Ecumenical councils and the Orientals

[Daniel Smith]

One claim often made by EO laymen and scholars is that ONE OF THE REASONS the Roman General Councils after 879 were not ecumenical is because there was no real presence of the orthodox east. Even ROme acknowledged this by at first styling Florence the Orthodox east. Obviously more Goes into an ecumenical council than this, but on the basis of THIS element, can we say truly that the council of Chalcedon was ecumenical when 1/3 of the church was not present, did not accpet, and has continued to live apart from these decrees? I do not mean to imply that the OO and EO churches are one church sharing an internal division, they are two distinct assemples.

However the fact remains that the Oriental east was orthodox and in communion with the pentarchy before Chalcedon. I doubt their views were any different after it: SO what REALLY AND ACTUALLY changed? Why were they (wrongly) termed heretics when they rejected Eutyches and Apollinarius (Under Patriarch Timothy II of ALexandria at the 3rd Ephesian council in 475 ad attended by over 500 formerly "Orthodox" bishops who would have died for St. Cyril). It is True that Pope Dioscorus accepted Eutyches, but only after he provided an Orthodox confession of faith. When he betrayed his confession, he Excommunicated Him.

So: Why is Chalcedon considered ecumenical when it was not accepted by the universal consensus of the church IN UNION with the fathers of the council? There must be more to ecclesiology than sweeping reductionism...

[Daniel Smith]

I meant that Rome styled Florence the 8th ecumenical council.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

The Council of Chalcedon (at the actual time of the council) was more widely accepted than you might imagine. While initially there was strong resistance from the conglomeration of the bishops from Palestine, Illyricum, and the Patriarchate of Alexandria, eventually the Palestinian and Illyrian bishops submitted (though in a somewhat qualified fashion), leaving the Alexandrian-African bishops as the only ones present at the council still not subscribing. So out of a few hundred bishops, only 14 bishops (if we include Dioscorus, 13 if not) maintained in refusing to subscribe to the Tome and the Chalcedonian Creed. While I think it's significant that the entire Patriarchate of Alexandria refused to subscribe and that this does bring the ecumenicity of Chalcedon into question, it must be recognized that the original resistance by the close of the council was quite small. Larger resistance only began to build up because of the reaction of the common people, not because a large number of bishops had the guts to take a stand in the face of the Empire.

[Christopher Dombrowski]

I have a couple more points to add on.

First is that the ecumenicity of a council does not require that all bishops or members of the Church subscribe to the definitions. There may be heretics within the Church or even within the episcopate, and the Church needs to be able to ecumenically and authoritatively define its faith even in spite of the heretics. This happened with Arius. It happened with Apollinaris. And it happened with Nestorius. So ecumenicity does not so much require absolute subscription as it does the recognition of the majority of the Church as well as a certain amount of representation from the various areas of the Church. The first two councils are not really questioned in that respect.

And that leads me to my second point. The First Council of Ephesus was not as clean and tidy as the first couple of councils appear to be. The council itself really only included representatives from the West (Rome) and from Africa (Alexandria), and actually lacked representation the "Syrian" or "Asian" church, i.e. the Patriarchate of Antioch. The First Council of Ephesus can only really be considered ecumenical in a receptionist fashion in light of the Formula of Reunion when John of Antioch submitted to Cyril's council and required various other of his bishops to do so as well. Thus, the First Council of Ephesus was orthodox and authoritative in and of itself, however it was not ecumenical in and of itself, but only in light of the reunion of Cyril and John.

Now this doesn't really answer any of your question outright, but I think it clarifies a few points that are needed to make a judgment in this matter.

[Antonios]

Dear Mr. Daniel Smith,

We read in the Acts of the Apostles that in the early days Peter and Paul had a disagreement with how the Gentiles should be received into the Church, whether by circumcision or not. In a real way, this occurrence was the first great schisms of the Church- between the two great pillars of the Church themselves. The one upholding tradition and the other magnifying Grace. The one hailing the law and the other the saving work of the crucified Christ.

In the end, the schism was healed and the Church again became one because Saint Peter repented of his error. Here, like when he denied the Lord, we find the strength and humility of Saint Peter and why he was considered the leader of the Apostles. Again he demonstrates why Christ chose him to be a shining example to all Christians and for all time. A true prodigal son of God. The robe of humility and the ring of faith gained him the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. May he pray for us sinners to repentance!

So, you see, schisms have occurred even from the early days of the Church, in different ways and for different reasons. It would be insufficient to try to compare or especially justify one of these tragedies from another when the circumstances, the controversies, the personalities, and the times varied so greatly. While it is true that truth is eternal (as the Church confesses), the whims of men, however, change- and often from moment to moment! If not for the Holy Spirit, the Church would be an empty vessel and it is by the Holy Spirit that the Church upheld the Orthodox faith and condemned Monophysite teaching by the miracle in the tomb of St. Euphemia at the Council of Chalcedon. So even if 2/3 of the Church were not present (and not the 1/3 you mentioned), the truth would still be preserved. Here we see that truth is stronger than human notions, and that orthodoxy trumps catholicity. If this was not the case, we might all be Arians right now.

Likewise, it is by the Holy Spirit that the Church confesses Seven Ecumenical Councils. If you find it difficult trying to rationalize this, than imaging trying to rationalize the miracle in St. Euphemia's tomb!



http://i.pbase.com/g6/55/727355/2/81890341.FYkEFF8b.jpg


In Christ,
Antonios

[Ryan]

One claim often made by EO laymen and scholars is that ONE OF THE REASONS the Roman General Councils after 879 were not ecumenical is because there was no real presence of the orthodox east.

I actually don't think this is really a reason why we reject the Roman Catholic councils. All the RC councils after 879, which they deem ecumenical, were post-schism. They were therefore the gatherings of a schismatic and heretical sect, so whether or not the Orthodox were present was not relevant since they were no longer part of the church anyway.