Official Listing of "Ecumenical" councils

[Gregory_I]

Is there any document in the Roman Catholic Church that clearly and dogmatically, I will say it again DOGMATICALLY Asserts that the General Roman Synods after 787 ad. (2nd council of Nicea) are indeed Ecumenical in the fullest sense: A gathering of ALL the Catholic bishops in the world to define a matter of faith and morals for the Universal good of the church, and NOT as a western general synod, creating regional canons and establishing LOCAL disciplines for the Roman Church?

For example, I seriously cannot see the (Roman) 4th council of constantinople as ecumenical, because it was called to intervene in an ecclesiastical dispute that had nothing to do with FAITH. Seriously, only 102 bishops max at any given session? And Chalcedon had, what, 350?

Also, how much of the language surrounding the dogma of purgatory is theologoumena? For example Purgatorial fire as material fire, purgatory as a place seperate and apart from either heaven or hell,etc. That “just” punishment has ANYTHING to do with forgiveness, etc.

 

[AlabamaCatholic]

Is there any document in the Roman Catholic Church that clearly and dogmatically, I will say it again DOGMATICALLY Asserts that the General Roman Synods after 787 ad. (2nd council of Nicea) are indeed Ecumenical in the fullest sense: A gathering of ALL the Catholic bishops in the world to define a matter of faith and morals for the Universal good of the church, and NOT as a western general synod, creating regional canons and establishing LOCAL disciplines for the Roman Church?

For example, I seriously cannot see the (Roman) 4th council of constantinople as ecumenical, because it was called to intervene in an ecclesiastical dispute that had nothing to do with FAITH. Seriously, only 102 bishops max at any given session? And Chalcedon had, what, 350?

Also, how much of the language surrounding the dogma of purgatory is theologoumena? For example Purgatorial fire as material fire, purgatory as a place seperate and apart from either heaven or hell,etc. That “just” punishment has ANYTHING to do with forgiveness, etc.

My guess is you would have to look at each Council rather than look for one source as an exhaustive list.

For example, the decree from the Third Session of the Council of Trent (Feb 4, 1546) concerning the Symbol of Faith reads, “This holy, ecumenical and general Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Ghost…”

I would be very careful in judging whether a Council is ecumenical based on the actual number of bishops in attendance. What does the Holy Father say?

The fourth council of Constantinople, which you allude to, itself reads, “The holy, great and universal synod…”

 

[stuart12]

For the initial seven Ecumenical Councils, I believe that very few Latin bishops (or representatives) were present, which does not invalidate their claim to be a true council.

 

[Phillip_Rolfes]

This is a much more difficult and complex question even than it appears on the surface, and to me it appears very difficult on the surface. In order to answer which Councils are indeed ecumenical one must first answer what exactly constitutes an ecumenical council. Most theologians who study the councils and most theologians who are involved in ecumenism don’t agree with one another on what constitutes and ecumenical council. In the past it was argued that in order for a Council to be ecumenical the Pope had to be present, or at the very least one of his delegates. But if memory serves me correctly that wasn’t the case in some of the Seven Ecumenical Councils. It’s also been argued that the Pope has to approve of the documents. But again, this wasn’t the case with all of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

I know there is a trend, even among Roman Catholic theologians who are in good standing with Rome, to “relativize” the post-Schism Councils as being “general Synods of the West” and not ecumenical. This trend is also shared by a good number of Eastern Catholic theologians, also in good standing with Rome. Of course this would make the Orthodox ecstatic.

 

[SouthpawLink]

Is there any document in the Roman Catholic Church that clearly and dogmatically, I will say it again DOGMATICALLY Asserts that the General Roman Synods after 787 ad. (2nd council of Nicea) are indeed Ecumenical in the fullest sense: A gathering of ALL the Catholic bishops in the world to define a matter of faith and morals for the Universal good of the church, and NOT as a western general synod, creating regional canons and establishing LOCAL disciplines for the Roman Church?

For example, I seriously cannot see the (Roman) 4th council of constantinople as ecumenical, because it was called to intervene in an ecclesiastical dispute that had nothing to do with FAITH. Seriously, only 102 bishops max at any given session? And Chalcedon had, what, 350?

Also, how much of the language surrounding the dogma of purgatory is theologoumena? For example Purgatorial fire as material fire, purgatory as a place seperate and apart from either heaven or hell,etc. That “just” punishment has ANYTHING to do with forgiveness, etc.

Are you asking for the Church to dogmatically assert the dogmatic nature of its own self-proclaimed ecumenical councils? Doesn’t that seem unnecessary? Lateran IV (1215), Lyons II (1274), Florence (1439), Trent (1545-63) and Vatican I (1870) all issued either solemn Professions of Faith or dogmatic decrees and definitions demanding the assent of all Catholics everywhere. That certainly attests to their ecumenical character.

