#oakley made a post manifesting it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

kabane52 · 5 years

Text

What is an Ecumenical Council?

In response to a common question: what is the Orthodox theology of Ecumenical Councils? How do Orthodox Christians identify authentic Ecumenical Councils? And in this light, how does the Orthodox Church reject the unionist councils of II Lyons and Florence, which established communion with Rome and dogmatically taught the Filioque?

The most common answer today is that of corporate, universal reception: we identify a Council as authentically ecumenical and infallible when it is received as such by the whole church- bishops and laypeople alike.

This idea ecumenical councils has become popular, but it has problems. But we need to recognize before we address those problems that the Roman Catholic notion of an ecumenical council and its relationship to defined dogma is deeply flawed.

The way that RC apologists typically frame the question is as follows:

“An Ecumenical Council is an act of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church, and as such is subject to a specific promise of infallibility through the Holy Spirit. In order for it to function as such in the life of the Church, there must be specific canonical standards by which a person can identify ecumenical councils- standards independent of the doctrine taught, for if its legitimacy turns on its doctrinal accuracy, it cannot succeed in its purpose of resolving doubt about a particular doctrine.”

Consequently, an ecumenical council is thought to be able to actually define something as dogma which had previously been an acceptable theologumenon only. Before Vatican I, you could be a Roman Catholic in good standing and reject the idea of papal infallibility. Afterwards, you would be a heretic. James Likoudis, an RC apologist, actually told me that before the Nicene definition Arian Christology was an acceptable, though problematic, theologumenon. You do not find this in the undivided Church. St. Cyril issued his Twelve Anathemas before the Council of Ephesus. Eutychianism was a heresy and recognized as such before the definitions of Chalcedon. Maximus declared that he would have no communion with monothelites because they were heretics. And this was before the Sixth Council defined monothelitism as heresy. So clearly, a doctrine’s dogmatic identity is not actually created by the decree of an Ecumenical Council. The Council does not exist to make one theologumenon a dogma and another theologumenon a heresy.

That’s point one. Point two is an historical point. The fundamental question is not what kind of Church one personally would have founded if one was Christ. The question is what kind of Church Christ actually founded. So all of the arguments about the “need” for a specified canonical standard independent of the defined doctrines need to be tossed out the window. Orthodox and RCs both claim authenticity on the basis of continuity with the undivided Church of East and West during the first thousand years. It does not matter how precise the RC idea of an EC is defined. If it is contradicted by the actual Councils of those first thousand years, it’s worthless. So let’s consider the following facts in light of the idea that papal ratification is the necessary and sufficient condition for a Council to be authoritative:

-The Second Ecumenical Council was not received in the Western Church until Chalcedon. It was presided over by Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch who was out of communion with the Church of Rome who preferred Paulinus as patriarch. -The Fifth Ecumenical Council rendered a definitive negative judgment on Pope Vigilius of Rome, declaring that the “only way in which truth can be made manifest” is through collegial communion, not primatial authority alone.

-The 649 Lateran Synod was convoked by the Pope to be an ecumenical council- and it was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome as such. Yet it is not an ecumenical council either in Rome’s listing or our own. This is a direct falsification of the RC view.

-The Seventh Ecumenical Council was regarded by Pope Hadrian as a major and authentic Local Synod of the Church of Constantinople, but not an Ecumenical Synod. Even a century afterwards, during the papacy of Nicholas I, the Seventh Council was not received as an ecumenical council. If papal ratification is that which is necessary to identify the true Ecumenical Councils, why did the Church refer to it as authoritative before its ultimate confirmation in the Church of Rome?

-The Fourth Council of Constantinople which condemned the Filioque, affirmed the 381 Creed as the single and definitive Creed binding the whole Catholic Church into unity of faith, and rehabilitated St. Photios of Constantinople- overturning the Synod which had condemned him ten years earlier- was confirmed as authoritative by Pope John VIII of Rome and commemorated as such for the next two centuries. In the eleventh century, the Gregorian reformers erased it from history and retroactively confirmed the earlier IV Constantinople as ecumenical. So if the popes confirm two councils diametrically opposed to each other, to which do we look?

The RC view fails completely to pass the bar of history. However elegant one thinks it might be, it is not the teaching of the one Church of Christ which bound together the East and the West. Let’s consider some additional facts from the Middle Ages which raise serious questions about the coherence of the RC view:

-The Council of Constance is commemorated as an ecumenical council and was convoked by the civil authority to resolve the great Western schism with three competing lines of popes. It defined the supreme authority of the Ecumenical Council over the popes, confirming the longstanding canonical constitution of the Latin Church which the Gregorian reformers had been unable to eradicate completely. That the pope was authoritative except in the case of heresy or an attempt to violate the legislation of the Church actually remained in Latin canon law until 1917 which struck this qualification from the canon that “the first See is judged by no one.” The Council of Constance resolved the schism by deposing two popes, convincing the third to resign, and electing Martin V. Its teaching was a major school of ecclesiological thought in the West, especially but not only in the Gallican Church, until it was stamped out by Pius IX in 1870.

