8th and 9th Ecumenical Council? I have some questions....

[Chrysostomos]

While doing some research on Hesychasm, I came upon these two councils that were held later and I will just copy and paste and await responses from those who are in the know better than I about what this paticular writer is implying.

Thanks to Dr. George Gabriel for the following Notes on the Synod of Constantinople of 879-880 as the Eighth Ecumenical Synod; these notes also deal with the Ninth Ecumenical Synod:

This Ecumenical Synod fixed the Pope's primacy as primitus honoris only and not primitus jurisdic-tionis. And it ratified St. Photios' restoration as Patriarch of Constantinople, overturning the Ignatian Synod of ten years earlier which deposed St. Photios with the papacy's support. Held primarily in Ayia Sophia, the Synod of 879-880 consisted of 383 bishops of East and West, including the legates of the new and Orthodox Pope John VIII. They signed and declared their gathering and its proclamations as an Ecumenical Synod. It was also named an Ecumenical Synod by Basil the Macedonian, the Roman Emperor, the Emperor of the Ecumeni, in his own statement attached to the acts, which then he signed. The appellation as an Ecumenical Synod appears in several places in the acts and in the (h)oros or decree. This Synod also ratified the previous Ecumenical Synod, the Seventh of 787 (second of Nicaea), which had not yet been ratified by a General Council or Synod.

The (Eighth) Ecumenical Synod (879-880) anathematized those who would make any subtraction or addition to the Nicene Creed incl. the Filioque, which it also implicitly condemned as wrong in itself, apart from the Creed. In the 6th act after the reading of the (h)oros or decree, the bishops unanimously and vocally condemned any addition that would alter the confession of faith in the Holy Trinity that we have received. Thus, the Filioque was implicitly condemned as false in itself. This Synod was specifically referred to as Ecumenical by the famous canonologist Theodoros Balsamon, by Sts. Mark of Ephesus, Neilos of Rhodes, Symeon of Thessaloniki, and others.

Subsequent General Synods also called themselves Ecumenical, having approbation of the Roman [Byzantine] Emperor, e.g., the three so-called Hesychast Synods of Constantinople in the 14th century. These three would constitute the Ninth Ecumenical Synod collectively since they dealt with the same problem repeatedly and issued the same decrees. It is not unusual for multiple General Synods to be lumped together and counted as one Ecumenical Synod. Best example is the Synod of Trullo (Fifth-Sixth [Penthekt]) and the 6th Ecumenical Synod which have been incorporated formally into one--the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. These Synods were ecumenical for their universality, dogmatic content, approbation by the Basileus of the Ecumeni, the Roman Emperor.

Dr. Gabriel has pointed out that the Turks did not allow the printing of Orthodox liturgical books. Hence they were printed in Venice. But the Latins there would not allow mention of St. Mark Evyenikos of Ephesos and the Eighth Orthodox Ecumenical Synod or of St. Gregory Palamãs and the Ninth Orthodox Ecumenical Synod.

This following portion is one that I would really like to hear your responses on, if any:

The Church never officially enumerated the General or Ecumenical Synods as any more than the Seven accepted by the East and by Rome because it would have been a sensitive point with the papacy while the Church was hoping for an opportunity to heal the schism of Rome.

Since the 14th century, the history of Orthodoxy has been one of turmoil up to the present for all the historic reasons you can easily imagine, and it has not lent itself to the General Synods of the Church for such a discussion and proclamation. So, for centuries, we Orthodox have not been telling the complete story about our Ecumenical Synods seemingly in deference to the Roman Catholic Church. We have unthinkingly taught our own people as well as others that there were only seven Ecumenical Synods, accepting a Roman Catholic precept so as not to offend them.

Ironically, the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Synods condemned the heresies of the Filioque, the papal claims to primacy in authority, and Augustinian theology's doctrine of created grace. Perhaps it should be stated that Ecumenical Synods did not call themselves the Second, Third, or Fourth, etc. The enumeration was bestowed by history. As the reader may know, a few years after the (8th) Ecumenical Synod of 879, a new pope, John Marinus, denounced this Synod which Pope John VIII signed, and he reinstated the Anti-Photian Synod of 869. Since that time, Rome has called this one (869) the 8th Ecumenical Synod. So much for the infallibility of the popes!

This is link to article in full: http://orlapubs.com/AR/R135.html

Thanks ahead of time for any and all responses.

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[Chrysostomos]

Wow! 173 views, no responses.

I would have hoped/thought that perhaps OOD, or Fr. Siluan would have at least responded due to their being moderators. I thought someone would have responded one way or another.

Anyway, thought I'd mention this, as it is quite unusual. At least to me!

