Number of ecumenical councils

[Raymond Maxwell Spiotta]

How many Oecumenical Councils are there?

[Andrew]

Seven or Nine, according to who's speaking.

[John Charmley]

Seven or Nine, according to who's speaking.

Or even fewer if you are Oriental Orthodox - or many more if you are Roman Catholic. But since this is an Eastern Orthodox website let us courteously agree with Andrew.

In Christ,

John

[Brian B.]

Dear in Christ,


How many Oecumenical Councils are there?

It would be better to specify to which tradition your question is addressed, especially since you list yourself as not being in the EO tradition.


Or even fewer if you are Oriental Orthodox - or many more if you are Roman Catholic. But since this is an Eastern Orthodox website let us courteously agree with Andrew.

I humbly remind that there are more traditions than the three you mention that accept councils as ecumenical. I know you meant no disrespect and you are of course correct with respect to Andrew's answer.

Sincerely,
Brian

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

All of what has been expressed above concerning what are and are not considered as being ecumenical has validity in its own terms.

Nevertheless let us keep in mind that the purpose of this forum is a discussion of Eastern Orthodox themes from a monastic & patristic perspective.

Thanks.

Fr Raphael (co-moderator)

[John Charmley]

I humbly remind that there are more traditions than the three you mention that accept councils as ecumenical. I know you meant no disrespect and you are of course correct with respect to Andrew's answer.



Dear Brian,

Of course; all I was trying to do was make to the same point as that Fr. Raphael has now made.

Experience tends to show that there is little fruit in discussing 'how many' Oecumenical Councils, since no one is going to change his or her mind on a subject on which their own tradition will have a firm view. Since I am a guest on an Eastern Orthodox site I feel queasy even at using the adjective, and I feel under an obligation of courtesy not to get into that discussion.

Of course, the question of what constitutes an Oecumenical Council is, and has been on this site, a perfectly good topic for discussion through patristics - and those interested in one can find it on this site.

I have the greatest respect for anyone from any Christian Church who is trying to live the Christian life, and part of that respect is not trying to give some priority to my own views. Of course, as my journey goes on, and as I come to see more and more the fulness of the Christian life that is in Orthodoxy, I wish for others to see the same thing - but the way to do that is through prayer and example, not ratiocination. After all, my own journey has hardly reached a harbour.


In Christ,

John

[Fr Raphael Vereshack]

Dear Brian,

Of course; all I was trying to do was make to the same point as that Fr. Raphael has now made.

Experience tends to show that there is little fruit in discussing 'how many' Oecumenical Councils, since no one is going to change his or her mind on a subject on which their own tradition will have a firm view. Since I am a guest on an Eastern Orthodox site I feel queasy even at using the adjective, and I feel under an obligation of courtesy not to get into that discussion.

Of course, the question of what constitutes an Oecumenical Council is, and has been on this site, a perfectly good topic for discussion through patristics - and those interested in one can find it on this site.

I have the greatest respect for anyone from any Christian Church who is trying to live the Christian life, and part of that respect is not trying to give some priority to my own views. Of course, as my journey goes on, and as I come to see more and more the fulness of the Christian life that is in Orthodoxy, I wish for others to see the same thing - but the way to do that is through prayer and example, not ratiocination. After all, my own journey has hardly reached a harbour.


In Christ,

John


It went through my mind after reading these posts yesterday that one fruitful discussion (and also fully within the guidelines of the forum) would be about why some consider that there are more than 7 ecumenical councils.

This would implicitly get to the point of what in Orthodoxy constitutes 'ecumenical'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

[Father David Moser]

When one begins asking about "what makes an ecumenical council" I think that too often we get to thinking all backwards. It seems like we want to figure out how to convene an ecumenical council or to determine beforehand if a council will be ecumenical. But this is not historically what makes an ecumenical council. An council becomes ecumenical when it is accepted by the whole "economy" of the Church. Any council can become "ecumenical" I suppose, however the test is not what happens before, but rather what happens after. Is this council of significance to the whole Church, everywhere? Is it embraced as authoritative by the whole Church, in all places and all times? Does this council confess the Truth that is once revealed to the world by our Lord Jesus Christ? These are just a few of the questions about what makes and ecumenical council. There were lots of councils: some were rejected by the Church, some were only of local significance, some reflected merely issues of practice and not the necessary expression of Divine Truth, and some were embraced by the Church as ecumenical, dogmatically necessary and authoritative. There is no way that we can "predict" whether a council will be ecumenical - we can only look at the past.

