This thread has gone way off topic
Anyway so we have two theories:
The first theory states that the emperor must call it and the majority of bishops in the world must be present for a council to be Ecumenical
This view is false considering that the first council of Constantinople only had a mere 150 bishops and the same was at the council of chalcedon. The second council of Constantinople only had 165 bishops and the third council of Constantinople only had 174 bishops. This can not be said to be the majority of bishops nor a good representation of th bishops of the world as all these councils were poorly attended and western participation was less than 5% of the representation at these councils and that’s being generous. These were largely eastern and more specifically, Byzantine Greek affairs.
There were over 400 bishops in North Africa alone…
Secondly if the roman emperor is necessary then that means no ecumenical councils can ever be called again as the roman empire nor the emperor no longer exist today. As such ecumenical councils are a thing if the past in Eastern Orthodoxy if this theory holds.
The second theory is the reception theory of councils that bishops and laity back home must also accept the decrees of the councils for them to be ecumenical
This is also not true of the seven councils as two of them have blatant examples of masses of christians back home not accepting the decrees of councils called “ecumenical”. The first example is the council of Ephesus where the whole Nestorian Church of the east rejected the decrees of this council, both bishops and laity. Yet this council was still called ecumenical. Another example and more damning is the Council of Chalcedon where major groups of Christians in th east , who are now collectively called the Oriental Orthodox, rejected this council (both bishops and laity) and yet th council was still called ecumenical.
So again these two theories are clearly ahistorical as the evidence runs counter to their claims. So I ask again, what makes a council ecumenical? Are there any other theories amongst the orthodox?
There is no one answer to this question, as it is a debate that continues amongst many Orthodox theologians to this day.
Personally, I hold the position that the term “ecumenical” is largely just an honorific term, usually but not necessarily applied to councils of significant size/attendance. This, of course, holds serious implications. First and foremost, it means that I divorce any claims of infallibility from ecumenical councils. In other words, I examine the arguments of a said council, and then decide for myself whether or not they are agreeable. At this point though, I find nothing doctrinally speaking that is disagreeable with the councils.
It’s also possible that the second theory mentioned is not as untenable as you might think. Lemme just throw this one out there for the sake of a thought experiment, although I am not particularly interested in fully exploring it. People who disagreed with the councils weren’t simply thrown out of the church. Particularly with Chalcedon. The non-Chalcedonians did not actually form their own separate hierarchy until long after the fourth council. There was serious debate about the council’s merits. And it was largely the non-Chalcedonians who ultimately decided to go their separate way.
II Nicaea : The convocation of the council was announced to Pope Hadrian I (772-795) in a letter of Constantine VI and Irene, dated 29 August 784. They urged him either to attend in person or to send legates. Patriarch Tarasius sent the same message in synodal letters to the pope and the three eastern patriarchs. Pope Hadrian I gave his approval for the convocation of the council, stipulating various conditions, and sent as his legates the archpriest Peter and Peter, abbot of the Greek monastery of St Sabas in Rome. The council was presided over by the legates of Pope Hadrian I
I believe this statement to be misleading. There is no doubt that II Nicaea received papal approval. However, to say it was presided over by the pope’s representatives is simply not true. If one were to read the acta of Nicaea, it is abundantly clear that the Empress and Tarasius both led the council. This is precisely why the Carolingians, particularly Theodulf of Orleans, were able to criticize II Nicaea so effectively. They significantly limited their criticism of the pope out of respect, but labelled the council as heretical and not ecumenical. The latter charge was generally rooted in the feeling that the papacy’s representation was not synonymous with Frankish representation.
Furthermore, considering the moderation of II Nicaea, as it simply ignored John of Damascus’ arguments, only someone deeply familiar with Eastern affairs would have taken care to avoid any sort of radicalism. Pope Hadrian I, despite his great knowledge, doesn’t fit that bill.
. I know at least one of your fellow Catholics (let’s just say he shares a name with the first Pope) didn’t click on this thread until today, because of how often this has been brought up in the past.