either, for example canon 28 from that local council was not accepted by Pope St. Leo the Great.

Can you provide a source of that for me?

Also, as has already been said, the whole issue of universal acceptance means absolutely nothing. By that standard we should not accept Chalcedon since it was not universally accepted. Also plenty of things happen that are accepted in the wider Church that the Pope may not necessarily accept especially in his position as the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, e.g. married clergy.

 

[CharlesdeFoucld]

Ecumenical Councils are binding precisely because they were accepted.

And Chalcedon was universally accepted, by those who remained in the communion of both Rome and Constantinople. Universal acceptance doesn’t mean including those who schismed. If that were the case, then none of the councils would be ecumenical. Schism, unfortunately, is a byproduct the contentions that happen within a council. But if a bishop and his church has left the communion, they don’t count anymore.

I must not be understanding you correctly. Let me paraphrase what I take to be your argument: We know a council is ecumenical if it’s universally accepted by orthodox believers. But if a believer does not accept an ecumenical council, he isn’t orthodox.

Does this not seem hopelessly circular? We know a council is ecumenical if it’s accepted post facto by orthodox believers, but we know a believer is orthodox if he’s accepted the ecumenical council.

Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood your point.

 

[Vico]

Can you provide a source of that for me?

Also, as has already been said, the whole issue of universal acceptance means absolutely nothing. By that standard we should not accept Chalcedon since it was not universally accepted. Also plenty of things happen that are accepted in the wider Church that the Pope may not necessarily accept especially in his position as the Bishop of the Diocese of Rome, e.g. married clergy.

Source: Catechism of the Catholic Church No. 247:
247 The affirmation of the *filioque *does not appear in the Creed confessed in 381 at Constantinople. But Pope St. Leo I, following an ancient Latin and Alexandrian tradition, had already confessed it dogmatically in 447,76 even before Rome, in 451 at the Council of Chalcedon, came to recognize and receive the Symbol of 381. The use of this formula in the Creed was gradually admitted into the Latin liturgy (between the eighth and eleventh centuries). The introduction of the filioque into the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed by the Latin liturgy constitutes moreover, even today, a point of disagreement with the Orthodox Churches.
76 Cf. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (447): DS 284.
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p2.htm

In Latin, Pope St. Leo I, Quam laudabiliter (in a letter to Bishop St. Turibius of Astoga 447 A.D.)rimo itaque capitulo demonstratur quam impie sentiant de Trinitate divina, qui et Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti unam atque eandem asserunt esse personam, tamquam idem Deus nunc Pater nunc Filius nunc Spiritus Sanctus nominetur; nec alius sit qui genuit, alius qui genitus est, alius qui de utroque procedit.
catholicpatristics.blogspot.com/2009/08/filioque.html

Thus, in the first chapter it is shown what impious notions they hold concerning the divine Trinity, when they assert that there is one and the same person of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, as though the same God should at one time be named Father, at another time Son, at another time Holy Spirit; and as though there were not one Who begat, another Who is begotten, another Who proceeds from both.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I must not be understanding you correctly. Let me paraphrase what I take to be your argument: We know a council is ecumenical if it’s universally accepted by orthodox believers. But if a believer does not accept an ecumenical council, he isn’t orthodox.

Does this not seem hopelessly circular? We know a council is ecumenical if it’s accepted post facto by orthodox believers, but we know a believer is orthodox if he’s accepted the ecumenical council.

Please correct me if I’ve misunderstood your point.

Well, any argument can be circular. I mean, if you say that the Pope makes a council binding, at what point does he make it binding? When he feels like it?

Usually a later council will confirm an earlier council and also ratify that the earlier council is indeed Ecumenical.

 

[smad0142]

Vico,

Thanks for the source and the link, both have proven to be a wealth of further information and study.

 

[Aramis]

Not centuries, but at least decades. But that is how it really was. We’re not saying this for the sake of disproving the Papacy, that is how it actually happened.

Ecumenical Councils are binding precisely because they were accepted.

Logical fallacy there.

Being valid because they were accepted makes the pan-orthodox council of the 1700’s ecumenical, since all of the orthodox accept it… but no orthodox church accepts it as ecumenical, even tho almost all accept it as binding.

Further, large minority portions of each council rejected its decision. For the 1st, 3nd and 4th, this lead to major schisms. (1st Arians and Gnostics; 3rd the Assyrians and true Nestorians; 4th, the Miaphysites and Monophysites, now Oriental Orthodox).

 

[ConstantineTG]

Logical fallacy there.

Being valid because they were accepted makes the pan-orthodox council of the 1700’s ecumenical, since all of the orthodox accept it… but no orthodox church accepts it as ecumenical, even tho almost all accept it as binding.

Further, large minority portions of each council rejected its decision. For the 1st, 3nd and 4th, this lead to major schisms. (1st Arians and Gnostics; 3rd the Assyrians and true Nestorians; 4th, the Miaphysites and Monophysites, now Oriental Orthodox).

The Orthodox isn’t as hung-up on the term “Ecumenical” as the Catholics are. Yes, there were councils that were universally accepted and technically we could call it Ecumenical if we want to.

The greatest question in Orthodoxy is that can there be an Ecumenical Council if the Ecumene, which was synonymous to the Roman Empire, no longer exists?

And you are right about those who eventually schismed. And I’ve already covered that. If they’d rather leave the Church rather than stay within it, that is their decision. But they no longer count if they wanted to leave.