This still leaves the issue of how many ecumenical councils were there - but then this is a simple matter of Holy Tradition. The whole Church has embraced seven councils as "Ecumenical" and no more. There are other councils that the Church has embraced as important or or universal significance - but not of the same level of dogmatic authority. But in the end the tradition of the Church defines 7 ecumenical councils (to date). The universal embrace and acclamation of the Church is the only criterion of an "Ecumenical" council - and to date that universal embrace and acclamation has been given to 7 councils.

Fr David Moser

[Robert Hegwood]

This seven councils thing has always seemed a tiny bit odd unless there is some special delimiter...like being called by an emperor. I say this because we all know of at least one council accepted by all who call themselves Christian, which is not entitled "ecumenical", but it is very authoritative and the mother of all councils as it were...the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15.

So even if there are 7 ecumenical ones...there are eight that have especial weight and resonance within the Church. And then follows those important general coucils that occured after the 7.

[Kosta]

When one begins asking about "what makes an ecumenical council" I think that too often we get to thinking all backwards. It seems like we want to figure out how to convene an ecumenical council or to determine beforehand if a council will be ecumenical. But this is not historically what makes an ecumenical council. An council becomes ecumenical when it is accepted by the whole "economy" of the Church. Any council can become "ecumenical" I suppose, however the test is not what happens before, but rather what happens after. Is this council of significance to the whole Church, everywhere? Is it embraced as authoritative by the whole Church, in all places and all times? Does this council confess the Truth that is once revealed to the world by our Lord Jesus Christ? These are just a few of the questions about what makes and ecumenical council. There were lots of councils: some were rejected by the Church, some were only of local significance, some reflected merely issues of practice and not the necessary expression of Divine Truth, and some were embraced by the Church as ecumenical, dogmatically necessary and authoritative. There is no way that we can "predict" whether a council will be ecumenical - we can only look at the past.

This still leaves the issue of how many ecumenical councils were there - but then this is a simple matter of Holy Tradition. The whole Church has embraced seven councils as "Ecumenical" and no more. There are other councils that the Church has embraced as important or or universal significance - but not of the same level of dogmatic authority. But in the end the tradition of the Church defines 7 ecumenical councils (to date). The universal embrace and acclamation of the Church is the only criterion of an "Ecumenical" council - and to date that universal embrace and acclamation has been given to 7 councils.

Fr David Moser

Finally someone who explains it with ease.

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

How many Oecumenical Councils are there?There are SEVEN, according to the teaching of the Eastern Orthodox Church.

Not one Orthodox Church officially teaches in its textbooks catechisms or seminary texts that there are eight or nine or eleven.

What is interesting is that some of the Eastern Catholic Churches disagree with the Church of Rome and also teach that there are only seven. For example, from the official web site of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church Eparchy of Newton (in communion with Rome).

8 How many Ecumenical Councils were held?
a. Seven Ecumenical Councils

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

See
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2005B.htm

and
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2007C.htm


-oOo-

May I present evidence which indicates a serious disparity between the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and its Eastern Catholic Churches about the number of Ecumenical Councils:


1. Melkite denial of Papal infallibilibity; Denial of the universal authority of Roman Catholic "Ecumenical' Councils

"Vatican I has the same designation as the Council of Lyons, a 'general' synod of the West. With this designation it is neither ecumenical nor infallible and could produce only theological opinions that can not be imposed on anyone"
~Melkite Catholic Archbishop Elias Zogby, "Ecumenical Reflections," Eastern Christian Publications, 1998].

Notice how he is denying papal infalliblity, the major dogma proclaimed at Vatican I. He is reducing it to a non essential theological opinion
http://www.melkite.org/Challenge2006D.htm

[Christopher Dombrowski]

Seven or Nine, according to who's speaking.

Or eight. I've definitely seen the Fourth Council of Constantinople confessed as an Ecumenical Council while the Fifth not being such.