Lyons II and Florence both shortly brought about a reunion with the Greek schismatics.

This page may be of some help to you: piar.hu/councils/
Philip Rolfes:

It’s also been argued that the Pope has to approve of the documents. But again, this wasn’t the case with all of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

Would you mind pointing out which ones never received papal approbation? I’m not aware of any of them not having received such approbation (even if it occured several years later).

 

[Gregory_I]

Well, Emperor Constantine, Not the Pope, called the council of Nicea, presided over by Alexander of Alexandria.

Emperor Theodosius called the First council of constantinople, and initially the Pope, Damasus only approved the creed. It was not considered ecumenical till after Chalcedon.

Epheus was also called by Emperor Theodosius II. St. Cyril presided invested by Pope Celstine with his own authority

Chalcedon was called by the emperor Marcian.

II Constantinople was called by Emperor Justinian. No papal legates or representatives were present, though Pope Vigilius was very involved, albeit indirectly.

III Constantinople was called by Emperor Constantine Pogonatus

II Council of Nicea called by Empress-Regent Irene.

So, we can at least see that it is emphatically NOT neccessary for the Pope to convene an ecumenical council for it to ecumenical, nor even that he give his initial consent, nor that his legates or personal representatives be present. It is true that at one point or another the Pope has ratified these councils, BUT DID THEY NOT TEACH THE CATHOLIC FAITH BEFORE PAPAL APPROBATION?

The real question is, how do those councils after II Nicea differ from the first 7? I am an advocate of the High Petrine (Not absolutist) view of the Papcy, in accord with all set forth by the I Vatican council, but I sometimes feel that Roman Catholic apologetics is a little sloppy with the historical details. For example, when I am told that A pope called every ecumenical council, or that he personally presided at each one.

Sanity is conforming your mind to reality.

 

[SouthpawLink]

So, we can at least see that it is emphatically NOT neccessary for the Pope to convene an ecumenical council for it to ecumenical, nor even that he give his initial consent, nor that his legates or personal representatives be present. It is true that at one point or another the Pope has ratified these councils, BUT DID THEY NOT TEACH THE CATHOLIC FAITH BEFORE PAPAL APPROBATION?

Yes, I believe I can agree to this, although it is also true that papal approbation is necessary for a council to be truly ecumenical. In fact, there were several councils held in Constantinople which were attended by the other four patriarchs – but not Rome – and which accepted Monophysitism as orthodox. Rome obviously rejected the decrees of these councils and so they never attained ecumenical status (despite the approval of the other four patriarchs).

The real question is, how do those councils after II Nicea differ from the first 7? I am an advocate of the High Petrine (Not absolutist) view of the Papcy, in accord with all set forth by the I Vatican council, but I sometimes feel that Roman Catholic apologetics is a little sloppy with the historical details. For example, when I am told that A pope called every ecumenical council, or that he personally presided at each one.

Sanity is conforming your mind to reality.

I do not hold that the pope either called or personally attended each and every ecumenical council, because that is plainly false. What is most important, however, are these two questions:

Can a council be truly ecumenical without subsequent approval by the Holy See (which the East, prior to 787, accepted as presiding over the whole Church*)?

Can a council be truly ecumenical without the approval of schismatic patriarchs, viz. with only the approval of the Apostolic See?

*Mansi XIII, 208-209; 463BC; Council of Ephesus: Dz. 112; Council of Chalcedon: Dz. 149).

 

[Gregory_I]

I see your point, and I would say on faith that Papal ratification is necessary.

But two points:

1. Did those councils teach Catholic faith before papal approbation where the pope at the time did not initially view it favorably? If so, then it would seem the Sensus Fidei, or the Phronema of the Church is what gives these councils their initial force, papal approbation or not. He cannot contradict the mind of the church.

Though without a central Authority, it IS hard to determine what that is. I.E. in the Cases of Both Arianism, and Eutychianism. I do not admit the "Mono"physites (at least thoughtful ones like Severus and Philoxanis) to be heretical in their Christology. And the Catholic church no longer does either.

1. It’s all about definitions again. THe Oikumene was the whole Roman world, the Roman Empire. Hence the strong ties to the Emperor, and hence all of the Seven Ecumenical councils were “Roman” Councils. For example, there was little participation from the Bishops of the Persian empire, as that would have brought down persecution onto the Christians living in the Persian Empire.

So it would SEEM that it is possible to THINK that an ecumenical council was primarily a council of all, or at least the majority of the Bishops of the Roman Empire, called by the Emperor with the Pope, or his legates, normatively presiding.

