Description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenic

[deusveritasest]

That Letter to the Pope is a bit of a mess as regards the enumeration of the Councils, and not to mention that it has no knowledge of any Ninth Council which had supposedly taken place 500 years previously.

I already addressed that and you didn't respond to me.

1. Referring to "Seven Ecumenical Councils" and then an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" is not inherently consistent.

2. Like I said, it's possible that they were not aware of the 9th Council or they did not find it relevant to mention at the time.

3. The only reason you're being so stubborn about this, I suspect, is because you are misinterpreting what "Ecumenical" meant to the Fathers.

Rather because as a young student in Serbia I was taught that there are SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and no more.  Perhaps in the 1970s they were ignorant of the Ecumenical status of these Councils?!  As the great Saint Paul says:  "Itaque, fratres, state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram."  Paul I know, and my teachers I know,  but who is Deusveritasest and who are the anonymous "disparate individuals" mentioned by Cymbyz? 

They are not anonymous or disparate. Among them are Patriarch Anthimus VI of Constantinople, Patriarch Hierotheos II of Alexandria, Patriarch Methodius of Antioch, and Patriarch Cyril II of Jerusalem.

[Irish Hermit]

Irish Hermit, as far as I know only those documents generated after the Fall of Constantinople are called the symbolic books. That is what this GOAA article would seem to indicate:

http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8038

Do you have anything that indicates that Constantinople IV or V were part of that group?

The following are the chief Orthodox doctrinal statements since 787:

1 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Photius (867)  
2 The First Letter of Michael Cerularius to Peter of Antioch (1054)
3 The decisions of ‘the Councils of Constantinople in 1341 and 1351 on the Hesychast Controversy
4 The Encyclical Letter of Saint Mark of Ephesus (1440-1441).
5 The Confession of Faith by Gennadius, Patriarch of Constantinople (1455-1456)
6 The Replies of Jeremias the Second to the Lutherans (1573-1581)
7 The Confession of Faith by Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625)
8 The Orthodox Confession by Peter of Moghila, in its revised form (ratified by the Council of Jassy, 1642)
9 The Confession of Dositheus (ratified by the Council of Jerusalem, 1672)
10 The Answers of the Orthodox Patriarchs to the Non-Jurors (1718, 1723)
11 The Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs to Pope Pius the Ninth (1848)
12 The Reply of the Synod of Constantinople to Pope Leo the Thirteenth (1895)
13 The Encyclical Letters by the Patriarchate of Constantinople on Christian unity and on the ‘Ecumenical Movement’ (1920, 1952)

These documents — particularly items 5-9 — are sometimes called the ‘Symbolical Books’ of
the Orthodox Church, but many Orthodox scholars today regard this title as misleading and do
not use it.
http://www.intratext.com/IXT/ENG0804/_P10.HTM
and

http://www.holy-trinity-church.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=136&Itemid=136&limit=1&limitstart=2

Phew!  It's getting a bit dicey on this forum.... on the one hand we have a Catholic insisting that we don't know our theological onions (Immaculate Conception) and now we have an Oriental Orthodox insisting he knows our Church better than we do.  Should we take this out of the Catholic discussion Forum and into the Oriental Forum?

[Irish Hermit]

That Letter to the Pope is a bit of a mess as regards the enumeration of the Councils, and not to mention that it has no knowledge of any Ninth Council which had supposedly taken place 500 years previously.

I already addressed that and you didn't respond to me.

1. Referring to "Seven Ecumenical Councils" and then an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" is not inherently consistent.

2. Like I said, it's possible that they were not aware of the 9th Council or they did not find it relevant to mention at the time.

3. The only reason you're being so stubborn about this, I suspect, is because you are misinterpreting what "Ecumenical" meant to the Fathers.