[RichardWorthington]

Or even fewer if you are Oriental Orthodox - or many more if you are Roman Catholic. But since this is an Eastern Orthodox website let us courteously agree with Andrew.

In Christ,

John

I suppose that if you were Chaldean then you would only acknowledge two!

But this does somewhat depend on what is meant by ecumenical council.

I think John Romanides taught that an ecumenical council was just a council held by the Roman Empire, its decisions becoming law in its realm. (The ecumene being the area of the Roman empire, in the Greek language; hence I suppose that it was when the 3 patriarchates in the East fell to Islam that the Patriarchate of Constantinople called itself the Ecumenical Patriarchate in the 8th century or so - it was the only patriarchate left in the Roman Empire!). This then got caught up into a way of defining church beliefs.

As such some 'ecumenical councils' were definitely not Orthodox - either Eastern or Oriental - but merely proclamations of religious laws of the Roman Empire, which were overturned when we got back into power.

I think it is true that there are more than 7 ecumenical councils, with authoritative teachings for the Orthodox Church, but because the Western Churches wanted to give the impression of backwardness in the Orthodox Church they taught - and so we picked this up under 'Western influence' - that the Orthodox Church only acknowledged 7 councils.

It also made it easier for the claims of the Roman Catholic Church to be pressed on us, if we have been led to believe that ecumenical councils which condemned their teachings are not ecumenical.

I could try to find the links, but I am sure it will be on the Romanity website somewhere.

Richard

[Ryan]

I think the main problem of saying that there are 9 ecumenical councils, is that we would have to re-write all the liturgical and catechetical texts that say there are 7!

[RichardWorthington]

I think the main problem of saying that there are 9 ecumenical councils, is that we would have to re-write all the liturgical and catechetical texts that say there are 7!

Point taken!! LOL

Just an awareness of the Orthodox spiritual teachings of the time when Rome started to cause trouble should be sufficient!

Richard

[Herman Blaydoe]

There are seven Ecumenical Councils as so designated by the Church, however, there are more than seven authoritative councils, that were never designated "Ecumenical", the first Council at Jerusalem in Acts, for one...

Herman the ecumenical Pooh

[Eric Peterson]

Whether there are 7 or 9 depends on who you ask. The 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils were, apparently, approved as such by imperial law, as far as I know.

[Fyodor Vaskovsky]

It went through my mind after reading these posts yesterday that one fruitful discussion (and also fully within the guidelines of the forum) would be about why some consider that there are more than 7 ecumenical councils.

This would implicitly get to the point of what in Orthodoxy constitutes 'ecumenical'.

In Christ- Fr Raphael

This is probably the best approach as far as the number of Ecumenical councils is concerned. There is no democracy in Church. It is common knowledge that sometimes heretical councils could boast more representatives than true Ecumenical Councils. However, Ecumenical Councils must express the Ecumenical faith.

[Fabio Lins]

I also have seen people writing that there were 9 ecumenical councils. The argument goes that "ecumenical" was almost synonimous to "imperial". Thus, the librarian of the imperial library was the "Ecumenical Librarian".

Then, all the councils that were called and enforced by the emperor to all the empire, *and* accepted by the Church were official ecumenical councils. It as bit of anti-climax to realize that the term is more political than religious but it surely explains why the first council in Jerusalem, although having the Apostles and certainly being universal, was never named "ecumenical".

That is why there would have been an 8th Photian Council and a 9th Hesycastic ecumenical councils.

As for the office texts, and I really do not know this, I would ask when they were written. If they were written before the 8th ecumenical council, then updating would certainly be necessary.

And I found this thread about the subject:
http://www.monachos.net/forum/showthread.php?t=4221

which points to this excellent article in Orthodoxwiki:
http://orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils#Seven_or_Nine_Ecumenical_Counc ils.3F

Here is the argument pro-9 as in the article:



Others, including 20th century theologians Fr. John S. Romanides and Fr. George Metallinos (both of whom refer repeatedly to the "Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils"), Fr. George Dragas, Metropolitan Hierotheos (Vlachos) of Nafpaktos, and the 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (which refers explicitly to the "Eighth Ecumenical Council" and was signed by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria as well as the Holy Synods of the first three), regard other synods beyond the Seventh Ecumenical Council as being ecumenical. Those who regard these councils as ecumenical often characterize the limitation of Ecumenical Councils to only seven to be the result of Jesuit influence in Russia, part of the so-called "Western Captivity of Orthodoxy."

