I have been awaiting a similar list of OO councils (local or otherwise) for over 4 months on this forum and can only conclude from not seeing any that there are none (which I doubt).
Anyway, I think a better approach is for those who deny the 4th+ councils to explain why they are NOT Orthodox.
Hi Demetri, there are obviously many synods which took place after Chalcedon, and indeed Ephesus 449. But I do not find that rigidity which the EO manifests. It seems to me that OO can both place a council in context and value its substance without necessarily tying ourselves to dealing with the EO as if we were still in that context.
There are of course many councils which condemn you as a heretic, but I believe that the intent of those councils was to exclude heresy not label Chalcedonians forever as heretics. I believe that this is also the OO approach. A certain faith that the Holy Spirit has brought us here to this opportunity and that we need to rely on the Holy Spirit now, without failing to comprehend all that has gone before, but also without a narrow understanding of what went before.
I could easily keep saying 'Reject Chalcedon and you can be considered Orthodox'. In one sense that is the conciliar position of the OO. But in another very real sense the councils are not set above the Church but they are expressions, as you have already stated, of the activity of the Holy Spirit in the Church, who HAS NOT CEASED TO BE ACTIVE in the Church.
So I rely on our bishops to have in mind a wide variety of authorities, and teachings, and history, and much prayer and see where we go from here. I do not ask you to 'Reject Chalcedon'. Rather I believe the OO wishes to see how the Holy Spirit can bring us both to understand even Chalcedon in an Orthodox manner.
So I won't go through all the history. With the Byzantine persecution of the Church it was hard enough for bishops to remain out of prison and escape death, but we do have many letters between bishops which have authority as part of the tradition.
Putting aside the rejection of Chalcedon by my Fathers - as being somewhat tied to a context - I would neverthless expect and demand that Chalcedonians were reconciled on the basis of their having a faith at least substantially in accord with the teachings of our Fathers.
Why do we reject the latter councils?
Well firstly I am not sure that the latter councils 5-7(8-9) were rejected. The Church had by that time walled itself off from the Byzantines and had to set up a separate jurisdiction just to survive persecution. There may be comment about the 5th council, I'll try and have a look. But by the 6th and 7th these were only EO local councils. (Of course that doesn't mean not-Orthodox as some will imply I mean).
i. The Tome of Leo is rejected because it seems to set up an independent activity of the humanity. It seems to remove the Word of God from any engagement in the passion. Of course the Divinity does not suffer, but the Tome seems to prevent the Word suffering in the flesh. This is no more than many modern Chalcedonians, including Father John Romanides state.
Here's a few passages in English translation, the Latin would be better but I don't have it. But they present phraseology that needs explaining - especially since the Tome was written in a Western context supportive of Theodore of Mopsuestia's terminology. Of course I can see how an EO could understand them in an Orthodox manner, but there were plenty who didn't - not least Nestorius himself. And these are just off the top of my head.
"Accordingly while the distinctness of both natures and substances was preserved, and both met in one Person, lowliness was assumed by majesty, weakness by power....."
(What is the term translated person? Did the West understand person as hypostasis or prosopon? The Antiocheans taught a prosopic rather than hypostatic union, and a hypostatic union was insisted on at the 5th council IIRC)
"By "ours" we mean what the Creator formed in us at the beginning and what he assumed in order to restore;"
(Does this mean he took on pre-fall humanity rather than our fallen humanity yet without sin?)
"For each "form" does the acts which belong to it, in communion with the other; the Word, that is, performing what belongs to the Word, and the flesh carrying out what belongs to the flesh; the one of these shines out in miracles, the other succumbs' to injuries. And as the Word does not withdraw from equality with the Father in glory, so the flesh does not abandon the nature of our kind."
(The Word is the eternal Son of God, if he only performs what belongs to him in his divinity and does not perform what belongs to him in his humanity then who is performing the works of the humanity but some other Son? And if the Word shines in miracles and the humanity does not then who raised Lazarus? It is Orthodox to confess that both the works of the flesh and the works of divinity both belong to the Word of God who performs them in his humanity and his divinity without division. When Christ walked on the water it was not divine to walk at all, not human to walk on water, but God the Word works always in his humanity and his divinity in union with each other. If the Word did not suffer on the flesh in union with his own humanity then who did suffer there?)
