Orthodoxy: Ecumenicity, Receptionism and the Councils

[Randy_Carson]

Honestly, there seems to be multiple ways. One is a general emergence into the ecclesiastical consciousness of a council’s ecumenical nature. That seems to be what happened with the first three Lateran Councils and the two Councils of Lyons. Fortescue too seems to have had a similar idea concerning the Second Council of Constantinople. Other times (as with Trent, Vatican I, and Vatican II) there seems to have been a more instantaneous recognition.

Would you disagree with those means of recognition?

The other question I have regarding this Lateran Council of 649 concerns your source.

The only article that I have found which seems to suggest that it was viewed as Ecumenical was one that is repeated on Wikipedia, **OrthodoxWiki **and Classical Chritianity.com whose stated aim is “to further enhance, edify, and educate our fellow brethren in the Orthodox Church and help non-Orthodox become more familiar with our teachings.”

The Wikipedia version has been edited as recently as 10 days ago, and there is only reference given for the article:

Ekonomou, Andrew J. 2007. Byzantine Rome and the Greek Popes: Eastern influences on Rome and the papacy from Gregory the Great to Zacharias, A.D. 590-752. Lexington Books

So, one article by one guy repeated on three different sites…do you have any other links that I might follow?

Thanks.

 

[Cavaradossi]

That’s not actually an article, but a full-blown book. Economou’s study is well-sourced and quite a fascinating read for anybody interested in the so-called Byzantine papacy. Regrettably, I am currently about 6000 miles away from home in Hong Kong, so I am unable to refer to any of my books at this time.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Also, Catherine Cubitt has authored an article tantalizingly titled “The Lateran Council of 649 as an Ecumenical Council” as a part of Chalcedon in Context. Unfortunately, I’ve not read it, so I cannot comment on it.

 

[greypiper]

I was doing some reading about the Robber Council when I saw an argument concerning the Second Council of Ephesus (which I will be discussing in this thread. :yup That article linked to the OrthodoxWiki article quoted in my OP wherein I immediately heard the echoes of Seraphim73’s explanations.

Seraphim73 is espousing receptionism plain and simple, and he doesn’t see (or can’t admit) the circularity of it.

This is a really big deal, because just as Protestants have Sixty-Six Books in their Bible, but can’t explain why those Sixty-Six and no others, the Orthodox have Seven Councils, but can’t explain why those Seven and no others.

Well, certainly we can explain why only those seven – after that, there WERE no truly ecumenical councils. Only in-house councils of the Church of Rome, which fell away first from the True Body of Christ, His Church, and shattered against The Rock into Lutheranism, Calvinism, et al.

 

[Randy_Carson]

That’s not actually an article, but a full-blown book. Economou’s study is well-sourced and quite a fascinating read for anybody interested in the so-called Byzantine papacy. Regrettably, I am currently about 6000 miles away from home in Hong Kong, so I am unable to refer to any of my books at this time.

I was referring to the article that has been posted on the websites, but I had done my homework. The author is a professor at Emory in Atlanta (I went to Georgia Tech nearby), and the book has a massive bibliography in the back, so it appears he’s done his homework, too.

Now, about the conclusion that you may have drawn from it. Does Dr. Ekonomou offer the opinion that because Pope Martin approved the Council and later popes did not, this proves a contradiction in the Catholic approach to identifying those councils which are Ecumenical?

Or, and don’t be shy if it’s the case, is this your own conclusion based on what you have learned from Dr. Ekonomou’s book?

Thus far, and I’m only just now beginning to nose around a bit, I have not been able to find a single source that suggests anything more than something like, “Pope Theodore and Maximus the Confessor wanted to hold an ecumenical council to deal with the heresy that was raging in the East, but they never really managed anything more than a local synod.”

I’m paraphrasing, of course.

Thoughts?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Well, certainly we can explain why only those seven – after that, there WERE no truly ecumenical councils. Only in-house councils of the Church of Rome, which fell away first from the True Body of Christ, His Church, and shattered against The Rock into Lutheranism, Calvinism, et al.

Ah…it all makes perfect sense when you put it like that.

One other question; the Second Council of Ephesus…why is it not Ecumenical?

It was attended by a large number of Eastern Bishops (more than Ephesus I, if memory serves) and met all the requirements of an Ecumenical Council seemingly.

Why do the Orthodox today reject it as Ecumenical when it was held in the east, attended by Eastern bishops as well as the representative of the Pope, and was an apparent success in the eyes of almost all those who attended?

Thanks.

 

[Cavaradossi]

I was referring to the article that has been posted on the websites, but I had done my homework. The author is a professor at Emory in Atlanta (I went to Georgia Tech nearby), and the book has a massive bibliography in the back, so it appears he’s done his homework, too.

Now, about the conclusion that you may have drawn from it. Does Dr. Ekonomou offer the opinion that because Pope Martin approved the Council and later popes did not, this proves a contradiction in the Catholic approach to identifying those councils which are Ecumenical?