If we had only those moder theologians making a pro-9 case, I would lean to consider it just an opinion. But if there really was an Encyclical signed by the Patriarchs of the Great Four, plus the synods of three of them, I would suppose the case then is stronger for the pro-9 side.

Using the criteria of Fr. David Moser, we are right now in the process of acknowledging the "ecumenicity" of the 8th and 9th council.

[Fabio Lins]

This is a great link as well:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

If we had only those moder theologians making a pro-9 case, I would lean to consider it just an opinion. But if there really was an Encyclical signed by the Patriarchs of the Great Four, plus the synods of three of them, I would suppose the case then is stronger for the pro-9 side..

There are a number of problems with this line of argument.

1. The 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs is exactly 1000 years after the posited 8th Ecumenical Council.

2. There is a 1000 year gap where we find no reference by any of the Orthodox Churches to an 8th Council, let alone an additional 9th Council.

3. The 1848 Encyclical is very confused about an 8th Council. It refers several times to seven Councils and several times to 8. It seems to bring in an 8th Council whenever it wants to make use of its anti-Roman position. And there is, as we have noted, not the slightest mention of Nine Holy Ecumenical Councils.

4. No texts books or documents of the last 1000 years speak of 8 or 9 Ecumenical Councils. No Synods speak of such a number. No seminary courses teach such a number. No bishops preach on such a number.

On the basis of overwhelming evidence and in fidelity to the sacred Tradition, I believe we have to acknowldege that the Orthodox Church acknowledges Seven Holy Ecumenical Synods. Other Synods may be very important but they are not counted by our Churches as being numbered among the Ecumenical Councils.

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

The Patriarchal Encyclical of 1895
A Reply to the Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, on Reunion

http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/ecumenism/encyc_1895.aspx

It is telling that the Encyclical of 1895 to Pope Leo makes 13 mentions of the Church as the Church of the SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and there is not one mention of an 8th or 9th Council.


1. "...if only the Bishop of Rome... would return to the basis of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils..."

2. "...there can be no such safe common principle and basis other than the teaching of the Gospel and of the seven holy Ecumenical Councils..."

3. "So then the one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils..."

4. "The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the first seven Ecumenical Councils baptized..."

5. "...we Orthodox, remaining faithful to the apostolic tradition and the practice of the seven Ecumenical Councils..."

6. "The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, according to the example of our Savior..."

7. "The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils held that the precious gifts..."

8. "The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, following the Lord's command..."

9. "The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils, walking according to the divinely inspired teaching..."

10. "The one holy, catholic and apostolic Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the supernatural incarnation..."

11. "...totally independent and self-administered in the time of the Seven Ecumenical Councils..."

12. "The orthodox Eastern Church then justly glories in Christ as being the Church of the seven Ecumenical Councils..."

13. "...upon which the teaching of the divine Fathers and the seven holy, divinely assembled Ecumenical Councils is based..."

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

During the 70s and 80s preparations were underway, to hold the Eighth Ecumenical Council, co-ordinated by the Ecumenical Patriarchate's Centre at Chambesy, Switzerland. It seems to have been a "carry-over" or imitation of Vatican II.

Various topics were farmed out to the Churches for study. The Serbian Church, for example, was asked to look at the need to accommodate our fasting to the needs and demands of the modern world. The Serbian Church did this and recommended: No Change! They felt that the traditions of fasting developed by our Fathers were never meant to be easy, have always been impossible of full implementation in the lives of many Christians (how much fasting an individual actually does is worked out between himself and his spiritual father or mother.) They felt that the bar must continue to be held high just as our Fathers and the Saints held it high because fasting is an integral part of the ascetic effort for both monks and laypeople and it has graced the Church with a multitude of Saints down through the centuries.

Preparations for the 8th Ecumenical Council have now quite evaporated. Our Churches have been far too busy responding to the need to re-evangelise the countries which emerged from the yoke of Communism in the 1990s.