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[Mor Ephrem]

I don't get it either. I always get told about seven councils, until I meet someone who tells me about eight or nine -- I wish you guys would figure it out (whatever it is, three is definitely not enough! ).

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Chrysostomos,

I didn't respond b/c I have nothing really to add. I am ashamed and sorry to say I don't know enough about the history than to do anything but take his word for it.

The one thing that disturbs me is that while Pope John VIII attended the so-called eighth ecumenical council, as far as I know few other bishops from the West did. I thought the general attendence of all (or at least most) of the bishops of the Church was a staple of being "ecumenical". Am I wrong here, did many other Western bishops attend? I don't really know.

Far more importantly however, the fact that the Church has accepted these councils through the centuries means they are Orthodox, and if they are Orthodox they are as good as being "ecumenical", since this also means the whole church accepts them. The Church is the supreme authority over everything. The Church creates eccumenical councils, and rejects other "ecumenical" councils (like that of 754). Nothing is greater than the Church.

[Chrysostomos]

OOD,

I don't know enough about the history than to do anything but take his word for it.

Agreed - ditto for myself.

The one thing that disturbs me is that while Pope John VIII attended the so-called eighth ecumenical council, as far as I know few other bishops from the West did. I thought the general attendence of all (or at least most) of the bishops of the Church was a staple of being "ecumenical".

Held primarily in Ayia Sophia, the Synod of 879-880 consisted of 383 bishops of East and West, including the legates of the new and Orthodox Pope John VIII. They signed and declared their gathering and its proclamations as an Ecumenical Synod.

I guess the issue for me is that this appears to have the blessing of an 8th ecumenical council, while the church was one. It dealt with issues that eventually led to the split of the Church in 1054. Yet, a new pope, John Marinus, denounced this Synod which Pope John VIII signed, and he reinstated the Anti-Photian Synod of 869.

Thus, nullifying the "8th" Ecumenical Council. Thus as stated:
Ironically, the 8th and 9th Ecumenical Synods condemned the heresies of the Filioque, the papal claims to primacy in authority, and Augustinian theology's doctrine of created grace.

How convienent. If this 8th Ecumenical Council was in place, then we know that the likelihood of reunion would be null and void. But here, a Pope nullifies it and thus, are we to conclude that therefore those heresies condemned by the "8th Council" are in fact not heresies, and therefore nothing should prevent reunification with the Catholic Church? Since Pope Marinus reversed the decision while the Church was one?

I ask these questions, because this concerns me. I for one, believe that this council was correct. Perhaps we can all learn something from this.

I do have to say though, I hope this statement is incorrect: So, for centuries, we Orthodox have not been telling the complete story about our Ecumenical Synods seemingly in deference to the Roman Catholic Church. We have unthinkingly taught our own people as well as others that there were only seven Ecumenical Synods, accepting a Roman Catholic precept so as not to offend them.

It wouldn't surprise me if this issue wasn't raised by the Catholics sometime in the future to justify the reunion.

Your fellow struggler in Christ,

Rd. Chrysostomos

[joasia]

CHRIST IS RISEN!

I also waited for a reply. I have a book written by a former Catholic Abbe, converted to Orthodoxy. He wrote a book called the Papacy. It was written around the mid 1800's. His name was Abbe Guettee.

He covered the span of the Roman See and their attempt to proclaim complete authority.

He mentioned the whole situation with St. Photius.

The so-called 8th "Ecumenical Council" was labelled as such by the Romans. The council occurred in 869, but the dispute was extended until 879. It was not considered equal amongst the other Seven Ecumenical Councils. The latter focus was the attempt of Pope John VII to take over certain jurisdictions in Bulgaria, for his diocese. St. Photius was opposed to it. Hence the mud-slinging against St. Photius.

The Seven Ecumenical Councils were formed to necessitate the opposition of heresies of faith matters. This council of the 9th century was a matter of jurisdictional dispute and no doubt, high and mighty egoism on the part of the Papal See. It was one of the many pathetic attempts of the Roman See to try to exercise their authority over the Orthodox hierarchs.

I have much more details about this council and I'm sure the 9th council is even more pathetic.

[OrthodoxyOrDeath]

Chrysostomos,

I guess the issue for me is that this appears to have the blessing of an 8th ecumenical council, while the church was one. It dealt with issues that eventually led to the split of the Church in 1054. Yet, a new pope, John Marinus, denounced this Synod which Pope John VIII signed, and he reinstated the Anti-Photian Synod of 869.

As far as I know, this change in attitude by the Frankish Popes didn't occur until the 12th century. And of course they had to do something, or they would be in open denial of themselves.