Rather because as a young student in Serbia I was taught that there are SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and no more.  Perhaps in the 1970s they were ignorant of the Ecumenical status of these Councils?!  As the great Saint Paul says:  "Itaque, fratres, state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram."  Paul I know, and my teachers I know,  but who is Deusveritasest and who are the anonymous "disparate individuals" mentioned by Cymbyz? 

They are not anonymous or disparate. Among them are Patriarch Anthimus VI of Constantinople, Patriarch Hierotheos II of Alexandria, Patriarch Methodius of Antioch, and Patriarch Cyril II of Jerusalem.

I don't doubt you but unless you substantiate the claims for these Patriarchs we cannot take them as factual and cannot build any discussion on them.

[deusveritasest]

That Letter to the Pope is a bit of a mess as regards the enumeration of the Councils, and not to mention that it has no knowledge of any Ninth Council which had supposedly taken place 500 years previously.

I already addressed that and you didn't respond to me.

1. Referring to "Seven Ecumenical Councils" and then an "Eighth Ecumenical Council" is not inherently consistent.

2. Like I said, it's possible that they were not aware of the 9th Council or they did not find it relevant to mention at the time.

3. The only reason you're being so stubborn about this, I suspect, is because you are misinterpreting what "Ecumenical" meant to the Fathers.

Rather because as a young student in Serbia I was taught that there are SEVEN Ecumenical Councils and no more.  Perhaps in the 1970s they were ignorant of the Ecumenical status of these Councils?!  As the great Saint Paul says:  "Itaque, fratres, state et tenete traditiones, quas didicistis sive per sermonem sive per epistulam nostram."  Paul I know, and my teachers I know,  but who is Deusveritasest and who are the anonymous "disparate individuals" mentioned by Cymbyz? 

They are not anonymous or disparate. Among them are Patriarch Anthimus VI of Constantinople, Patriarch Hierotheos II of Alexandria, Patriarch Methodius of Antioch, and Patriarch Cyril II of Jerusalem.

I don't doubt you but unless you substantiate the claims for these Patriarchs we cannot take them as factual and cannot build any discussion on them.

It's the names of the 4 Patriarchs who signed the 1848 Encyclical.

[deusveritasest]

and now we have an Oriental Orthodox insisting he knows our Church better than we do.

So you're not aware of the fact that many Byzantines today are recognizing Eight and sometimes Nine Ecumenical Councils and that also many recognize that the Patristic era meaning of Ecumenical was of the Roman Empire?

[Irish Hermit]

and now we have an Oriental Orthodox insisting he knows our Church better than we do.

So you're not aware of the fact that many Byzantines today are recognizing Eight and sometimes Nine Ecumenical Councils

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

Unless the whole Church agrees on it, it is not very important if a few "Byzantines" advocate it.  After all the "Byzantines" are also demanding total control of the Diaspora.  Outside their own circle who takes that seriously?

and that also many recognize that the Patristic era meaning of Ecumenical was of the Roman Empire?

I suppose limiting "Ecumenical" to this meaning backs up Isa's claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch is using the title under false pretences.  Or at very least the Patriarch is ignorant of the meaning of the word?

[deusveritasest]

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.

I suppose limiting "Ecumenical" to this meaning backs up Isa's claim that the Ecumenical Patriarch is using the title under false pretences.  Or at very least the Patriarch is ignorant of the meaning of the word?

I would say so. It would appear that the Patriarch of Constantinople new the meaning originally as he started using it once he was the only Patriarch still within the Romano-Byzantine Empire. However, I doubt that he really wanted to give up the title once the Empire fell (though technically he should have) and now the meaning has undergone almost 600 years of contorting.

[Irish Hermit]

Thomas Ross Valentine's promotion of Nine Councils
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

He 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 obviously his own personal webpages, it is misleading to present Nine Councils on a public website where people come to find accurate information.   There is no indication on the site that no Orthodox Church has accepted Nine Councils. 

What Church is Valentine a member of?  Does he have his bishop's blessing to promote Nine Councils in this global fashion or is this just a promotion of his personal views?  Isn't it misleading people as to the Orthodox faith?