Or, and don’t be shy if it’s the case, is this your own conclusion based on what you have learned from Dr. Ekonomou’s book?

Thus far, and I’m only just now beginning to nose around a bit, I have not been able to find a single source that suggests anything more than something like, “Pope Theodore and Maximus the Confessor wanted to hold an ecumenical council to deal with the heresy that was raging in the East, but they never really managed anything more than a local synod.”

I’m paraphrasing, of course.

Thoughts?

As far as I know, it does not create any sort of contradiction because the Roman Catholic approach seems to claim knowledge of what is necessary but not what is sufficient. As for St. Maximus, we know that St. Maximus regarded this synod as ecumenical, because in one of his letters he refers to a sixth ecumenical council.

 

[Cavaradossi]

Ah…it all makes perfect sense when you put it like that.

One other question; the Second Council of Ephesus…why is it not Ecumenical?

It was attended by a large number of Eastern Bishops (more than Ephesus I, if memory serves) and met all the requirements of an Ecumenical Council seemingly.

Why do the Orthodox today reject it as Ecumenical when it was held in the east, attended by Eastern bishops as well as the representative of the Pope, and was an apparent success in the eyes of almost all those who attended?

Thanks.

Even in the eyes of later fathers who would hold to the theory of the Pentarchy, this council would have been invalid. It lacked the assent of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Interesting article, I see members of CAF actively participating in the comment section too.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicworldreport.com%2FItem%2F3519%2Fchristian_unity_cannot_be_built_on_lies.aspx&ei=bWCZVOycH4G1ggSF7ILQDA&usg=AFQjCNEYzgzBvhmpRqLFWPJA2FS26QeNhg

Referring rather sweepingly and positively to “Orthodox…polemics,” the metropolitan sums these up as arguing that “in the Universal Church there can be no visible head because Christ Himself is the Head of the Body of the Church.” He recognizes that some Orthodox do not subscribe to such a view, naming the (safely dead) Fr. Alexander Schmemann, former dean of St. Vladimir’s. Tellingly, the metropolitan fails to mention the most important Greek Orthodox theologian alive today, Metropolitan John Zizioulas, who is Orthodox co-chair of the international Catholic-Orthodox dialogue and has argued in favor of universal primacy—as the majority of modern Orthodox theologians also do—exercised in a synodal manner. Zizioulas, moreover, has rightly insisted that universal primacy requires universal synodality, and one cannot speak intelligently about one without the other. Alfeyev’s failure to even mention Zizioulas strikes the reader as thin-skinned and perhaps even motivated by envy—there can be only one prima donna in this town, and c’est moi.

Very predictable I would suggest.

 

[Randy_Carson]

As far as I know, it does not create any sort of contradiction because the Roman Catholic approach seems to claim knowledge of what is necessary but not what is sufficient. As for St. Maximus, we know that St. Maximus regarded this synod as ecumenical, because in one of his letters he refers to a sixth ecumenical council.

Maximus and Pope Theodore definitely intended to hold an Ecumenical Council. It did not achieve that status, of course, so the question is why not.

What I have not read anywhere is what Pope Martin specifically thought about its status after it was all over. The council was poorly attended and the attendees not very representative of the broader church.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Even in the eyes of later fathers who would hold to the theory of the Pentarchy, this council would have been invalid. It lacked the assent of Rome, Constantinople, and Antioch.

So, was it EVER considered Ecumenical by anyone?

You have suggested, if I understood you properly, that perhaps the pope (Martin?) approved it, but none after him did.

Anyone else?

 

[wynd]

Interesting article, I see members of CAF actively participating in the comment section too.

google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catholicworldreport.com%2FItem%2F3519%2Fchristian_unity_cannot_be_built_on_lies.aspx&ei=bWCZVOycH4G1ggSF7ILQDA&usg=AFQjCNEYzgzBvhmpRqLFWPJA2FS26QeNhg

Very predictable I would suggest.

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but I’m curious as to what the Catholic posters here think of this comment on your link:

The approach of the First Vatican Council to papal authority is, and always will be, unacceptable to the Orthodox (and to many Eastern Catholics as well - myself included). The Eastern Orthodox rejection of the Western take on authority as it developed over the course of the second millennium must be faced up front by all concerned, and the West - as the side that has constantly been morphing itself into something new - will need to return to a more patristic understanding of the Church and of the universal episcopate as petrine, while moving away from the false notion that only one bishop (i.e., the bishop of Rome) is the successor of Peter.

 

[GaryTaylor]

Perhaps a topic for another thread, but I’m curious as to what the Catholic posters here think of this comment on your link:

I think someone arrived at a false conclusion as the actual article being the point of the post suggested.

