Orthodox "Ecumenical" Council

[Scythian]

I keep hearing in the news about the autocephalous Orthodox Churches and their respective Patriarchs convening for an Ecumenical Council soon.
I was under the impression that for a council to be considered Ecumenical, the bishop of Rome must be included as a “fellow worker” in the council, according to the canons of the 7th Ecumenical Council in 787.
I know the media gets things wrong a lot but I’m seeing this everywhere from a lot of liberal and conservative religious news sources.
Am I missing something here?

i highly doubt it will end being counted among them as a true ecumenical council, like their 8th and 9th ecumenical councils

Yet according to many Eastern Catholics on this forum, no council of the Catholic Church can be ecumenical without the participation of the Orthodox Churches. We need them but they don’t need us?

heh, since im not among those eastern catholics who claim that i would be interested in seeing their response

 

[Peter_J]

heh, since im not among those eastern catholics who claim that i would be interested in seeing their response

Indeed, and I guess I should respond.

Melkites in general do say that there have only been seven ecumenical councils … Some would go a further step and say that there cannot be one without the Orthodox. I don’t know how many, but in any case those Melkites would surely also claim that the Orthodox cannot have one without Rome.

 

[rmills1]

Thank you guys! That just confirms my thinking that the bishop of Rome does have to be included in the council for it to be considered ecumenical.

dzheremi
The Council of Chalcedon (451) declared that Christ has two absolutely distinct natures, divine and human, as the Second Person of the Trinity. That’s it.
Do you believe that Christ has a single combined divine/human nature in that there is no separating one from the other? That is what the Council of Ephesus in 449 declared.
The Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Churches do not profess this and actually neither does the Coptic Orthodox Church for that matter. The Coptic Orthodox Church believe in Miaphysitism. Miaphysitism states that Jesus’ two Natures coalesce/mingle within him but do not lose their individual distinctiveness as the Second Person of the Trinity. This is a more specific view of His natures but not heretical in regard to the Council of Chalcedon. (Communique of the 1st Nonofficial Ecumenical Consultation between the Theologians of the Oriental Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches, 1971).

 

[dzheremi]

Chalcedon is unacceptable. Do not lecture me on my own church’s Christology. You do not know it.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Second Ephesus declared that Christ had but one nature (monophysitism). This, of course, directly contradicted First Ephesus. But, both were ecumencial councils (according to the EO criteria laid out above)

That is not correct. EO teaching is that a counicl must be accepted as such by the Church to be an ecumenicla council. The Robber Council was never so accepted.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Either way, Second Ephesus contradicted First Ephesus (and Chalcedon later) and can only be ruled out as ecumenical by the repudiation of said council by the legate of Peter.

Actually no. The Council of Chalcedon disproves this narrative. The Council itself quite clearly tried Dioscoros and annulled the Second Council of Ephesus on the grounds that the synod had been conducted improperly, insofar as there were allegations that Dioscoros in his presidency of the council resorted to deception (by hiding Pope Leo’s tome and thereby excluding the confession of the largest and most prominent local church from consideration) and coercion in order to effect the results he desired.

In other words, it was not the authority of the “legate of Peter” (by which I assume Pope Leo’s legates are meant) which rendered the council invalid, as if the legates possessed a veto ability like in a secular government, or as if they possessed the raw authority even to proclaim what is true to be false or what is valid to be invalid. Rather, the legates’ protestations served only to highlight the defects of the council. This is why, despite their protestations, the council initially entered into Roman Law, until it was annulled at Chalcedon, where the improprieties of Dioscoros’ presidency were brought to light.

In this sense, what happened was more akin to the annulment of a marriage which is contracted despite certain impediments (say a consanguineous marriage, or one contracted through deception). Such a marriage is not dissolved by the authority of the ecclesiastical court, but rather the ecclesiastical court is simply witnessing to the fact that no marriage took place initially.

I should also note that it is incorrect to suppose that what was taught at the Second Council of Ephesus was necessarily opposed to the First Council of Ephesus. Its refusal to accept a dyophysite confession of ‘in two natures,’ was clearly something which contradicted the Formula of Union, effected by the emperor after the First Council of Ephesus, but the actual Council of Ephesus was rather biased against Antiochene Christology (including the dyophysite confession of ‘in two natures’), creating an ecclesiastical crisis which was only solved through the Formula of Union (which deposed Nestorius but proclaimed the dyophysite language to be orthodox).

 

[GaryTaylor]

In other words, it was not the authority of the “legate of Peter” (by which I assume Pope Leo’s legates are meant) which rendered the council invalid, as if the legates possessed a veto ability like in a secular government, or as if they possessed the raw authority even to proclaim what is true to be false or what is valid to be invalid. Rather, the legates’ protestations served only to highlight the defects of the council. This is why, despite their protestations, the council initially entered into Roman Law, until it was annulled at Chalcedon, where the improprieties of Dioscoros’ presidency were brought to light…

You have a source?

