Criteria for an ecumenical council?

[Constantinos]

Also posted on orthodoxchristianity.net (http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,15725.0.html)

Christos Anesti!

In recent debates with those of other faiths, I've come across a very interesting question to which I confess I have no distinct and authoritative answer:

By what criteria do we Orthodox authoritatively, objectively, and externally judge whether a given council was ecumenical or not?

If you sit down and think hard about it, it's a much more difficult question than it appears at first blush. We can dismiss standards such as "convocation by the Emperor" or "lots of bishops" as immediately ludicrous on their face. Even the more reasonable alternatives, however, have severe problems:

1. Suppose we say, "ratification by a subsequent council." This raises issues:

-I'm fairly sure there have been heretical councils subsequently ratified by other heretical councils. yet we don't count those as ecumenical.
-Is this a question of "oomph," or can any piddly local council basically create ecumenical councils by fiat? If it's "oomph" that counts, how do we determine whether it's sufficient, without running into the infinite causes dilemma?


2. Suppose we say, "participation by the Pentarchy." This raises issues:

-Does this mean that, since the Great Schism, Orthodoxy has lost its ability to hold new Ecumenical Councils? This would have serious implications as to Orthodoxy's catholicity.
-What of the First Ecumenical Council? Constantinople wasn't even a big-name see at the time.
-What of the Second Ecumenical Council? The Bishop of Rome was not present.
-What of the Ignatian council of 869? What of the Council of Florence? Both had at least ostensible participation by all the Patriarchates.


3. Suppose we say, "ratification by the Pentarchy." This raises issues:

-Again, does this mean Orthodoxy is stripped of the ability to hold new Ecumenical Councils?
-Again, what of the Ignatian council, and Florence, where the Pentarchy apparently ratified 'em, but we Orthodox reject them?
-More importantly, what of Chalcedon and the other councils we do accept that weren't ratified by the whole Pentarchy?
-Especially, what of Chalceon canon 28, which was rejected by Pope St. Leo the Great, a move apparently accepted as legitimate by St. Anatolius?


4. Suppose we say, "ratification by the laity." This raises issues:

-How many need to ratify a given council? 51%? 66%? 75%? 90%? How can we know what proportion is right? How can we measure whether this consensus exists? Within what length of time should it come to a proper degree of laity acceptance?
-What of all the times when heresy plagued the Church to such extent that probably a majority of the laity were in heresy? (I'm thinking specifically of Maximus the Confessor, and "Athanasius against the world.")
-What makes an ecumenical council necessary at all, under this scheme? If majority rules, and Truth always wins out over the centuries, then why not just leave it to the body of the faithful?


5. Suppose we say, "ratification by the bishop of Rome." This raises issues:

-Why are we still Orthodox, then? :P
-What of the Photian council of 879, which was apparently ratified by Rome and then deratified? Does this mean the foundations of the Faith are subject to repeal on the whim of one man?
-If true, why was the papacy's vote so frequently ignored (Chalcedon canon 28) or outright opposed (St. Cyprian)?
-Again, it seems this would obviate the need for an ecumenical council except for informational and diplomatic purposes, if the papacy were able to decree authoritatively what was and wasn't true doctrine.
-On the face, it does seem, however, that this rule is the easiest to fit into the majority of historical circumstances.


(My gut inclines me to say that it's a combination of 2, 3, and 4, on something of a sliding scale, but while this answer seems to me the most logically tenable, it is by no means particularly satisfying.)

Finally, I would be extremely interested to see any authoritative documentation--that is, in the canons or Church Fathers--as to what constitutes a valid ecumenical council. It seems to me that 20/20 hindsight and subjective private judgment is not a wise or solid foundation for something so incredibly vital to Orthodox ecclesiology.

(In particular, Orthodox blogger Perry Robinson wrote (http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2007/11/will-be-nice-for-good-bottle-of-wine.html): With 2nd nicea, the documents in question actually LIST the conditions for a legitimate council and it seems quite strange that they do not list papal ratification and even stranger that NO ONE IS MENTIONING THEM AT ALL, even though it is the one place in an ecumenical council recognised by ALL that discusses and lays down the criteria in question. After a fairly thorough reading of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, I am unable to determine where he gets this. But this'd be just what I'm looking for. Any thoughts?)

