What makes a Council a valid Ecumenical Council?

Markie Boy · Jun 11, 2019

Is there a council that stated that all of the Church must be represented for a council to be a valid ecumenical council?

I was listening to an Orthodox talk where the priest said he had a Catholic bishop friend that said all councils since the Schism should be called regional synods or non-dogmatic because the whole Church was not present - and therefore everything defined since then is back on the table for discussion.

This seems like the only option for Catholicism, which has painted itself into a corner with Infallibility.

I thought there was a council that defined the whole Church must be present, but I can't seem to find that info - or was I dreaming?

ArmyMatt · Jun 11, 2019

yes, all of the Church must be represented, with all bishops having a say (this is why Crete was never an Ecumenical Council).

the Roman buddy has a bad understanding of ecclesiology. if the RC is the Church, it shouldn't matter if the EO, OO, etc were not there since we are (or at least were) not members of the Church.

same is true for us. as an Orthodox Christian, it doesn't matter if Rome doesn't attend an Ecumenical Council since we are not in communion.

HTacianas · Jun 11, 2019

Markie Boy said:
Is there a council that stated that all of the Church must be represented for a council to be a valid ecumenical council?

I was listening to an Orthodox talk where the priest said he had a Catholic bishop friend that said all councils since the Schism should be called regional synods or non-dogmatic because the whole Church was not present - and therefore everything defined since then is back on the table for discussion.

This seems like the only option for Catholicism, which has painted itself into a corner with Infallibility.

I thought there was a council that defined the whole Church must be present, but I can't seem to find that info - or was I dreaming?

The entire Church must be represented or the Coucil must generally be accepted by the entire church.

I also view any Councils since the schism to be Synods rather than Councils.

ArmyMatt · Jun 11, 2019

HTacianas said:
The entire Church must be represented or the Coucil must generally be accepted by the entire church.

I also view any Councils since the schism to be Synods rather than Councils.

why since the schism?

SingularityOne · Jun 11, 2019

Wouldn’t it still be an Ecumenical Counsil if the Orthodox Church called a Counsil today?

The Righterzpen · Jun 11, 2019

Markie Boy said:
Is there a council that stated that all of the Church must be represented for a council to be a valid ecumenical council?

I was listening to an Orthodox talk where the priest said he had a Catholic bishop friend that said all councils since the Schism should be called regional synods or non-dogmatic because the whole Church was not present - and therefore everything defined since then is back on the table for discussion.

This seems like the only option for Catholicism, which has painted itself into a corner with Infallibility.

I thought there was a council that defined the whole Church must be present, but I can't seem to find that info - or was I dreaming?

It's a good question.

Yet since all large bodies of Christendom (OO, EO, RCC, etc as well as the bazillion different protestants) are now so far from each other on so many different things; we'd likely never see a "council" with all present to determine anything. It's kind of a "water under the bridge" issue; but still a good question.

I don't know if the Scripture makes definition of such?

ArmyMatt · Jun 11, 2019

SingularityOne said:
Wouldn’t it still be an Ecumenical Counsil if the Orthodox Church called a Counsil today?

yes. no one disputes that the latter Councils are Ecumenical, even though the Orientals and Assyrians were not there.

archer75 · Jun 11, 2019

Markie Boy said:
Is there a council that stated that all of the Church must be represented for a council to be a valid ecumenical council?

I was listening to an Orthodox talk where the priest said he had a Catholic bishop friend that said all councils since the Schism should be called regional synods or non-dogmatic because the whole Church was not present - and therefore everything defined since then is back on the table for discussion.

This seems like the only option for Catholicism, which has painted itself into a corner with Infallibility.

I thought there was a council that defined the whole Church must be present, but I can't seem to find that info - or was I dreaming?

How could the whole Church (all the people) be present?

I thought it became binding if it was accepted by everyone. "Ecumenical" originally meant "the empire," not " all Christians" - no?

ArmyMatt · Jun 11, 2019

archer75 said:
How could the whole Church (all the people) be present?

I thought it became binding if it was accepted by everyone. "Ecumenical" originally meant "the empire," not " all Christians" - no?

all bishops are invited or send a delegation. when the council is done, it's sent to the Church as a whole for acceptance or rejection.

SingularityOne · Jun 11, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
yes. no one disputes that the latter Councils are Ecumenical, even though the Orientals and Assyrians were not there.

Thanks

Stabat Mater dolorosa · Jun 13, 2019

History validates some councils while it rejects others. At least that's how it was in the first centuries of the church, but then again they held over one hundred councils in the 3rd century alone.
Some of them was deemed heretical, some regional and a few (the first four councils) where considered Ecumenical in their nature.

Not David · Jun 13, 2019

I get confused with the number of Councils: are there 7, 8 or 9 Ecumenical Councils?

ArmyMatt · Jun 13, 2019

officially seven, but "8" and "9" are treated as ecumenical.

Not David · Jun 13, 2019

ArmyMatt said:
officially seven, but "8" and "9" are treated as ecumenical.

How were they made official?

Stabat Mater dolorosa · Jun 13, 2019

David Cabrera said:
How were they made official?

Basically and practically speaking? They've been treated as such ever since. Time supports orthodoxy and denounce heterodoxy. That being said it's not just matter of discourse, but the Holy Spirit working to keep the church orthodox in accordance with the early church and the New testament.

Stabat Mater dolorosa · Jun 13, 2019

David Cabrera said:
I get confused with the number of Councils: are there 7, 8 or 9 Ecumenical Councils?

Seven. I reffered to the first four Ecumenical Councils in the early church without mentioning the following three. Niccea 325, Konstantisopel 381, Ephesus 431 and Kalkedon 451.

Not David · Jun 13, 2019

Stabat Mater said:
Seven. I reffered to the first four Ecumenical Councils in the early church without mentioning the following three. Niccea 325, Konstantisopel 381, Ephesus 431 and Kalkedon 451.

The names look different. Do you speak a Germanic language besides English?

Stabat Mater dolorosa · Jun 13, 2019

David Cabrera said:
The names look different. Do you speak a Germanic language besides English?

I'm Norwegian and I speak German too. I know, we typically use K instead of C in the beginning of words

Stabat Mater dolorosa · Jun 13, 2019

ArmyMatt · Jun 13, 2019

David Cabrera said:
How were they made official?

a subsequent council would officially decree them as such. the hymns and movable parts have already been written.

the only dicey part, although I hope it's done, is it would hurt dialogue with Rome, as 8 and 9 would clearly affirm Rome as being heretical.

What makes a Council a valid Ecumenical Council?

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus is my Shield in any Desert or Storm

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Regular Member

Well-Known Member

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!

I'm back!

Regular Member

I'm back!

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!

I'm back!

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!

Jesus Christ today, yesterday and forever!

Regular Member

Similar threads