[Irish Hermit]

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.

[deusveritasest]

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.

Why is it significant for any of this to exist?

[deusveritasest]

Thomas Ross Valentine's promotion of Nine Councils
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txw/orthcoun.htm

He 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 obviously his own personal webpages, it is misleading to present Nine Councils on a public website where people come to find accurate information.   There is no indication on the site that no Orthodox Church has accepted Nine Councils. 

What Church is Valentine a member of?  Does he have his bishop's blessing to promote Nine Councils in this global fashion or is this just a promotion of his personal views?  Isn't it misleading people as to the Orthodox faith?

What is so significant about whether it is considered Ecumenical or not if all of the churches have recognized its decisions to be orthodox and authoritative?

[Irish Hermit]

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.

Why is it significant for any of this to exist?

Let's wrap it up - something that LBK actually did quite a few messages back (msg #119.)

The Orthodox Churches are all agreed that there are Seven Ecumenical Councils.  This is the conciliar decision of the Orthodox Church.  It is not in dispute.

There is a minor opinion being fostered today by "disparate individuals" that we should add in other Councils to make Eight or Nine or Ten.  This has never been ratified by the Orthodox Church.  Judging from what comes out of Chambesy and the preparations for the Eighth Council there is no interest in ratifying these past Councils as Eight, Nine and Ten.

When the Orthodox Church holds a pan-Orthodox Council and declares for Eight or Nine or Ten, I promise to get back to you.

[deusveritasest]

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.

Why is it significant for any of this to exist?

Let's wrap it up - something that LBK actually did quite a few messages back (msg #119.)

The Orthodox Churches are all agreed that there are Seven Ecumenical Councils.  This is the conciliar decision of the Orthodox Church.  It is not in dispute.

There is a minor opinion being fostered today by "disparate individuals" that we should add in other Councils to make Eight or Nine or Ten.  This has never been ratified by the Orthodox Church.  Judging from what comes out of Chambesy and the preparations for the Eighth Council there is no interest in ratifying these past Councils as Eight, Nine and Ten.

When the Orthodox Church holds a pan-Orthodox Council and declares for Eight or Nine or Ten, I promise to get back to you.

They don't need to be ratified for them to have been Ecumenical.

[Irish Hermit]

One is aware of two Greek clergymen who are fond of the idea of 9 Councils and there is an American convert Thomas (someone or other...) who is pushing the idea as if his life depended on it.

And the 4 Patriarchs of 1848.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have declared there are Eight Councils.

Name the Patriarchs and the Synods of the 20th century which have proclaimed Nine or Ten Councils.

Name the seminaries which teach their future priests that there are Eight, Nine and Ten Councils.

Name the days in the year when the Eighth, Ninth and Tenth Councils have a liturgical commemoration.

Show us the holy icons for these Councils.

Why is it significant for any of this to exist?

Let's wrap it up - something that LBK actually did quite a few messages back (msg #119.)

The Orthodox Churches are all agreed that there are Seven Ecumenical Councils.  This is the conciliar decision of the Orthodox Church.  It is not in dispute.

There is a minor opinion being fostered today by "disparate individuals" that we should add in other Councils to make Eight or Nine or Ten.  This has never been ratified by the Orthodox Church.  Judging from what comes out of Chambesy and the preparations for the Eighth Council there is no interest in ratifying these past Councils as Eight, Nine and Ten.

When the Orthodox Church holds a pan-Orthodox Council and declares for Eight or Nine or Ten, I promise to get back to you.

They don't need to be ratified for them to have been Ecumenical.

Sez who?  When you enter one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches are you planning on telling your hierarchs that Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are all Ecumenical Councils and it doesn't matter if they have accepted them as such or not?

[LBK]

deusveritasest, I do find it rather odd that you, who was received into the EO church, then after less than a year IIRC, decided that the OO was the more correct path to take. That, in itself, is your choice, of course. So I really can't understand the motivation behind your posts on this thread.