 

[MichaelinMD]

That is not correct. EO teaching is that a counicl must be accepted as such by the Church to be an ecumenicla council. The Robber Council was never so accepted.

Which of course absolutely begs the question, “who is ‘the Church’”? Fr. Harrison has an interesting take on that question in his article that you can read here: catholic.com/magazine/art…tern-orthodoxy , if you haven’t already read it.

In Christ,
MinM

 

[Bballer32]

Actually no. The Council of Chalcedon disproves this narrative. The Council itself quite clearly tried Dioscoros and annulled the Second Council of Ephesus on the grounds that the synod had been conducted improperly, insofar as there were allegations that Dioscoros in his presidency of the council resorted to deception (by hiding Pope Leo’s tome and thereby excluding the confession of the largest and most prominent local church from consideration) and coercion in order to effect the results he desired.

Hold on a second…

What do you mean by Dioscoros hiding the tome of Leo? Is this the reason then for the annulment of 2nd Ephesus? or is this just a smaller portion?

…Or maybe am I a little lost

 

[Nils]

Either way, Second Ephesus contradicted First Ephesus (and Chalcedon later) and can only be ruled out as ecumenical by the repudiation of said council by the legate of Peter. Whether or not you care for OrthodoxWiki (attacking the site commits the genetic fallacy) the historical facts, uncomfortable as they might be to you, stand.

I do not think you understand Orthodox ecclesiology, which is what we are discussing here. From their perspective, there is no “formula” or “legal process” under which the Church can never fail. Sometimes God will use a Pope to protect to Truth (Chalcedon), in another case he will use the simple babushkas who refuse to pray in a new manner. You will know whether a Council is speaking the Truth once you can see whether it is in accordance with Holy Tradition, which usually takes time (just look at the process of canonizing Scriptures).

At least that is how I understand Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. It is not the voting system itself that cannot fail.

 

[malphono]

Sometimes God will use a Pope to protect to Truth (Chalcedon),

That reference to Chalcedon may go down with the Byzantines, but somehow I don’t think it’s going to get any rave reviews from the OO. Or even from some non-OO who adhere to the miaphysite Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria.

 

[Nils]

That reference to Chalcedon may go down with the Byzantines, but somehow I don’t think it’s going to get any rave reviews from the OO. Or even from some non-OO who adhere to the miaphysite Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria.

Of course…

 

[Nine_Two]

That reference to Chalcedon may go down with the Byzantines, but somehow I don’t think it’s going to get any rave reviews from the OO. Or even from some non-OO who adhere to the miaphysite Christology of St Cyril of Alexandria.

Given that it is a description of the EO thought process I’m not particularly sure the perspective of anyone who is non-EO (Catholic or Miaphysite) matters on the issue.

 

[dzheremi]

Just as I’m not particularly sure that Ephesus II or controversies surrounding it (or Chalcedon) matter at all regarding the upcoming EO council…

 

[Taurks]

I do not think you understand Orthodox ecclesiology, which is what we are discussing here. From their perspective, there is no “formula” or “legal process” under which the Church can never fail. Sometimes God will use a Pope to protect to Truth (Chalcedon), in another case he will use the simple babushkas who refuse to pray in a new manner. You will know whether a Council is speaking the Truth once you can see whether it is in accordance with Holy Tradition, which usually takes time (just look at the process of canonizing Scriptures).

At least that is how I understand Eastern Orthodox ecclesiology. It is not the voting system itself that cannot fail.

I’m never read the specifics of our infallibility beliefs, but when I read your post, it sounded pretty consistent with the EO mindset. We’re not big about over-definition and formulization. To say “a council is ecumenical if and only if the Pope’s legate was present, and a vote was taken with x percentage…” runs contrary to the EO simplicity in faith. (As we are in Lent currently, it’s similar with fasting: we don’t comb through ingredients lists to look for traces of animal product, so as to fulfill the letter of the fasting customs. To do so would be very restrictive, in my opinion.)

 

[jimmy]

Either way, Second Ephesus contradicted First Ephesus (and Chalcedon later) and can only be ruled out as ecumenical by the repudiation of said council by the legate of Peter. Whether or not you care for OrthodoxWiki (attacking the site commits the genetic fallacy) the historical facts, uncomfortable as they might be to you, stand.

How did it contradict first Ephesus? Your quote from the Orthodoxwiki doesn’t clear that up.

 

[IgnatianPhilo]

If the Bishop of Rome is preaching false doctrine which separates him from the church Christ he cannot be included on principle. Such a canon you reference assumes the Pope is teaching correctly and not incorrectly. However having just looked at the canons of Nicea II I cannot find the canon you are describing.

The debate in response to this can only involve whether or not the pope is teaching correctly. Something I will not respond to.