Martin V who confirmed the Council- obviously, as he depended on it for authority- could not condemn Haec Sancta (the dogmatic constitution on the supremacy of the general council) without compromising his own legitimacy, according to historian Francis Oakley. The reinvention of history was pushed by Eugene IV who condemned it. This is one reason why Florence failed- Eugene IV was trying to take advantage of the Eastern Church to increase the prestige of the papacy against the conciliarists, who remained a major force in RC ecclesiological doctrine. He promulgated a bull by which it was condemned.

-At the Council of Trent, many of the bishops and the entire French Church rejected the authority of the Council of Florence. Trent did not define the authority of the pope because of the persistence of the traditional teaching.

-The traditional right of appeal from the pope to a general council was only rejected after the Council of Constance sanctioned it, and yet the canon which absolves one from allegiance to the pope if he is a heretic remained on the books for centuries- such presumes that there is a legal capacity for someone other than the pope to judge him.

So the RC view not only fails the bar of the history of the undivided Church, but the bar of its own medieval tradition! For a principle supposed to provide clarity on the list of authoritative councils, it produced remarkably little clarity, with the “official” list of 21 Ecumenical Councils produced in the relatively recent past- and given Paul VI’s openness to relabeling the post-schism councils as local Western councils, it still remains something of an open question.

Let’s turn, finally, to the question of what makes an Ecumenical Council. The Sixth Session of II Nicea discussed this against the 754 robber Synod of Hieria. The Council Fathers recalled that representation was not provided to many of the major Sees, including the Apostolic See of Rome AND the patriarchal Sees of the East. So we aren’t dealing with pure receptionism here in terms of a vague notion of the whole body of faithful. We’re dealing with the ratification of specific particular Churches of longstanding prestige and authority in the canonical tradition. The locus of authority in the Church is, of course, the Spirit of Christ who makes Him present, and the locus of the Spirit is in the Eucharistic Liturgy wherein He makes Christ perfectly present in the Eucharist. The Liturgy is the event wherein a particular community of faithful, gathered around the bishop in apostolic succession, realizes the entirety of the Church Catholic in a particular locale. In the liturgy, by the Spirit, we mystically gather into one the whole universal Church, including the saints of the heavenly court.

We see in 1 Corinthians 5 and 11 that the authority of the church to render judgments is linked closely with the liturgy, as per the Apostle’s allusion to Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 and 18. The Church is “assembled in the Name of the Lord Jesus” and the Lord taught that “where two or three are gathered in my Name” He is present. He declared likewise that the authority of the keys is linked with this gathered presence, for “if two of you agree on earth about anything” the Father in Heaven will grant it. Bind on earth, bind in heaven. The Fifth Ecumenical Council cites this very text against the unilateral attempt of Pope Vigilius to act against the Council.

This mystical gathering of the whole heavenly court is rooted in the liturgy of the old covenant. When Isaiah enters the Temple, he beholds the Heavenly Court in session under the presidency of the preincarnate Word. Much more could be said about the theology of apostolic succession in light of the biblical teaching on the Heavenly Council- and indeed, the idea of the Communion of Saints is rooted and grounded in this doctrine. But I simply want to note that the conciliar gathering of bishops, whether in local or ecumenical synods, is a manifestation of the heavenly council as focused in the Divine Liturgy and as realized in the Church’s conciliar life.

This is why there are Synods of Bishops. The Bishops are the ones who preside by divine right at the Divine Liturgy where the Heavenly Throne-Room is made present. We find in Isaiah 24-25 that the Messianic Supper of the Eucharist is linked to the idea of the Divine Council, as also in Exodus 24. And indeed, Jesus Christ at the Table of the Last Supper refers to the apostolic thrones of the Kingdom in this context. In sum, this is the principle: The Spirit’s authority as the definitive witness to the Son is focused in the Liturgy- where the Holy Eucharist realizes the communion of particular Churches. The bishops commemorate their primate, the primate commemorates his synod. This liturgical and eucharistic communion is the basis for the conciliar life of the Church, so that the presence and authority of the Holy Spirit becomes operative therein. We find this in the Acts of the Apostles. The Holy Spirit falls upon Jews from every nation in Acts 2 as well as Gentiles in Acts 10. This church is defined by the obedience to the Apostles’ teaching and the Eucharistic “Breaking of Bread.” Even the two root words of “catholic” makes an appearance in Acts 9, referring to the gathering of the church into one from the ends of the earth.