"Accordingly, on account of this unity of Person which is to be understood as existing in both the natures"
(I'd like to see the language here, both the Latin and Greek.)
"it does not belong to the same nature to say, "I and the Father are one," and to say, "the Father is greater than I.""
(Persons speak. This sounds like one person saying one thing and another person saying another)
Main theological issue is 'in two natures'.
(This sounds like, and was accepted by Theodoreans as meaning - in two hypostases, not as the individuation of two ousia. Cyrilline terminology had been 'of or from two natures' meaning a union of two distinct and different subsistences. 'in two natures' was taken to mean a prosopic, external union in which two distinct subsistences were not united in a substantial or hypostatic union at all).
iii. Constantinople II
I can accept all of this with just a couple of glosses to ensure a correct understanding. (I think this council could be accepted as ecumenical)
iv. Constantinople III
The sudden ecumenical description of Dioscorus as 'hated of God' when he hadn't been called such at any of the councils closer to his period - even Chalcedon did not condemn him for heresy from even its own pov. Con III was 230 years after he had died and it is unlikely that any member of that council had ever read anything that he had said or written.
The description of Severus' 'mad and wicked doctrine' when in fact it does not represent what he wrote or taught.
"And these two natural wills are not contrary the one to the other (God forbid!) as the impious heretics assert"
(I have had many EO insist that the wills WERE contrary to each other and when I describe 'one will' as meaning a union of human and divine will, as this council seems to teach, I have been accused of heresy.)
"For it was right that the flesh should be moved but subject to the divine will, according to the most wise Athanasius."
(When I say something like this I am accused of monothelitism. I think that many EO converts think they know things when they don't.)
"His will [i.e., the Saviour's] is not contrary to God but altogether deified"
(This quote from St Gregory is also used by Severus, but he is accused of denying what he plainly teaches)
"We recognize the miracles and the sufferings as of one and the same [Person], but of one or of the other nature of which he is and in which he exists"
(Of course I do not deny that Christ is perfect God and perfect man, but this seems to deny the union of humanity and divinity. When Christ walked on the water it was neither only in his humanity, nor only in his divinity. It is not correct, it would seem from our pov, to say that these events take place in one or other, rather than in both according to their own manner. rather we believe that while humanity acts in accordance with the nature of humanity, and divinity in accordance with the nature of divinity, nevertheless in Christ these always act in union with each other. Christ does not wake up some mornings (to speak foolishly) and find that his divinity is having a day off. When Lazarus was raised from the dead was the divinity of the Word acting or the humanity of the Word? Or was he acting appropriately in and through both in union with each other?)
(These are not absolute objections, but places that have caused problems. And without an explanation, with just a constant banging on about 'accepting the councils' these things won't ever get resolved.)
"....the difference of nature which must be recognized in the same Person, for although joined together....."
(Again, 'person' and 'joined together' what are the underlying words? Nestorius (and he stands for that whole school) taught a union in the person rather than the hypostasis. What is meant here?)
v. Nicaea II
"the Council of Ephesus has already defined when it cast out of the Church the impious Nestorius with his colleagues, because he taught that there were two Persons [in Christ]."
(Well he didn't did he. He taught rather that the humanity had a greater degree of independence than Orthodoxy could allow. he never taught 2 prosopon but he did teach 'in two natures'. In fact that is half the problem with 'in two natures', those who accepted it were not uniformally Orthodox. Of course the same could be said about 'one incarnate nature'. This just means we need to explain better)
Rejection of Dioscorus and Severus is unacceptable.
The rest of the material about icons is fine. Without the references to Dioscorus and Severus this would be completely OK and I think could be received as ecumenical even.
So the bulk of the material is acceptable, easily made clearly understandable if the EO willed to assist in its right understanding. The 6th is slightly more complex, not least from the fact that many EO I have dealt with over the last 10 years seem to fail to actually teach what it teaches.
Does any of this help? As I said, these are not absolute objections, just things that stick out. Of course I can understand how an EO would read them but what is needed to wipe away the stains of controversy is for EO to explicitly explain how these things should be understood.