So it could be plausible to view any councils called by the Pope himself, and not the emperor as merely General Synods (as they ARE often identified). Especially because AFTER 1054, there were friendly relations continued between Rome and the East. There is no document affirming the Orthodox as a seperate Church before the COuncil of Florence. Cardinal Humberts Excommunication of Patriarch Michael Cerularius was PERSONAL and di not extend to the Byzantine church as a whole (how could it?) And Vice Versa. And even after the Sacking of constantinople, there was STILL no clear dissent from the faith on the Orthodox side, which is why they were not and are not considered heretics. The Orthodox themselves often style the council of Florence as the 8th Ecumenical Council, and so did the Latins for awhile.

So, for at LEAST 400 years between 1054 and 1439, there was definitely estrangement and bickering, but no rupture on the basis of faith, at least not as a whole. So what about all those Eastern orthodox and apparently Catholic Bishops decidedly NOT invited to the Councils called (some may even think clandestinely) by the Pope? Can such exclusion and disregard for ahuge number of the Faithful really be considered “ecumenical.”?

ALso, just FYI there were papal legates present at the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449.

And then what about Local Councils Like the Councils of Antioch and Laodicea that are given ecumenical status via Ecumenical Approbation? Do we treat them as Ecumenical Materially, though not formally?

 

[Hesychios]

So, for at LEAST 400 years between 1054 and 1439, there was definitely estrangement and bickering, but no rupture on the basis of faith, at least not as a whole. So what about all those Eastern orthodox and apparently Catholic Bishops decidedly NOT invited to the Councils called (some may even think clandestinely) by the Pope? Can such exclusion and disregard for a huge number of the Faithful really be considered “ecumenical.”?

I didn’t know about that.

I do know that there was one of the Seven Councils (#7, the restoration of images) where the Gallo-Germanic bishops of the Frankish empire were not called, and many believe that it was a deliberate omission.

ALso, just FYI there were papal legates present at the Robber Council of Ephesus in 449.

Not only that.

The very first Ecumenical Council, that of Nicea in 325AD, was chaired by a bishop not in communion with Rome, Saint Meletios.

And then what about Local Councils Like the Councils of Antioch and Laodicea that are given ecumenical status via Ecumenical Approbation? Do we treat them as Ecumenical Materially, though not formally?

The very first ‘proto-Council’ was called by Constantine when he controlled only western Europe. What I mean by this is that members of several synods met together: simultaneously in one place (one good way to reach a concensus across the church).

It met at Arles, and was attended by bishops from Gaul, Spain, Italy and North Africa in (I think) 314AD. It is not considered an Ecumenical Council, but has been called a “General Council of the West” by some writers.

 

[Gregory_I]

The reason that the Gallo-Germanic bishops were not called was because many were under the influence of Iconoclasm. It was strong in the Germanic lands. This was probably due to the last vestiges of Arianism.

I really sympathize with Eastern Churches, this is how THEY perceived the situation at the time: Nicetas, Archbishop of Nicomedia, in the 12th century:

“My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Oecuminical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office… How shall we accept from her decrees that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory, wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.”

Good point. how? These People were Catholic Bishops after all.

 

[Hesychios]

The reason that the Gallo-Germanic bishops were not called was because many were under the influence of Iconoclasm. It was strong in the Germanic lands. This was probably due to the last vestiges of Arianism.

The fact is that Charlemagne convened a synod of the Catholic bishops in his realm at Frankfurt in 794AD, and one of it’s actions was to condemn images in reaction to the Seventh Ecumenical Council (it seems to have actually condemned the Council of Nicea II). Charlemagne’s bishops were notoriously iconoclastic at the time.

Papal legates were present at the event, and from what I recall they signed the documents.

I do not know what they were thinking at the time, or why. It is possible that Arianism was an influence, but I find that to be something of a stretch. Someone once suggested that Charlemagne nursed a grudge over the slight of excluding his bishops from participation at Nicea II, and wanted to make a point of it.

The ‘Greeks’ (Byzantines) were still also making claims to Italy and retained a chunk of it in the south. Charles was investing a lot of energy into subjugating the Arian Lombards and, in seeing the Byzantines as political rivals with a prior claim to the territory may have been eager to portray them as spiritually fallen.

BTW, I need to make a correction. Saint Meletios was not the chair of the first Ecumenical Council, he chaired the second Ecumenical Council in 381AD, that would be Constantinople I (not Nicea I).

 

[Gregory_I]

know what else is funny? Charlemagne thought that the Latin Creed with the filioque was the original from Constantinople, and that the greeks deleted it lately. He accused the greeks of heresy in this regard. Ridiculous nonsense, lol.

 

[Wesley7]

In the back of the book Orthodox Dogmatic Theology the index lists the 7 ecumenical councils.

 

[Hesychios]

Sanity is conforming your mind to reality.

I think you must be a fan of Frank Sheed.