There is also another point against the Orthodox convening a great Council. They have been called in the past ONLY in response to a serious heresy threatening the Church - Arianism, Nestorianism, Iconoclasm, etc. Our Churches have not faced any such major heresies since the last Council in 787 AD. Yes, there have been minor heresies (the early 20th century "Nameworshipping" heresy among some of the Russians) but these have not affected the whole Church and were able to be dealt with successfully on a local level.

And there is one more point which would indicate the perils of calling a Council without any greatly pressing need - we look at Vatican II and its not always happy results. Aggiornamento has not been without its down side. "Better to let sleeping dogs lie" as they say. The Holy Spirit has brought us to where we are today. That is enough for us.

Let us take our warning from the lament of Pope Benedict as to the disastrous effect of Vatican II on his own Church, particularly on its liturgy and the ripple effect of liturgical collapse on all other aspects of his Church's life:


"I am convinced that the ecclesial crisis in which we find ourselves
today depends in great part on the collapse of the liturgy.”


"In its practical materialization, liturgical reform has moved further
away from this origin. The result was not re-animation but devastation.
Pope Benedict XVI
~~~~~~

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

This is a great link as well:
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm



The creator of this webpage is Thomas Ross Valentine who makes it his hobby to promote Nine Ecumenical Councils. See his own webpages
http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/8-9synods.html

While it may be in order to argue for Nine Councils on what are his own personal webpages, it is misleading to present Nine Councils on a public website such as that which you reference where people come to find accurate information. There is no indication on the site that none of the Orthodox Churches have accepted Nine Councils.

[Fabio Lins]

There are a number of problems with this line of argument.

1. The 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs is exactly 1000 years after the posited 8th Ecumenical Council.

2. There is a 1000 year gap where we find no reference by any of the Orthodox Churches to an 8th Council, let alone an additional 9th Council.


Maybe because most of the Orthodox cultures were under the yoke of invading cultures?


3. The 1848 Encyclical is very confused about an 8th Council. It refers several times to seven Councils and several times to 8. It seems to bring in an 8th Council whenever it wants to make use of its anti-Roman position. And there is, as we have noted, not the slightest mention of Nine Holy Ecumenical Councils.

a) what is the problem of being anti-Roman in the same way previous Fathers were anti-Arian, anti-Nestorian and so far, as long as it is not on a rageful way but with arguments?

b) What are confusing references? As far as I understood it, they were simply pointing out that the 8th was par excelence the refutation of the Western heresies.

c) If the absence of mention to a 9th Council is evidence of it not being ecumenical why the presence of mention to an 8th, instead of being evidence it is indeed ecumenical is simply "confusing"?


4. No texts books or documents of the last 1000 years speak of 8 or 9 Ecumenical Councils.

I do not have access to all written material in the Orthodox world to refute that. Still, if that is the case, again, maybe being under invasion could answer for that.


No Synods speak of such a number.

One does, with the signature of four patriarchs and three of their synods, but, with all respect, you are disregarding it.


No seminary courses teach such a number.

I have a friend who has just graduated from St. Stephen and apparently they do there. At least, he was the one who has better supported for me the idea of 9 Ecumenical Councils.


No bishops preach on such a number.

I am far away from the Orthodox world and at least that I know, Bishop Hieorotheos seems to agree with the pro-9 stand as does Bishop Lazar Puhalo. I also understand that besides Fr. Romanides, we can count among the pro-9ers, Fr. George Metallinos, Fr. George Dragas, Fr. John Meyendofrf and his son Prof. Paul Meyendorff and even Prof. Clark Carlton. These are not people not knowledgeable about Orthodox tradition and history.

My friend who concluded the St. Stephen's theology course informs me that an ecumenical council must have the following factors:

- be summoned by an Orthodox emperor;
- count with the participation of glorified saints (that alone points to the fact that a council can only be considered ecumenical long after it happened);
- its decisions and resolutions must be accepted into the phleroma of the Church;
- and be included in the Synodikon;

the Photian and Hesycastic councils conform to all these factors. What they lack is what Fr. David Moser mentioned previously: universal acknowledgement.