Christ is in our midst!

Pax,

--Seraphim

[Michael Stickles]

(In particular, Orthodox blogger Perry Robinson wrote (http://ochlophobist.blogspot.com/2007/11/will-be-nice-for-good-bottle-of-wine.html): With 2nd nicea, the documents in question actually LIST the conditions for a legitimate council and it seems quite strange that they do not list papal ratification and even stranger that NO ONE IS MENTIONING THEM AT ALL, even though it is the one place in an ecumenical council recognised by ALL that discusses and lays down the criteria in question. After a fairly thorough reading of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, I am unable to determine where he gets this. But this'd be just what I'm looking for. Any thoughts?)

I find this claim quite interesting, since I'm not sure what he's referring to either. The only "list" I found is in the Introduction, not in the documents of the Council, and that list does include papal approval. I can only assume that either (a) this list is in the documents of the council but is not included in the CCEL copy of The Seven Ecumenical Councils, which was what I examined; (b) that I totally missed something obvious; or (c) that he is referring to one of the following (I have underlined the parts I think may be what he references as "conditions"):


And now having carefully traced the traditions of the Apostles and Fathers, we are bold to speak. Having but one mind by the inbreathing of the most Holy Spirit, and being all knit together in one, and understanding the harmonious tradition of the Catholic Church, we are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical councils; ...
- The Letter of the Synod to the Emperor and Empress.


and, moreover, I should demand that an Ecumenical Council should be held, at which should be found Legates from the Pope of Rome and from the Chief Priests of the East. ... To this their request, we gave our hearty consent; for, to speak the truth, it is by the good will and under the direction of our God that we have assembled you together. Wherefore as God, willing to establish his own counsel, hath for this purpose brought you together from all parts of the world, behold the Gospels now lying before you, and plainly crying aloud, “Judge justly;” stand firm as champions of religion, and be ready with unsparing hand to cut away all innovations and new fangled inventions.
- The Imperial Sacra.


... our Lord God (not willing to behold his people corrupted by such manner of plague) hath of his good pleasure called us together, the chief of his priests, from every quarter, moved with a divine zeal and brought hither by the will of our princes, Constantine and Irene, to the end that the traditions of the Catholic Church may receive stability by our common decree. Therefore, with all diligence, making a thorough examination and analysis, and following the trend of the truth, we diminish nought, we add nought, but we preserve unchanged all things which pertain to the Catholic Church, and following the Six Ecumenical Synods, especially that which met in this illustrious metropolis of Nice, as also that which was afterwards gathered together in the God-protected Royal City.
- The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice.

Would be easier if he had been more specific. I posted a comment in the blog you linked, asking him where he found the list. I'd also love to see just what he's referring to.

Beyond that, I will admit that to my way of thinking, asking:


By what criteria do we Orthodox authoritatively, objectively, and externally judge whether a given council was ecumenical or not?

is probably the wrong way to frame the question. I don't think we can externally and objectively judge that, at least not in the way I understand those words, since to be Ecumenical a Council most certainly has to be in harmony with the unbroken teaching of the Church and the earlier Ecumenical Councils, a judgement which is definitely internal to the Church, and which seems to me more a matter of spiritual discernment than of objective analysis. I'm a mere babe in Orthodoxy, though (chrismated just 2 days ago on Holy Saturday), and once we're past the "library research" I'm out of my depth on this question. Hopefully someone else with more maturity in the faith and a better knowledge of the Councils can chime in here.

In Christ,
Mike

[Matthew Namee]

Let me first say that I appreciate the organized thinking in Constantinos' post. Breaking down the issue into smaller questions is very helpful.

I am not especially well-versed in the history of the ecumenical councils, and I don't know more than a tiny smattering of Greek, so I don't have any actual answers to contribute; only more questions.

For instance, it's clear that the various ecumenical councils themselves referenced the preceding ECs as being ecumenical. The quotation posted by Mike Stickles is an example of this: "[W]e are in perfect harmony with the symphonies set forth by the six, holy and ecumenical councils." First of all, I would be curious to know whether future significant councils in the Orthodox Church made similar declarations. Did, say, the so-called "eighth" (the St. Photios council) and "ninth" (the St. Gregory Palamas council) refer to themselves as "ecumenical" (and did the ninth refer to the eighth as such)?

