Quickly (more finals coming up!):
It isn’t much easier for the Orthodox, as I find one of the most difficult aspects of the Eastern Orthodox side is defining exactly what is an ecumenical council and when is it official. The Robber Council and Iconoclast Councils come to mind. So the question would be, “Is there any real way to know when a council is binding?” (This has been dealt with briefly before, but I am not sure how definitive the answer was, and I think people still have questions about this)
The problem comes in defining what is meant by “ecumenical.” Strictly speaking an ecumenical council is one convoked by the Roman Emperor, calling bishops from across the
oikomene (that is, the empire) to settle matters of doctrine. Of course, usually what we mean by “ecumenical councils” is in fact
universal councils, councils whose authority is received by the whole Church, whether or not they are ecumenical in the strict sense. The best example of a universal council is the Council of Jerusalem in the first century. Clearly, the Fathers did not regard it as technically “ecumenical” (otherwise, Nicea I would not have been called the
First Ecumenical Council), but it was nevertheless a universal and authoritative council of the Church.
Thus, the criteria for a council of universal authority within the Church are basically fivefold. It is important to note that they operate on a sliding scale. The more you have of one, the less you need another. For example, if you have no representation by the Pentarchy, but everyone in the Pentarchy signs off on the acts of the council right away, then the argument for universality balances out. There are no rigid points at which “enough” and “not enough” are delineated; in Orthodoxy, we don’t draw such strict bounds, for the sake of divine economy. Our guide, the Holy Spirit, doesn’t always work according to the expectations of man, so we must stay sufficiently flexible to permit and recognize His leading.
So without further ado:
1. Historical continuity with the established Tradition. For example, Irenaeus and Athanasius made expert demonstrations against the heretics that their doctrines were innovations against what was already the received Truth. This is obviously the most important criterion, but can at times be the hardest to measure, since sometimes history is arguable either way.
For example, however, this is bar none the reason why the “compromise formulae” with the Monothelites, et al., were roundly rejected. Whether you believed Orthodoxy or Monothelitism to reflect the Tradition best, a compromise formula was clearly a departure from
either line of thought, in an attempt for political compromise.
This is the most absolute factor. If it doesn’t square, it doesn’t square. Doctrine is to be clarified and described, not logically extrapolated out of thin air.
2. The making of dogmatic descriptions. This particularly applies to Triadology and Christology, into which fit virtually all of the universal councils of the Orthodox Church. If the council merely or primarily deals with strictly disciplinary, jurisdictional, or otherwise bureaucratic matters, chances are stronger that it’s not a beacon and pillar of the Church to be set down for all time.
3. Representation of and/or ratification by the Church hierarchy on a global scale; particularly by the oldest and/or most important Apostolic sees. Generally speaking, this means the Pentarchy must represent and/or ratify (though arguably the bishop of Ephesus would have a strong say in the matter because of his ancient see, and in modern days presumably Moscow’s voice would bear great weight).
4. Reception by the laity. Although they aren’t directly involved in the decision-making process, the laity make up the majority of the Body of Christ which is the Church, and as such, their consensus is of importance. They have as much duty to preserve the Faith and resist heresy as do their hierarchs. See, for example, Maximus the Confessor stood virtually alone against heresy at one point (even defying the communion of the bishop of Rome), refusing to give in even though he was not even ordained to the order of clergy.
5. Confirmation by subsequent and legitimate council. Generally, one does not
immediately see formal recognition of the universality of a given council (although its authority may well be immediately
de facto universal). For example, even a century after the Seventh Ecumenical Council, one only finds mention of six ecumenical synods in the various official documents, although all men of orthodox faith obviously accepted its conclusions with regard to the holy icons. It was not until the era of the Photian councils that one began to see official confirmation of the Seventh Council as a universal and binding holy synod.
With faithful and consistent application of each of these principles, one can start in 325 A.D., end in the present, and have a pretty good idea of which councils are universally authoritative in the Orthodox Church.
)