[Irish Hermit]

deusveritasest, I do find it rather odd that you, who was received into the EO church, then after less than a year IIRC, decided that the OO was the more correct path to take. That, in itself, is your choice, of course. So I really can't understand the motivation behind your posts on this thread.

It does seem odd, and if he is insisting that there are Ten Ecumenical Councils I do not see how he can make his home with the Oriental Orthodox.

[deusveritasest]

Sez who?  When you enter one of the Oriental Orthodox Churches are you planning on telling your hierarchs that Four, Five, Six, Seven, Eight, Nine and Ten are all Ecumenical Councils and it doesn't matter if they have accepted them as such or not?

Wow. You still don't get it. We're totally not meaning the same thing by "Ecumenical". I've been trying to explain it to you. I think it is a council sanctioned by the Roman Empire. You seem to think that Ecumenical Councils are inherently authoritative. However, if you understood my definition of them, that is actually not the case for what I am saying. As a matter of fact, I reject the Fourth Ecumenical Council as heterodox, and it is important that the OO hierarchs reject it. The Imperial Church and its councils diverged from the faith of Christ at the 4th. Thus, I recognize that there were nine Ecumenical Councils, however I only accept the first three as orthodox and of the Christian Church (rather than the Imperial church). That is, not to mention Ephesus II which was originally the Fourth Ecumenical Council and Ephesus III (whose once ecumenical status or non status I am not aware of). Therefore whether they recognize the ones beyond the first three as ecumenical or not is irrelevant as they were not councils of the Church.

[deusveritasest]

Sez who?

Tell me what the Fathers understood to be the oecumene. It should be quite clear that it was the Roman Empire. Therefore, Ecumenical must mean "of the Roman Empire". So what would make a council "of the Roman Empire"? Ratification by the Roman Emperor. That is the only body that was required to establish a council as ecumenical.

[deusveritasest]

deusveritasest, I do find it rather odd that you, who was received into the EO church, then after less than a year IIRC, decided that the OO was the more correct path to take. That, in itself, is your choice, of course. So I really can't understand the motivation behind your posts on this thread.

It's not ultimately relevant to my faith. Whether Chalcedon or Constantinople II or Constantinople III, etc. are ecumenical is not relevant to my faith as I do not recognize them as council of the Church of Christ. I just think that my understanding of what an ecumenical council is is more historically evident, and for Irish Hermit to react so strongly against what I am saying as such is slightly annoying.

[deusveritasest]

It does seem odd, and if he is insisting that there are Ten Ecumenical Councils I do not see how he can make his home with the Oriental Orthodox.

I say that there were Nine, not Ten. I never spoke of Ten. That must have been someone else you were speaking with.

And my home is with them because I only accept the first three of those nine as councils of the Christian Church. That some OO insist on there only having been 3 (or sometimes 4 with Ephesus II) Ecumenical Councils appears to be a novelty and is based on a misled understanding of what Ecumenical meant. What is really important is that we only accept the first three of your nine as having been orthodox councils of the Church. As such, I would say that I do not accept your later 6 ECs.

[Irish Hermit]

deusveritasest, I do find it rather odd that you, who was received into the EO church, then after less than a year IIRC, decided that the OO was the more correct path to take. That, in itself, is your choice, of course. So I really can't understand the motivation behind your posts on this thread.

It's not ultimately relevant to my faith. Whether Chalcedon or Constantinople II or Constantinople III, etc. are ecumenical is not relevant to my faith as I do not recognize them as council of the Church of Christ. I just think that my understanding of what an ecumenical council is is more historically evident, and for Irish Hermit to react so strongly against what I am saying as such is slightly annoying.

What is slightly annoying is that someone who briefly passed through Orthodoxy and is now exploring his options thinks he has some authority to speak for us.