It really does seem to be the case that "ecumenicity" is very much like sainthood. It *does* have a number of factors that must exist independently of people noticing them or not, but their recognition as such obsviously depends on posterior acknowledgment.

The 8th and 9th councils, then, would be like saints who have already slept in the Lord but are not yet glorified by the Church. Some people see they were saints and defend their glorification, which the Church patiently waits.

That seems to be the case. The 8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils happened during the very process of the largest schism that had ever happened in the Church. Soon after the 9th, in historical terms, Constantinople fell and there was no Emperor to call for another one to confirm them. As soon as the Orthodox countries started to emerge from the yoke of the invaders, we start to see mention to an 8th Council (the encyclical) and soon later in 20th century to the 9th.

The picture is very clear in that case: the 8th and 9th councils which dealt with the Western heresies lacked their "glorification" as Ecumenical councils because the Orthodox world entered a period of civil turmoil right after. Just after this period was over we witness the beginning of the process to make up for that.

If we do have a Pan-Orthodox Council, the "glorification" of the Ecumenicity of the 8th and 9th Councils would be one of its greatest achievments, I think.

[Paul Cowan]

This from the OCA Site Lives of the Saints (http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=100442)

Saint Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, "the Church's far-gleaming beacon," lived during the ninth century, and came from a family of zealous Christians. His father Sergius died as a martyr in defense of holy icons. St Photius received an excellent education and, since his family was related to the imperial house, he occupied the position of first state secretary in the Senate. His contemporaries said of him: "He so distinguished himself with knowledge in almost all the secular sciences, that it rightfully might be possible to take into account the glory of his age and compare it with the ancients."

Michael, the young successor to the throne, and St Cyril, the future Enlightener of the Slavs, were taught by him. His deep Christian piety protected St Photius from being seduced by the charms of court life. With all his soul, he yearned for monasticism.

In 857 Bardas, who ruled with Emperor Michael, deposed Patriarch Ignatius (October 23) from the See of Constantinople. The bishops, knowing the piety and extensive knowledge of Photius, informed the emperor that he was a man worthy to occupy the archpastoral throne. St Photius accepted the proposal with humility. He passed through all the clerical ranks in six days. On the day of the Nativity of Christ, he was consecrated bishop and elevated to the patriarchal throne.

Soon, however, discord arose within the Church, stirred up by the removal of Patriarch Ignatius from office. The Synod of 861 was called to end the unrest, at which the deposition of Ignatius and the installation of Photius as patriarch were confirmed.

Pope Nicholas I, whose envoys were present at this council, hoped that by recognizing Photius as patriarch he could subordinate him to his power. When the new patriarch proved unsubmissive, Nicholas anathematized Photius at a Roman council.

Until the end of his life St Photius was a firm opponent of papal intrigues and designs upon the Orthodox Church of the East. In 864, Bulgaria voluntarily converted to Christianity. The Bulgarian prince Boris was baptized by Patriarch Photius himself. Later, St Photius sent an archbishop and priests to baptize the Bulgarian people. In 865, Sts Cyril and Methodius were sent to preach Christ in the Slavonic language. However, the partisans of the Pope incited the Bulgarians against the Orthodox missionaries.

The calamitous situation in Bulgaria developed because an invasion by the Germans forced them to seek help in the West, and the Bulgarian prince requested the Pope to send his bishops. When they arrived in Bulgaria, the papal legates began to substitute Latin teachings and customs in place of Orthodox belief and practice. St Photius, as a firm defender of truth and denouncer of falsehood, wrote an encyclical informing the Eastern bishops of the Pope's actions, indicating that the departure of the Roman Church from Orthodoxy was not only in ritual, but also in its confession of faith. A council was convened, censuring the arrogance of the West.

In 867, Basil the Macedonian seized the imperial throne, after murdering the emperor Michael. St Photius denounced the murderer and would not permit him to partake of the Holy Mysteries of Christ. Therefore, he was removed from the patriarchal throne and locked in a monastery under guard, and Patriarch Ignatius was restored to his position.

