Ecumenical Council

[JustinHesychast]

So I'm wondering, with all the heresies and whatnot today, why hasn't there been an 8th Ecumenical Council? The last one was in, what, like... 700ish AD?

[choirfiend]

All the heresies that prevail today are actually old heresies, not new ones, that have already been addressed in Councils.

[ProfChrysostomos]

Christ is risen! (for two more days)

Actually, the Orthodox Church recognizes only seven synods of an ecumenical nature (the last one being in Nicea in 787, which ratified the decisions of the previous ones and mainly defined the Church's theology on the use of icons, basing its argumentation on the doctrine of the Incarnation and the writings of St. John of Damascus).

The Roman Church endorses an Eighth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV, or the "Reunion Council" of 869-870, that attempted to undo the damage of the Photian Schism). The general Orthodox consensus is to reject this synod as ecumenical, although some colleagues of mine would claim otherwise. The R.C.C. actually accepts twenty (or twenty-one, depending) ecumenical councils, most of which were held following the 1054 Schism, among them being the several Lateran Councils, Trent, the Council of Lyons, and Vatican I and II.

From the East's perspective, it is hard to accept all these synods as ecumenical, since the true catholicity of the Church can never be represented in the absence of the Eastern Church, which mainstream Vatican opinions (both official and not) claim is a valid and true Church, with valid sacraments. The West obviously feels otherwise, but that is mainly because Roman Catholic ecclesiology, in certain points, differs radically from our own.

+ Prof. Chrysostomos

[Knowledge3]

Hey ProfChrysostomos- thank you! That is very helpful to read.

[Monica, child of God]

The heresies addressed at ecumenical councils were held by Orthodox presbyters and bishops as well as some members of the laity. While I am sure that there are some clergy and laypeople of our communion who hold some wonky beliefs, there is no problem in the essential doctrine or theology of the Church that warrants an ecumenical council at this time. If there is need of one, the Holy Spirit will lead the Church in that as He did for al the other ecumenical councils.

Heresies held by non-Orthodox are not really under the purview of the Church as far as I know. The Church does not judge what happens outside of her visible walls.

M.

[buzuxi02]

Ecumenical councils are only held when a heresy arises within the Church, which takes root and disrupts the life of the Church.
The council pronounces upon the heresy and establishes right-belief in accordance with Apostolic Tradition. Usually the "promoter" of the heresy unless he repents is anathemized. By promoter i mean the one who actually went out of his way to lobby for its authenticity and lead many astray in the process or the one most credited for making it take root, not neccesarily those who held it as an opinion posthumously.

This is why no ecumenical council has ever been held to dogmatize the "real prescense" of the Eucharist since no such controvery/heresy has ever arisen.

[Ioan cel Nou]

The Roman Church endorses an Eighth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV, or the "Reunion Council" of 869-870, that attempted to undo the damage of the Photian Schism). The general Orthodox consensus is to reject this synod as ecumenical, although some colleagues of mine would claim otherwise.

This doesn't seem quite accurate. I believe that that is not the council that resulted in reunion but the one that initially condemned St. Photios the Great and was rejected in the east as a robber council (and by Rome for a couple of centuries too, by the way). I don't know of any Orthodox that consider that one to be Ecumenical.

The one that some (and it is mentioned as such in a Patriarchal Encyclical from the 19th century) consider the Eighth Ecumenical Council is the one of 879-880 that reinstated St. Photios and condemned the filioque (and which Pope John VIII vigorously agreed with). In addition, some Orthodox consider the Palamite Councils to constitute the Ninth Ecumenical Council.

I, personally, am unsure. It's clear that both these councils are important, more so than any others bar the first seven, but does that necessarily make them Ecumenical? Certainly, they seem to be on a slightly lesser level, for even the Encyclical that does refer to the Eighth Ecumenical Council, also refers to the Seven Ecumenical Councils. There may well be a good case for saying that our current view of seven ECs is down in part to Latin influence, but it also seems that they were always held to be special.

James

[Rick of Wessex]

Hi, Everyone.

Although not universally recognized as such, we have indeed nine ecumenical councils.

The Eight Ecumenical Council is also known as the reunion council or Constantinople IV. It was held at Constantinople in 879-880, and it was originally accepted and fully endorsed by the papacy in Rome (whose legates were present at the behest of Pope John VIII), but later repudiated by Rome in the 11th century, retroactively regarding the robber council of 869-870 to be ecumenical.

