8th and 9th Ecumenical Councils

[Justin Kissel]

I might add two things:

First, I've noticed that the Greeks seem more educated about this matter than the Russians. The Russians had there own set of problems to deal with, I suppose, and these councils were (geographically, and otherwise) distant from them to begin with (except in theology).

Second, Met. Hierotheos (who supports the idea of calling the councils ecumenical), in a book of his I just read, Orthodoxy Psychotherapy, talks about how some people, and even some monks, are against hesychasm, and think it unorthodox. Does this then mean that since there isn't a consensus, that not only should we not call the 9th council ecumenical, but we should drop hesychasm altogether?

Obviously people can be misinformed, or one local Church can have a better understanding of something than another Church. I think I'm gonna do some more research into Lyons as well and see if the Orthodox at that time counted one of the Photian councils to be ecumenical.

[Justin Kissel]

I should clarify since I really didn't explain something above. I said what I said while at the same time fully affirming the usage of the Vincentian canon. However, I agree with Florovsky and even Lossky's clarificiations/interpretations of this patristic keystone. I do not believe that it is possible--historically or otherwise--to interpret Saint Vincent's words in a woodenly literal way. As both these men would have admitted (and in some cases did), the mind of the Fathers on a matter can sometimes be articulated and defended by a very small number of people (during certain periods).

PS. For those who just said "huh?" to the above, I can grab some links and/or quotes for you to explain if needed... just say

[Daniel]

Would it help to first answer the question: What makes this council or that council Ecumenical?

I have always understood it that they are ecumenical because they expressed what the Church has always believed at all times and in every place. If that's wrong, please correct me.

I'm interested in what others think the answer is/maybe.

[Justin Kissel]

I think that's right, Daniel; though I'd add that it must be recognized by the Church as such to be Ecumenical. In this way, Anastasios' point is a good one. I think it's more a matter of what should be believed, and not what is believed in this particular case, though; hence the reason Anastasios and I disagree.

On the other hand, it's not just a matter of meeting a few criteria (ie. being catholic: having the fulness of the faith and being accepted by the whole Church). Local Councils often expressed the truth as handed down, and they could even be accepted/affirmed by Ecumenical Councils... but their general acceptance and their doctrinal purity (in other words, their Catholic character) doesn't make them Ecumenical. There can be "pan-Orthodox" councils too, but they aren't necessarily of Ecumenical Council status.

I think I need to do some more reading and thinking and praying

[Seraphim Reeves]

My take on this is similar to Justin's (if I understand him correctly) - something of a halfway between the full acceptance of say, someone like the late Fr.John Romanides, and the view in the other direction which recognizes only 7 Ecumenical Councils.

I think the 8th and 9th Councils meet all of the criteria of the previous Councils. They were definately Imperial Councils, becoming part of "canon law" (which in it's original understanding did not simply have ecclessiastical consequences, but also secular, legal ones.) They definately speak the Church's mind on the subjects they touch upon.

What is problematic is their acceptance, latter, clear, re-affirmation as being "ecumenical." That they are not ambiguously recognized as such, in my view, is purely a result of historical circumstances - the fall of Constantinople, and most directly, the machinations of the Papists (both before, and after the fall of Constantinople - for example, meddling with the contents of canonical works printed in Italy for use amongst the Orthodox). This sneaky maneuvering by the Latins also includes the self inflicted injuries caused by later Russian "westernizations", which often accomodated the absorption (almost by osmosis) of incorrect Latin assumptions (a key one being, the last Ecumenical Council which the Orthodox world can claim, is the one they shared with the Patriarchal See of Old Rome.)

Thus, I think they ought to be recognized as being on-par with the previous seven, and sincerely believe that the only thing that has prevented this were alien influences and circumstances beyond the control of Orthodox peoples.

Perhaps one of the pivotal acts of these latter days, will be when the Church of Christ gathers to Oecumenically repudiate the heresy of Ecumenism - I wouldn't doubt that in said context, these Councils will gain the recognition ("officially") which they lack now, since their contents pertain directly to some of the errors of the ecumenists (in particular, these council's unambiguous condemnation of Papism, which at this point many ecumenists pretend is non-existant; that is to say, that there are no conciliar condemnations of Papism, in the way that their are of the Monophysites, Arians, etc.)

Seraphim

[LatinTrad]

Greetings to all. I am following this thread with interest.

Some of you may know me from another forum--(hi, Seraphim Reeves!)

LatinTrad

[Justin Kissel]

Reading back over what I wrote, I need to clarify something as I said something that implied something about Anastasios that everyone knows he doesn't really believe. I said: "Of course, that some Greeks might have different views than some Russians on this scriptural book or that doesn't mean that the whole thing should be thrown out." Now, this of course is poorly worded (or at least a poor argument), since Anastasios is not at all saying that we should "throw out" the (possibly) 8th or 9th councils. We are not talking about throwing anything away, but only what "status" (if I may be forgiven for using such a term) should be attached to certain councils. I hope Anastasios was not too put off by my mess up, and did not think that I did it intentionally (as he knows, I do "write before I think" a bit too often ).