The Synod of 869 met to investigate the conduct of St Photius. This council took place with the participation of papal legates, who demanded that the participants sign a document (Libellus) condemning Photius and recognizing the primacy of the Pope. The Eastern bishops would not agree to this, and argued with the legates. Summoned to the council, St Photius met all the accusations of the legates with a dignified silence. Only when the judges asked him whether he wished to repent did he reply, "Why do you consider yourselves judges?" After long disputes, the opponents of Photius were victorious. Although their judgment was baseless, they anathematized Patriarch Photius and the bishops defending him. The saint was sent to prison for seven years, and by his own testimony, he thanked the Lord for patiently enduring His judges.

During this time the Latin clergy were expelled from Bulgaria, and Patriarch Ignatius sent his bishops there. In 879, two years after the death of Patriarch Ignatius, another council was summoned (many consider it the Eighth Ecumenical Council), and again St Photius was acknowledged as the lawful archpastor of the Church of Constantinople. Pope John VIII, who knew Photius personally, declared through his envoys that the former papal decisions about Photius were annulled. The council acknowledged the unalterable character of the Nicean-Constantinople Creed, rejecting the Latin distortion ("filioque"), and acknowledging the independence and equality of both thrones and both churches (Western and Eastern). The council decided to abolish Latin usages and rituals in the Bulgarian church introduced by the Roman clergy, who ended their activities there.

Under Emperor Basil's successor, Leo, St Photius again endured false denunciations, and was accused of speaking against the emperor. Again deposed from his See in 886, the saint completed the course of his life in 891. He was buried at the monastery of Eremia.

The Orthodox Church venerates St Photius as a "pillar and foundation of the Church," an "inspired guide of the Orthodox," and a wise theologian. He left behind several works, exposing the errors of the Latins, refuting soul-destroying heresies, explicating Holy Scripture, and exploring many aspects of the Faith.

[Hieromonk Ambrose]

Dear Paul,

Thank you for your messages.

Maybe I should not introduce a personal note but I once asked my Archbishop (now Metropolitan Hilarion of the Russian Church Abroad) about the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Council. His opinion was that they have not occurred. I suppose he's right about that. Have you asked your bishop? The number of Ecumenical Councils is not a small matter and the bishops must have accurate knowledge; it hard to see how a bishop could dither or fudge the answer when asked this question.

[Kosta]

I have to agree fully with Fr Ambrose on this one. Only a few modern theologians believe in 9 Ecumenical councils, and before them no one has ever made an attempt to declare 9 ecumenical councils,

The Sigillion of 1583 which anathemized numerous Papal innovations spoke of only 7 Ecumenical councils in anathema vii: "That whoever does not follow the customs of the Church as the Seven Holy Ecumenical Councils decreed..."

The Photian council being declared as ecumenical and grouped with the 7 would raise numerous problems. Firstly, Ecumenical councils are those that deal with Christological issues. Instead this council simply affirmed what previous ecumenical councils have already declared: That no additions, or alterations can be made to the creed. This is not a new anathema simply the same one from the 4th Council but worded more strongly.

A second problem that arises is why would this council be Ecumenical when the western church, which was fully Orthodox at the time rejects it. The implications being that there never was an "Undivided Church of the first thousand years". But instead an Undivided Church of the first 800 years of which the theory of the pentarchy never was.

The Patriarchal encyclical of 1848 affirms 7 Ecumenical councils as previously mentioned, it employs an 8th ecumenical council whose authority is binding in the east. The encyclical of 1848 deals entirely with the fillioque, and it was the Photian council that strongly dealt with the fillioque novelty pre-schism. Its also employed as an 8TH ecumenical council as a counter to the papal claims that the pseudo-council which deposed St Photios is the 8th ecumenical council.

The Encyclical of 1848 mentions that the fillioque was "condemned by many Holy Councils of the four Patriarchs of the East."
"It was subject to anathema....by the eighth ecumenical council congregated at Constantinople..."

Hence the basis of refering to it as 8th is to refute the papal claims about the pseudo-council of Constantinople of 1869, that the 1869 council is not recognized nor binding, That the council of Constatinople (iv) that condemned the fillioque usage and exhonerated St Photius annuls their "ecumenical" council which took place in the same city.

[Paul Cowan]

Forgive me Fr. Ambrose.

I was not being argumentative to your position earlier. I was doing my daily reading of the lives of the saints and read this and thought it would fit into the discussion we were having. I had no agenda regarding its validity or not. Just additional topic of conversation. I agree with you there have only been 7 Councils.