And so what do we find? The Synod of Jerusalem is firmly established upon this theology. The Apostles are gathered into one at the very site of Pentecost. The issues is the standards by which Jews and Gentiles exist in the communion of the one Church. The Apostles, thus gathered together into one, manifest the authority of the Spirit made present: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Thereafter, we have the first recorded canonical legislation in the three canons of the Apostolic Synod. In the life of the universal Church, then, the canonical constitution develops through synods of bishops, gathered by the Eucharist and operative in the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is these synods which establish the legal basis for the Church’s common life. That is why Pope St. Victor of Rome called for the convokation of synods throughout the Church to establish one common date for Great and Holy Pascha. Each Eucharist, through which the Church is gathered into one, is an image of Pascha (The Paschal Liturgy is the Eucharistic Service proper, the Sunday after Pascha consecrates all Sundays of the year into miniature paschal services) and the gathering into one occurs through liturgical worship (compare 1 Corinthians 5 which refers to the paschal lamb in the context of the authoritative nature of the Church). As such, it is proper for the churches to worship according to a common pattern of time.

The supreme authority of the Church is the Ecumenical Synod. It is the Ecumenical Synod which embodies most perfectly the eucharistic gathering-into-one which occurs in each particular Church. The Dicache records the prayer of the bishop that the bread which had been scattered across the world might be gathered into one Eucharist, signifying the gathering-into-one of the Church. The gathering together of all nations into one family is described in Isaiah 2 and Isaiah 24-25, at Zion, through the Messianic Supper of the Lamb in God’s presence. The Ecumenical Council is an instance where all the churches of Christ visibly gather into a single place through the bishops who sum up and are interior to their local Churches, per the maxim of St. Cyprian: “The Church is in the Bishop and the Bishop is in the Church.

The Ecumenical Synod therefore is a special instance of the Spirit’s charismatic authority focused on the Liturgy being made present visibly. Its canonical legislation binds the universal Church together by a common pattern of life and process for healing ruptures in communion. The pope of Rome may not revoke this legislation by his own authority, as was recognized in the Western Church well into the Middle Ages. The Gallican Church powerfully objected to Gregory VII’s uncanonical interventions into their local affairs.

So how do we know when a Council is Ecumenical? The reception of “the people”? Not quite. The reception which happens occurs in a formal manner through the bishops holding primatial authority and gathering together the churches in their region into a single communion. Just as there are diptychs of the major primatial sees which commemorate each other in their Liturgy (the visible signification of the universal Church), so also the professions made by the bishops of the major Sees in their installation includes a formal oath of allegiance to the specific Ecumenical Councils which give the Church in its Communion its pattern of life. That is the visible sign of the communion.

Does this process take time? No doubt. There’s no “insta-council” tool. But so many Roman Catholic arguments implicitly assume that the Spirit does not actually guide history and preserve the Church. The pope is needed to be the final authority ensuring definitively that every bishop professes the same thing. Supposedly, without the pope, all the bishops would just be able to go their own way. But this is just not true- the Holy Spirit is real, and really works in history to create the communion which Christ gave as gift to the Church. It is the Holy Spirit who works to make manifest the common life of the Church in the patriarchal oaths of allegiance to the Holy Synods.

So the short answer here is this: an Ecumenical Council is known as such through its being recognized by the bishops of the major Sees (who hold primatial authority in their region) as the pattern of life to which they are bound to conform. Even though the Second and Seventh Councils were not received by the Popes for some time, the Popes of Rome firmly professed their Apostolic orthodoxy.

Contrast this with II Lyons and Florence. II Lyons lacked representation from most of the churches in the Orthodox communion. Florence’s decrees lacked the participation of the first hierarch of the Church, as Ecumenical Patriarch Joseph had died. By the canonical standards, St. Mark of Ephesus and most of the other hierarchs could not legally proclaim union until an Ecumenical Patriarch was elected. Moreover, the Councils provide a pattern of common life, but their authority is manifested in a sacramental, liturgical context wherein the Bishops pledge allegiance to their teaching in consecration, installation, and the sacramental commemoration of the other Sees professing this in common. After Florence, the Orthodox representatives did not partake of the chalice at Pope Eugene IV’s Mass. They stopped at Venice and celebrated the Divine Liturgy- without the commemoration of Eugene IV. Upon their return home, most of them immediately renounced the union- most of the local Churches therefore never commemorated Rome and the Council. Indeed, not even the Church of Constantinople did so until the Emperor received angry letters from the Pope, at which point a very small unionist sect arose in the city and took over the Church of Hagia Sophia until the city fell.

9 notes · View notes