Even more…
Your very own Melkite Greek Catholic Church doesn’t agree with you on that one. Here is a question from a section on the Eparchy of Newton’s website entitled “Melkite Challenge.”
9 Was the Vatican council an ecumenical council? Why?, why not?
a. The Vatican council was not an ecumenical council – no participation from the Orthodox.
Link
So are you wrong or is the “obstinate” Melkite Greek Catholic Church wrong?
Yours in Christ
Joe
The FAQ from our esteemed Melkite brethren is correct in pointing out that few Orthodox elected to show up in significant numbers to Vatican I/II - those that did only observed. But in the current world context the term “ecumenical” as it pertains to the ecclesial status of our dearly-missed Orthodox brothers no longer means the same thing as it once did before the schism. It is now for practical purposes a defunct term that is alienated from the original meaning. So we can take the Melkite opinion as acceptable only in so far as it relates to the old original semantic of the term “ecumenical”. But since that old semantic no longer applies in the same sence (and probably will never again apply in the same way) - we can declare both positions to be correct on the ambiguity formed by an unqualified usage. Ecumenical meaning is implicit when speaking of pre-schismatic times of “ecumenical councils” but no longer valid when speaking of post-schism periods since these same scope meetings are now what I’d simply call - “Catholic” or “Universal Councils”.
Further, I don’t think there exists in the old sense of "ecumenical council’ any specifically agreed to numbers of bishops required to be in attendance to be accepted as valid (by the Catholic Church). I am unsure of cannon law here but believe that when the pope calls a major “universal” council, it is his prerogative as first chair of honor to decide what represents a “quorum” or “Communion of Bishops” that is acceptable to him. There’s no way to filibuster or “no show” Christ’s Church. Being AWOL is grave matter. Outside of the original 1st century Council of Jerusalem I doubt there was ever 100% in attendance. Yet we know with certainty that one of the original bishops was missing - Judas .
From the point in time that our esteemed Orthodox brethren split from its Roman brethren and removed itself from the unity of The Church the Orthodox have elected to vacate their seat and their traditional honors due from “The Council”. From my perspective that means that the Orthodox are today only of marginally higher relevance to Christ’s Church (that is the Roman Catholic Church) and its conduct of ecclesial affairs than the honorary observer-status that is sometimes extended to the Judaic, Protestant and other heretical or partial truth faith-community representatives/witnesses. That is to say, that Orthodox are no longer granted any obligatory authoritative voice at all in Christ’s Church while they elect to remain estranged. We only grant the Orthodox the conventions of courtesy and charity in letting them come to observe and listen and occasionally speak theological opinions in support of sub-committe agendas when called on as a resource.
The Lord promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and so it is that The Catholic Church has persevered against schismatics, heretics & apostates; she has permit such to
“turn aside to go to [their] own place” (ref. Acts 1:25) or to repent and return. This of course saddens Catholics and so we still hold seats open to the hope that the schismatics might one day return to their senses and to their proper place in the spirit of unity in Christ and not demand the seat of honor not due them (Mark 12:39; Matt 23:6 etc.). But anymore the modern sense of “ecumenical” is reserved to describe non-binding dialog with the legion of Protestant Ecclesial Communities, the Jews and the Schismatics; and then only with the hope of converting these to the Catholic Faith and to obedience to the Holy See of Rome.
Again, I’d like to point out that there has never been a single legitimate council meeting in the history of the Church that was invalidated by the absence of just a few bishops for reasons of: sickness, death in transit, carelessness, tardiness, going to the wrong street address or for being apathetic or quarrelous to the principal of Christian unity. The Church goes forward with our without those who can’t bother to be present or who elect to be left out or left behind.
There’s only room for one good hand on the tiller of Peter’s Barque (the Catholic Church). Those who don’t like the course may choose to to cast themselves on the water to take their chances with the sharks.
Is full immersion baptism a tradition in the Orthodox church?
James
). That flies in the face of the contention that papal authority was always accepted by the early Church. This Canon shows clearly that was not the case. 
).