This council affirmed the restoration of St. Photius the Great to his see and anathematized any who altered the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, thus condemning the Filioque.

The Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs of 1848 (http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1848.aspx)(written in response to Pope Pius IX) explicitly mentions it as the 8th Ecumenical Council:

Some of the Bishops of that City, styled Popes, for example Leo III and John VIII, did indeed, as has been said, denounce the innovation, and published the denunciation to the world, the former by those silver plates, the latter by his letter to the holy Photius at the eighth Ecumenical Council, [...]

The Ninth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople V) took place in the 14th Century - in fact, it consists of three distinct councils held in 1341, 1347 and 1351 that dealt with the same subject (affirming St. Gregory Palamas' hesychastic theology and condemning the rationalistic philosophy of Barlaam of Calabria).

Many people say that they cannot be termed Ecumenical because they are not celebrated in the Church like the previous seven. However, their decisions and decretals are so intrinsecally linked to Orthodox theology and praxis that it would be impossible to regard them as otherwise.

In XC,
Rick

[winsome]

Christ is risen! (for two more days)

Actually, the Orthodox Church recognizes only seven synods of an ecumenical nature (the last one being in Nicea in 787, which ratified the decisions of the previous ones and mainly defined the Church's theology on the use of icons, basing its argumentation on the doctrine of the Incarnation and the writings of St. John of Damascus).

The Roman Church endorses an Eighth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople IV, or the "Reunion Council" of 869-870, that attempted to undo the damage of the Photian Schism). The general Orthodox consensus is to reject this synod as ecumenical, although some colleagues of mine would claim otherwise. The R.C.C. actually accepts twenty (or twenty-one, depending) ecumenical councils, most of which were held following the 1054 Schism, among them being the several Lateran Councils, Trent, the Council of Lyons, and Vatican I and II.

From the East's perspective, it is hard to accept all these synods as ecumenical, since the true catholicity of the Church can never be represented in the absence of the Eastern Church, which mainstream Vatican opinions (both official and not) claim is a valid and true Church, with valid sacraments. The West obviously feels otherwise, but that is mainly because Roman Catholic ecclesiology, in certain points, differs radically from our own.

+ Prof. Chrysostomos

Would this work both ways? Would you say that the Eastern Orthodox could not hold and Ecumenical Council without the Western Church?

Just curious - definately not debating!

[EmperorConstantine]

Councils are called if there is a grave problem which could result in grave schism.

There has been no new bits of heresy for a few centuries. Let's pray it stays that way.

I believe one "requirement" for a council to be ecumenical, is if the five patriarchs are in attendance (yes, this does include that Benedict guy in Rome) :)

[buzuxi02]

An ecumenical council becomes ecumenical when the conscience of the church accepts it as such, this can take decades.

[Xpycoctomos]

Would this work both ways? Would you say that the Eastern Orthodox could not hold and Ecumenical Council without the Western Church?

Just curious - definately not debating!
Well, I suppose it would go both ways. for the Orthodox, for a Council to be Ecumencial it needs to be Conciliar (that is, accepted and approved the entire Church - ie all bishops). In the RCC, conciliar does not mean the same thing. All bishops were represented in one form or another and were able, at least theoretically, to say their part... but in the end, it depends wholly on the acceptance and aprobation of the Pope in Rome.

So, here's where the difference lies in WHY we can hold an ecumenical council without the RCC and the RCC can hold one without us.

Although Rome sees us as part of the Church in some creative way, only the Pope's acceptance of a doctrine is needed for something to be considered universal and ecumenical.

Although the Orthodox need to accept new doctrines as a Church (with no one bishop taking on this responsibility alone) and therefore cannot simply exclude, say, Jerusalem from the Council, We do not see Rome, sadly, as being part of the Visible Church. So Rome's involvement is a non-issue. It's sounds harsh but pragmatically, rome's involvement is as important and relevant as the LCMS's involvement. Now, that is not to say that we DESIRE to one day be united to the LCMS as we do Rome. The two are incomparable for so many reasons. Whereas we work with Rome as a Church to further understanding, we would never do this with the LCMS on a grand ecumenical level but deal with the people on a purely individual level.

Anyway, I'm not sure that gets at what you're asking. I hope it at least touches on it.

John