What makes a council ecumenical?

[orthedoxy]

What makes a council ecumenical?

[Stephanida]

Excellent question. I'll let someone else field this one though.

[Pyotr]

FWIW...there's not really any one way we definitely can say, at the moment of said council, that it is absolutely ecumenical. For a council to be ecumenical, it has to reflect the teaching of the Church, which can only be determined upon its "ratification" by the bishops who signed it (and the faithful of their diocese) once they get home. Oftentimes decisions that were disapproved of by the majority of bishops present at an Ecumenical Council (Nicea, for example) wound up being the very decisions that were later accepted as Orthodox. Were we to hold a Pan-Orthodox Synod today (with the possibility being that it could later be known as the Eighth Ecumenical Council), there'd have to be some major christological controversy going on (maybe women in the priesthood and what that means about Christ?), and it would eventually have to be assented to by the VAST majority of Orthodox Christians.

Subjective? Yeah. Sorry; that's what happens when you don't have one, central authority to just *declare* something ecumenical. Or, as we say, "I don't believe in organized religion; I'm Orthodox!"

[xristos.anesti]

Universal Doctrine from the Right Source (Orthodoxia) - Universal Acceptance off the Right Consequence (Catholicity).



http://www.crossroadsinitiative.com/pics/content_img.1194.img.jpg

[Rick of Wessex]

It's simple:

A council's canonicity is not defined by laws, constitutions or how many bishops attended it.

A Council is Ecumenical when it bears witness of the Truth - as did all the Nine Councils of the Church.

Rick

[xristos.anesti]

Rick, may God bless you! I count Nine also.

[orthedoxy]

It's simple:

A council's canonicity is not defined by laws, constitutions or how many bishops attended it.

A Council is Ecumenical when it bears witness of the Truth - as did all the Nine Councils of the Church.

Rick

How do you determine if The council is a witness to the truth?
How do you know the RC councils are not canonical?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

A council that is ratified by the layity as having stated what all Christians everywhere have believed from the beginning is considered Ecumenical.

The Holy Spirit sees to the ratification of such things by moving the layity to vote.

Forgive me...

[Servus Iesu]

A council that is ratified by the layity as having stated what all Christians everywhere have believed from the beginning is considered Ecumenical.

The Holy Spirit sees to the ratification of such things by moving the layity to vote.

Forgive me...

How is that vote exercised?

[Servus Iesu]

Just to play the devil's advocate... didn't the Coptic and Oriental laity vote that the Council of Chalcedon was not a true Ecumenical Council?

[OrthodoxyUSA]

How is that vote exercised?

I'm not sure...:scratch: it probably hasn't happened the same way twice.

It hasn't happened now for over 1000 years.

Forgive me...

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Just to play the devil's advocate... didn't the Coptic and Oriental laity vote that the Council of Chalcedon was not a true Ecumenical Council?

I'm not sure exactly how that came about.... I'll find out though.


Forgive me...

[Rick of Wessex]

How do you determine if The council is a witness to the truth?

Quid est veritas?

Find the answer to this question and you'll have your answer, little grasshopper.

Rick

[xristos.anesti]

Quod est veritas?

Find the answer to this question and you'll have your answer, little grasshopper.



Τί ἐστιν ἀλήθεια? :)

[orthedoxy]

Quod est veritas?

Find the answer to this question and you'll have your answer, little grasshopper.

Rick

Esh
Find out what this mean and you have my reply.

[xristos.anesti]

It is not very nice calling people such names, Orthedoxy!!!

Not nice at all.

I hope you will apologise.

That is not very Christian.. and this is, after all, Christian forum.

[Rick of Wessex]

Hey, Orthedoxy, I have another question.

You've claimed many times in older threads that the Council of Chalcedon cannot be considered Ecumenical because the Armenians didn't send representatives - the reason for this was the war with Persia, right?

However, the Armenians didn't send any representatives at all to the Council of Ephesus either - in this case, because of the internal disputes between Armenian hierarchs.

When the dust settled in the Armenian Church, the Armenian Patriarch Sahak simply accepted the resolutions of Ephesus that had been sent to him by Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople.

Sahak was deposed in 428, and an anti-patriarch named Sourmak was nominated by Bahram V, the Persian King. Two others, Birkisho and Shimuel respectively, succeeded him. Then once more, in 437, Sourmak returned to the post. Sahak had been permitted in 432 to return home from Ctesiphon, and was welcomed by the nation as its spiritual head, although divested of his civil and juridical functions.

The Council of Ephesus, held in 431, had condemned Nestorius, and the Christian world was agitated by dogmatic controversies. Armenia could not hold aloof from the wrangling. The books of Theodore of Mopsuest (Missis), the precursor of Nestorius, were secretly circulating in the country.

Sahak received from the Patriarch of Constantinople the decisions of the Council of Ephesus. He summoned a council at Artashat in 435, and sent a letter to Proclus of Constantinople, refuting Theodore's errors. Sahak died in 439, and Mesrop, who had charge of the spiritual leadership of the nation, followed him to the grave six months later.

Taken from History of Armenia (http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Gazetteer/Places/Asia/Armenia/_Texts/KURARM/36*.html), Chapter 36, by Vahan Kurkjian, 1958

So, the fact that there were no Armenian clergy present at Chalcedon is no reason at all for not considering that Council as Ecumenical.

Yours,
Rick

[Shubunkin]

Or, as we say, "I don't believe in organized religion; I'm Orthodox!"

I like this!! :)

[orthedoxy]

Hey, Orthedoxy, I have another question.

You've claimed many times in older threads that the Council of Chalcedon cannot be considered Ecumenical because the Armenians didn't send representatives - the reason for this was the war with Persia, right?

However, the Armenians didn't send any representatives at all to the Council of Ephesus either - in this case, because of the internal disputes between Armenian hierarchs.

When the dust settled in the Armenian Church, the Armenian Patriarch Sahak simply accepted the resolutions of Ephesus that had been sent to him by Proclus, Patriarch of Constantinople.



So, the fact that there were no Armenian clergy present at Chalcedon is no reason at all for not considering that Council as Ecumenical.

Yours,
Rick

I'm not trying to show why Armenians don't accept the Council of Chelcedon, all I’m trying to understand is what makes a Council Ecumenical.
What makes RC Councils not Ecumenical?is it because EO are not present at the councils?
Why would you consider The Council of Chelcedon Ecumenical is it because the Roman Pope said so?