Do you know what destroyed your credibility?  When you asked in Message 144 "Why is it significant for any of this to exist?"
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,27053.msg434316.html#msg434316

That question showed plainly that in your brief time in Orthodoxy you imbibed very little of the Orthodox ethos.  If you had imbibed it you would know the import of conciliar acceptance, liturgical commemoration and iconographic witness.

[deusveritasest]

What is slightly annoying is that someone who briefly passed through Orthodoxy and is now exploring his options thinks he has some authority to speak for us.

I am not attempting to speak for you. You can claim whatever number you want of how many ecumenical councils you think there were. I am disagreeing with your analysis. I am not attempting to speak for you, quite the contrary.

That question showed plainly that in your brief time in Orthodoxy you imbibed very little of the Orthodox ethos.  If you had imbibed it you would know the import of conciliar acceptance, liturgical commemoration and iconographic witness.

That only applies if you are continuing to fail to accept that I am meaning something different by "ecumenical". Those are all processes of councils recognized by the Christian Church. I am not speaking of that. I am speaking of council recognized by the Roman Empire. And the Roman Empire does not necessarily require any such processes for ratification. It was only concerned with what will best politically unite the Empire.

[Irish Hermit]

That only applies if you are continuing to fail to accept that I am meaning something different by "ecumenical".

Under the circumstances of this discussion I am not sure if the rather idiosyncratic meaning which you assign to "ecumenical" has any importance.

What is important is the meaning the Church assigns to it.

This is clearly distinct from your definition since we have all of the Orthodox Churches in preparation for the upcoming Great and Holy Council.  The Churches speak of it as being, possibly, the Eighth Ecumenical Council.   I realise that this would be a false application of "Ecumenical" in your view but the hierarchs do not agree with you.

[deusveritasest]

I was thinking of the Patristic era meaning of Ecumenical. That seems that it would be the most significant to me: what people meant by a council being ecumenical when they defined it as such.

[PeterTheAleut]

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

We have two people arguing that the only definitions that matter to them are those decided by the Church, yet it's obvious that they talk past each other with their totally different definitions of who constitutes the Church.

[Irish Hermit]

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

We have two people arguing that the only definitions that matter to them are those decided by the Church, yet it's obvious that they talk past each other with their totally different definitions of who constitutes the Church.

Thank you, Peter.  You have stated the problem exactly.  We do not agree on the conditions necessary for an ecumenical council and we do not agree what constitutes the Church.

[Irish Hermit]

Father Georges Florovsky wrote a monograph on the infallibility of Ecumenical Councils and the manner in which they are received by the Church.

Can anyone lay their hands on this?

[deusveritasest]

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

Yes.

We have two people arguing that the only definitions that matter to them are those decided by the Church, yet it's obvious that they talk past each other with their totally different definitions of who constitutes the Church.

Not so much. I am looking to the definition of those Fathers who we both recognize.

[Irish Hermit]

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

I suppose there is one obvious solution:-  Ask your bishop!   

[PeterTheAleut]

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

I suppose there is one obvious solution:-  Ask your bishop!   

What if I decide to change bishops?

[Irish Hermit]

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

I suppose there is one obvious solution:-  Ask your bishop!   

What if I decide to change bishops?

Ask the new one. It's part of their job description to advise the flock.  After all they have to swear true allegiance to the Seven Councils when they are consecrated, so they must have some idea what that's about.

[PeterTheAleut]

And here we have a couple of people going round and round on which councils are ecumenical and which are not because they can't even agree on what conditions are necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical.

I suppose there is one obvious solution:-  Ask your bishop!   

What if I decide to change bishops?

Ask the new one. It's part of their job description to advise the flock.  After all they have to swear true allegiance to the Seven Councils when they are consecrated, so they must have some idea what that's about.

But what if I were to submit to the authority of a bishop who doesn't recognize the Seven Councils?  Let's say... an OO bishop?