 

[Vico]

The Catholic definition of Ecumenical Council is given in Lumen Gentium (Dogmatic Constitution of the Church):22. Just as in the Gospel, the Lord so disposing, St. Peter and the other apostles constitute one apostolic college, so in a similar way the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter, and the bishops, the successors of the apostles, are joined together. Indeed, the very ancient practice whereby bishops duly established in all parts of the world were in communion with one another and with the Bishop of Rome in a bond of unity, charity and peace,(23*) and also the councils assembled together,(24*) in which more profound issues were settled in common, (25*) the opinion of the many having been prudently considered,(26*) both of these factors are already an indication of the collegiate character and aspect of the Episcopal order; and the ecumenical councils held in the course of centuries are also manifest proof of that same character. And it is intimated also in the practice, introduced in ancient times, of summoning several bishops to take part in the elevation of the newly elected to the ministry of the high priesthood. Hence, one is constituted a member of the Episcopal body in virtue of sacramental consecration and hierarchical communion with the head and members of the body.
But the college or body of bishops has no authority unless it is understood together with the Roman Pontiff, the successor of Peter as its head. The pope’s power of primacy over all, both pastors and faithful, remains whole and intact. In virtue of his office, that is as Vicar of Christ and pastor of the whole Church, the Roman Pontiff has full, supreme and universal power over the Church. And he is always free to exercise this power. The order of bishops, which succeeds to the college of apostles and gives this apostolic body continued existence, is also the subject of supreme and full power over the universal Church, provided we understand this body together with its head the Roman Pontiff and never without this head.(27*) This power can be exercised only with the consent of the Roman Pontiff. For our Lord placed Simon alone as the rock and the bearer of the keys of the Church,(156) and made him shepherd of the whole flock;(157) it is evident, however, that the power of binding and loosing, which was given to Peter,(158) was granted also to the college of apostles, joined with their head.(159)(28*) This college, insofar as it is composed of many, expresses the variety and universality of the People of God, but insofar as it is assembled under one head, it expresses the unity of the flock of Christ. In it, the bishops, faithfully recognizing the primacy and pre-eminence of their head, exercise their own authority for the good of their own faithful, and indeed of the whole Church, the Holy Spirit supporting its organic structure and harmony with moderation. The supreme power in the universal Church, which this college enjoys, is exercised in a solemn way in an ecumenical council. A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them.(29*) This same collegiate power can be exercised together with the pope by the bishops living in all parts of the world, provided that the head of the college calls them to collegiate action, or at least approves of or freely accepts the united action of the scattered bishops, so that it is thereby made a collegiate act.

(29) Cfr. Cod. Iur. Can., c. 227.
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

CIC (1917) Can 227. Concilii decreta vim definitivam obligandi non habent, nisi a Romano Pontifice fuerint confirmata et eius iussu promulgata.

 

[Cavaradossi]

There is an astounding level of confusion in this thread over ecumenical councils. Ecumenical Councils were so-called because they were taken to be representative of the mind of the bishops throughout what was the graeco-roman world. They were not only church affairs, but also legal affairs within the empire. One can see this from the importance given to the reading of the imperial sacra at councils. We see for example, at the Council of Ephesus, that the council simply could not begin its proceedings until the imperial sacra was read. St. Cyril somewhat cleverly managed to trick the Emperor’s representative into reading the imperial sacra early at this council, managing thereby to begin the council before John of Antioch’s party had arrived.

There really is no explanation for why councils become ecumenical, except for the idea that the received tradition recognizes them as such. This is even true in the West, up until perhaps the First Vatican Council. The very modern idea that having papal ratification of a council automatically gives it ecumenical authority is most certainly false when examined against the historical record of papal ratification of councils and their reception.

 

[Vico]

There is an astounding level of confusion in this thread over ecumenical councils. Ecumenical Councils were so-called because they were taken to be representative of the mind of the bishops throughout what was the graeco-roman world. They were not only church affairs, but also legal affairs within the empire. One can see this from the importance given to the reading of the imperial sacra at councils. We see for example, at the Council of Ephesus, that the council simply could not begin its proceedings until the imperial sacra was read. St. Cyril somewhat cleverly managed to trick the Emperor’s representative into reading the imperial sacra early at this council, managing thereby to begin the council before John of Antioch’s party had arrived.

There really is no explanation for why councils become ecumenical, except for the idea that the received tradition recognizes them as such. This is even true in the West, up until perhaps the First Vatican Council. The very modern idea that having papal ratification of a council automatically gives it ecumenical authority is most certainly false when examined against the historical record of papal ratification of councils and their reception.

We do know about how councils are classified, at least by the Catholic Church, as can be seen in the (Old) Catholic Encylopedia:Ecumenical Councils are those to which the bishops, and others entitled to vote, are convoked from the whole world (oikoumene) under the presidency of the pope or his legates, and the decrees of which, having received papal confirmation, bind all Christians. A council, Ecumenical in its convocation, may fail to secure the approbation of the whole Church or of the pope, and thus not rank in authority with Ecumenical councils. Such was the case with the Robber Synod of 449 (Latrocinium Ephesinum), the Synod of Pisa in 1409, and in part with the Councils of Constance and Basle.
Wilhelm, Joseph. “General Councils.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 4. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1908. 27 May 2013 <newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm>

 

[Montalban]

What I find also interesting is that councils, including the one mentioned in Acts 15 came together because of a trouble brewing in the community.

The ‘cause’ was some dogmatic problem; the councils were ‘reactive’.

However recent ‘Catholic’ Ecumenical Councils, such as Vatican I were called - as far as I’m aware - to discuss matters that were not a raging heresy within the church.

The modern ‘Catholic’ Ecumenical Councils come about differently from previous councils.