This is the old mythology, never accurate in the first place, that sees the West as all papal and monarchical, and the East as all patriarchal and synodical. Like all stereotypes, it distorts. For the plain facts are that there is a long history of robust synodality in the Church of Rome going back to the earliest centuries of her history, and there is a long history of Eastern Churches attempting to be heavily centralized and run not in a synodal manner but in a manner that some Orthodox themselves have confessed to be “quasi-papal.” The clearest recent example of a super-centralized Orthodox church run on quasi-papal lines is Alfeyev’s own Russian Church, whose 1945 statutes gave the patriarch of Moscow (for political reasons insisted upon by Stalin) powers that popes of Rome could only dream about. I document all this in great detail in my book. For Alfeyev not to acknowledge any of this makes it clear that his treatment of primacy is grossly tendentious and thus must be dismissed as inaccurate and unreliable.

 

[dvdjs]

Perhaps your remarks miss the mark entirely. I do not claim what I wrote to be what Rome teaches on the matter, but only to be the consequence of the arguments made by a single poster.

It was not obvious that the “your” in the post I quoted was used in the singular rather than plural. I am glad to hear that you realize that what you wrote is not the teaching of the Catholic church,

 

[Cavaradossi]

Maximus and Pope Theodore definitely intended to hold an Ecumenical Council. It did not achieve that status, of course, so the question is why not.

What I have not read anywhere is what Pope Martin specifically thought about its status after it was all over. The council was poorly attended and the attendees not very representative of the broader church.

But the same was true of the Second Council of Constantinople. Indeed, that Council caused numerous schisms in the West. Numbers alone don’t make an ecumenical council, nor does geographic representation. History is messy.

 

[Cavaradossi]

So, was it EVER considered Ecumenical by anyone?

Are we talking about the Second Council of Ephesus? Many did consider it to be ecumenical, especially among the Copts (whose patriarch, Dioscoros, had managed to score an astonishing victory by deposing the bishops of Constantinople and Antioch) because it received imperial approval. As a legal matter, it was in some sense abrogated by Chalcedon though properly it was never worthy of becoming law because of the allegations of the use of violence against St. Flavian and of coercion.

You have suggested, if I understood you properly, that perhaps the pope (Martin?) approved it, but none after him did.

Anyone else?

Pope St. Martin and St. Maximus were essentially “co-conspirators” in the plot. This is why they were arrested and tried for violating the terms of the typos, which forbade discussion on the matter of the wills of Christ. St Maximus himself mentions the Lateran Council in his writings, referring to a sixth ecumenical council (which obviously cannot be the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which occurred decades after St. Maximus reposed).

 

[Randy_Carson]

Are we talking about the Second Council of Ephesus?

My apologies. I was asking about the Lateran Council of 649.

Pope St. Martin and St. Maximus were essentially “co-conspirators” in the plot. This is why they were arrested and tried for violating the terms of the typos, which forbade discussion on the matter of the wills of Christ. St Maximus himself mentions the Lateran Council in his writings, referring to a sixth ecumenical council (which obviously cannot be the Sixth Ecumenical Council, which occurred decades after St. Maximus reposed).

This I gathered from the brief account I read which referred to it as a “Byzantine affair”. So, in your opinion, what was the reason why this council was never received as Ecumenical?

 

[LionHeart777]

My apologies. I was asking about the Lateran Council of 649.

This I gathered from the brief account I read which referred to it as a “Byzantine affair”. So, in your opinion, what was the reason why this council was never received as Ecumenical?

There is a citation from St. Maximos writing from Rome that one can find in his entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia which reads:

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Maximus of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 23 Dec. 2014 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm.

If you want some info on that synod, Hefele’s well known work on the Councils covers it. You can find that online here:

ecatholic2000.com/councils/untitled-56.shtml#_Toc385946585

Scroll down to section 307 if you are interested. I don’t know if it will answer your specific question.

 

[Randy_Carson]

There is a citation from St. Maximos writing from Rome that one can find in his entry in the Catholic Encyclopedia which reads:

“The extremities of the earth, and all in every part of it who purely and rightly confess the Lord look directly towards the most holy Roman Church and its confession and faith, as it were to a sun of unfailing light, awaiting from it the bright radiance of the sacred dogmas of our Fathers according to what the six inspired and holy councils have purely and piously decreed, declaring most expressly the symbol of faith. For from the coming down of the incarnate Word amongst us, all the Churches in every part of the world have held that greatest Church alone as their base and foundation, seeing that according to the promise of Christ our Saviour, the gates of hell do never prevail against it, that it has the keys of a right confession and faith in Him, that it opens the true and only religion to such as approach with piety, and shuts up and locks every heretical mouth that speaks injustice against the Most High.”

Source: Chapman, John. “St. Maximus of Constantinople.” The Catholic Encyclopedia. Vol. 10. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1911. 23 Dec. 2014 http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10078b.htm.

If you want some info on that synod, Hefele’s well known work on the Councils covers it. You can find that online here:

ecatholic2000.com/councils/untitled-56.shtml#_Toc385946585

Scroll down to section 307 if you are interested. I don’t know if it will answer your specific question.

Many thanks. :tiphat:

 

[LionHeart777]

Many thanks. :tiphat:

you bet!