[Irish Hermit]

Consecration of a bishop: The Third Confession of Faith:

"In this my confession of the holy faith, I promise to observe the Canons and teachings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils...."

[Note:  Please indicate in advance if you believe in Eight or Nine of Ten Councils so that we may reword this.]

[Irish Hermit]

But what if I were to submit to the authority of a bishop who doesn't recognize the Seven Councils?  Let's say... an OO bishop?

For those who are really scrupulous about their Councils I recommend the Anglican religion:

Article 21 of the 39 Articles:
General Councils... forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and word of God, they may err and sometime have erred, even in things pertaining to God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of Holy Scripture.

[Cymbyz]

The cited Anglican definition begs the questions of Sola Scriptura and hermeneutics; it resolves nothing.

[Irish Hermit]

The cited Anglican definition begs the questions of Sola Scriptura and hermeneutics; it resolves nothing.

I believe you are quite right but I was just offering a rather pragmatic resolution to the question Peter posed, and a little tongue in cheek. (Should have popped a smiley in to make that more clear.)

[militantsparrow]

So I guess the answer to my original post is, "It depends on who you ask." 

[Irish Hermit]

/\

Dear Sparrow,

I don't think that anybody can answer your question in the OP about finding the canons which support the two bolded points below.  Why?  Nobody has the foggiest idea that these points were ever made at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  If you could give us a reference to the Council and where these points can be found, that would be a help. I think that the author whom you quote has made this up or been misled by something he has read.

So, the immediate answer to your question is: No!  We cannot supply any canons which support your bolded points.

I just discovered the document,
The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.

I realize it is not official yet (or maybe ever), but there are a few things in the letter which strike me as problematic. The description of what is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical seems to go against my previous understanding of either side.

27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);
– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole...

I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Thank you and God bless.

[Cosmos]

Here's a link to the documents produced by the Seventh Ecumenical Council for whomever may wish to read them. Happy hunting!

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.xvi.i.html

Cosmos

[ialmisry]

So I guess the answer to my original post is, "It depends on who you ask." 

Like  most existential questions, yes.

I learned that in Islamic studies: Muslims have scripture.  Jews have scripture.  Buddhists have scripture. Hindus have scripture. And we have the Scriptures.  But the idea of what scripture should look like is predetermined by which religion you choose, which compares its idea of Scripture to other scriptures, as opposed to other definitions of scripture.  For example, the Muslims, based on the Quran, believe scripture has to be first person (although the Quran falls short of consistency in this, something the Muslim exegetes spend time on explaining), and hence by definition write off the Epistles as scripture.

As to your original question: the Churches have taken sides on whether a particular Council is Ecumenical or not, not on what makes a Council Ecumenical.  I don't even think the Vatican went on to that second question until Vatican II, their last council they claim is ecumenical. Hence why there lists of councils has changed.

[militantsparrow]

/\

Dear Sparrow,

I don't think that anybody can answer your question in the OP about finding the canons which support the two bolded points below.  Why?  Nobody has the foggiest idea that these points were ever made at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  If you could give us a reference to the Council and where these points can be found, that would be a help. I think that the author whom you quote has made this up or been misled by something he has read.

So, the immediate answer to your question is: No!  We cannot supply any canons which support your bolded points.

Fr. Ambrose, the points are taken from Apostolic Canon 34 which is quoted in the Revenna document http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

[ialmisry]

/\

Dear Sparrow,

I don't think that anybody can answer your question in the OP about finding the canons which support the two bolded points below.  Why?  Nobody has the foggiest idea that these points were ever made at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  If you could give us a reference to the Council and where these points can be found, that would be a help. I think that the author whom you quote has made this up or been misled by something he has read.

So, the immediate answer to your question is: No!  We cannot supply any canons which support your bolded points.