Constantinos has raised general issues, and I think posing specific, answerable questions related to those issues might help shed further light on the subject.

[Constantinos]

Mike:

I would be most inclined toward the definition in the Sacra:


I [the Roman Emperor]... demand that an Ecumenical Council should be held, at which should be found Legates from the Pope of Rome and from the Chief Priests of the East. ... together from all parts of the world.

Alas, there are three potential issues with this:

1. This definition runs into historical problems with Constantinople I, but it was arguably properly "ecumenized" by Chalcedon, so it's not too huge an issue.

2. The dratted old ecclesiological problem. Since papal legates are no way no how showing up at subsequent councils of ours, are we no longer a sufficiently catholic (universal/complete) Church?

3. You can explain away Constantinople 869 via the allegation that the Alexandrian legate was a fake (the historical evidence is scanty but present). How do you explain away Florence, though?


I don't think we can externally and objectively judge that, at least not in the way I understand those words, since to be Ecumenical a Council most certainly has to be in harmony with the unbroken teaching of the Church and the earlier Ecumenical Councils, a judgement which is definitely internal to the Church, and which seems to me more a matter of spiritual discernment than of objective analysis.

Obviously so. I should have phrased the call of my question better. What I'm asking is: what is the externally measurable internal criterion by which we judge ecumenicity? And if we don't have one, how are we not simply taking our doctrine and acceptance of councils on blind faith?

For example, Rome posits all of the above--to be ecumenical, a council has to be in harmony with the unbroken teaching of the Church, etc. etc.--but as its externally visible internal principle of authority, it says "to be ecumenical, a council needs papal ratification." Thus, any council purporting to be ecumenical, accepted by the Pope, is an ecumenical council. Thus the Roman Catholic gains internal consistency, and a standard by which to measure the history of his church.

Problem is, the Orthodox don't seem to have such a principle, and their attempts at establishing one lead to logical dead ends. By all the proposed standards, the Orthodox should logically reject some councils as ecumenical, and/or accept some that are presently rejected.

Participation by the Pentarchy means Constantinople I should be out, and Florence should be in. Ratification by the Pentarchy means that at least Chalcedon should be out. Ratification by the laity means that Chalcedon, Ephesus I, and possibly Nicea I should be out. So are we Orthodox just schizophrenic--thus making, say, Catholicism look a lot more consistent and appealing--or is there an historically consistent internal principle at work that I'm missing?

Matthew:

Thank you for the kind words.

It is my understanding that the Ignatian council of 869 (not accepted by the Orthodox) and the Photian council of 879 (accepted by the Orthodox) both referred to themselves as ecumenical. Of course, the so-called "Robber Synod" of Ephesus II in 449, and the iconoclast council of Hieria in 754 also referred to themselves as "ecumenical," despite the fact we don't accept them, so that doesn't really help.

As an historical side note, St. Photius argued strenuously that Nicea II (the Seventh Council) be proclaimed ecumenical (before that time, only six councils were widely recognized), and, while the acts of 879 suggest ecumenicity, St. Photius was fairly vociferous about not counting 879 as an ecumenical council. (Of course, we see that the Orthodox hierarchs subsequently viewed it as the Eighth Council, anyway.)

I am not sure whether the Palamite Councils claimed to be ecumenical in scope.

[Adrian Martin]

I'm not a scholar, but I'll offer a few, perhaps ignorant words:

What the Pope of Rome sees as "Ecumenical" may be totally different from what St. Theodosius the Great saw as "Ecumenical".

The Ecumenical Council is NOT analogous to the Roman Pope. If we try to make a Roman Ecclesiology out of Orthodoxy, just replacing the Pope with a Council, we might as well become Roman Catholics.

The Saints make the Church, the Church does not make Saints.

By the way, why don't you just ask Mr. Robinson what he means?

[Constantinos]

I agree, Adrian. If I found a papal ecclesiology to be palatable, I would, obviously, be Roman Catholic, rather than Orthodox. :) That does not excuse us Orthodox, however, from holding ourselves to a strict and high standard of reasonableness and self-criticism.

I have emailed Mr. Robinson (several days before starting this thread, actually). No response yet. Rest assured that any response will certainly go reported.

Pax,

Seraphim