I am curious why the OCA site would allow it to be on their site.

Paul

[Anthony]

A second problem that arises is why would this council be Ecumenical when the western church, which was fully Orthodox at the time rejects it. The implications being that there never was an "Undivided Church of the first thousand years". But instead an Undivided Church of the first 800 years of which the theory of the pentarchy never was.


I am not disagreeing with your post in general, but on this point of detail I think that the Papacy eventually accepted the Photian Council. At the time of the Hildebrandine reformation they amended their records to say that they had always recognized the anti-Photian council (in RC terminology the 8th Ecumenical Council) instead. But if I remember correctly, this has been shown to be incorrect by the Roman Catholic scholar Francis Dvornik. (It is possible that I don't remember correctly.)

[Fabio Lins]

Anthony,

you are right. The 8th (claimed) Ecumenic council was accepted as such even by the then Orthodox Roman see. In fact, truth be said, popes fought bravely against the innovation of the Filioque.

We cannot pinpoint the moment of the schism, but the later "change of mind" of the Roman jurisdiction about the 8th Council is precisely that: a change from a Church mind to something elese. Then, they Orthodoxily rejected the filioque. Now they heterodoxily accept it, under the concept of "development of dogma".

Because the 8th (claimed) Ecumenical council dealt with the Filioque, it dealt about a Christological issue, although, I would like to know why a specific subject should be bounding to define a council as ecumenical. The five elements I was given before make much more sense.

Fabio

[Kosta]

The papacy may have accepted the council of 869 but the western church as a whole never did. Hence the Fillioque clause never died out after this council and the western church never enforced its descision. This council was never brought forth by St Mark of Ephesus against the fillioque at the council of Florence.

There is no dogmatic significance behind this council, no one was anathemized by name as in the 7 Ecumenical Councils before it, no dogma was passed, and no anathemas were passed to clarify the various ways heretics employ the fillioque.

The 'horos' of the Photian council simply reiterated what previous councils already have, albeit in stronger words, about revising the Creed, after the horos the bishops shouted:, "....If one dares to write another symbol besides this one, or add to it, or subtract from, or to remove anything from it, and to display the audacity and claim it a Rule. he will be condemned and thrown out of the christian confession. For to subtract from or add to the holy and Consubstantial Undivided Trinity, shows that the confession that we have had to this day is imperfect..... If one having come to a point of mindlessness, as to dare do what we have said, and set forth another Symbol and call it a Rule....let him be anathema."
Obviously the roman church never enforced this, nor was anyone cast out as a heretic of the fillioque durng this council. It was never condemned as heresy in name, the definition of the council never mentioned the actual phrase, just gave a general condemnation to anywaone falsifying the creed.

The fourth council of Chalcedon already has declared the same during the recitation of the definition of the faith of the council of chalcedon after session 5:
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xi.xiii.html


As far as the "factors" needed for a council to be ecumenical in a previous post, i would have to disagree with 2 factors. Its true that all the councils were called by an emperor (as were a few robber-councils) but the Church today can still have Ecumenical councils without an emperor.
Glorified saints being a litmus test for the ecumenicity of a council is also problematic, The council of Chalcedon was considered ecumenical before the participants were recognized as saints. Its probably the same case with the council of Nicea where the council was recognized as ecumenical before 381 a.d. but its unknown whether the saint was thought as such , since the arian controversy raged on for decades after the saints death almost tight to the doorstep of the 2nd council of 381.

I would love for this to be an ecumenical council since it would put an end to the ecumenists urge who claim the fillioque is not heretical and not a big deal (of course this council should still put an end to their endeavors, but nothing is sacred to some).

[Christopher Dombrowski]

How many Oecumenical Councils are there?

What exactly is meant by Ecumenical, for one?

[John Frangos]

Hi All
are there transcripts, of the seven ecumenical councils available? If so have they been translated to English?

Regards
John

[Herman Blaydoe]

Hi All
are there transcripts, of the seven ecumenical councils available? If so have they been translated to English?

Regards
John

Have you looked here (http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.toc.html) (The Seven Ecumenical Councils @ Christian Classics Ethereal Library) yet?