Fr. Ambrose, the points are taken from Apostolic Canon 34 which is quoted in the Revenna document http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

No, they are not:

34. It behoves the Bishops of every nation to know the one among them who is the premier or chief, and to recognise him as their head, and to refrain from doing anything superfluous without his advice and approval: but, instead, each of them should do only whatever is necessitated by his own parish and by the territories under him. But let not even such a one do anything without the advice and consent and approval of all. For thus will there be concord, and God will be glorified through the Lord in Holy Spirit, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

http://www.holytrinitymission.org/books/english/cannons_apostles_rudder.htm

[ialmisry]

/\

Dear Sparrow,

I don't think that anybody can answer your question in the OP about finding the canons which support the two bolded points below.  Why?  Nobody has the foggiest idea that these points were ever made at the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  If you could give us a reference to the Council and where these points can be found, that would be a help. I think that the author whom you quote has made this up or been misled by something he has read.

So, the immediate answer to your question is: No!  We cannot supply any canons which support your bolded points.

I just discovered the document,
The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium.

I realize it is not official yet (or maybe ever), but there are a few things in the letter which strike me as problematic. The description of what is necessary for a council to be considered ecumenical seems to go against my previous understanding of either side.

27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);
– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole...

I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Thank you and God bless.

I have to agree with you Father, the authors, like much of Ravenna, made it up.  What they seem to base it on is the comparison of the Ecumenical Council of Nicea II and the "Headless council" of Hieria of the Iconoclasts.

[Irish Hermit]

Fr. Ambrose, the points are taken from Apostolic Canon 34 which is quoted in the Revenna document http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20071013_documento-ravenna_en.html

Now I have to admit that I am quite lost.

In your OP you say that these points are contained in the Seventh Ecumenical Council.  I could not locate them

Now you say that they are contained in Ravenna 2007, and again I cannot locate them.  Maybe my search thingie is not working well?

Would you please look through the Ravenna Document and maybe give the Paragraph number where these points occur.

Here is Apostolic Canon 34....  I don't see how it supports the points:

"The bishops of every nation must acknowledge him who is first among them and account him as their head, and do nothing of consequence without his consent; but each may do those things only which concern his own parish, and the country places which belong to it. But neither let him (who is the first) do anything without the consent of all; for so there will be unanimity, and God will be glorified through the Lord in the Holy Spirit."


The two points you mention and for which you ask for supporting canons:

– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);

[militantsparrow]

Fr. Ambrose,
I apologize for the confusion. It is no doubt in large part because I myself am confused. In my OP, I quoted a draft document called "The Role of the Bishop of Rome in the Communion of the Church in the First Millennium." This is not my document, but a document that was put together by the International Catholic-Orthodox dialogue. My OP quoted that document as stating:

27. The clearest description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenical was given by the seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicaea II, 787), the final council to be recognised as ecumenical both in the East and in the West:
– it has to be accepted by the heads (proedroi) of the churches, and they have to be in agreement (symphonia) with it;
– the pope of Rome has to be a "co-operator" or "fellow worker" (synergos) with the council;
– the patriarchs of the East have to be "in agreement" (symphronountes);
– the teaching of the council must be in accord with that of previous ecumenical councils;
– the council must be given its own specific number, so as to be placed in the sequence of councils accepted by the Church as a whole...

Please note that I am not making the above points in my OP, but merely asking where the document drafters are getting these points.

In my OP, I was asking:

I looked over the Ravenna document and the documents from Nicaea II, but neither seemed to express these points as succinctly. Does anyone know where I can find the cannons which support the two bolded points above--especially the necessity for the patriarchs of the East to be in agreement.

Several people responded on this and other boards that the above quotes are probably extrapolations of Apostolic Canon 34. But nobody reads Canon 34 do be a pure source for the above points. And as ialmisry has pointed out to me, the Apostolic Canon reads quite differently then it is often quoted.

So, I guess I am back to my original confused state.

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Orthodox-Other Christian Discussion > Orthodox-Catholic Discussion (Moderator: username!) > Topic: Description of the conditions necessary for a council to be regarded as ecumenic