Also, sorry for that wrong impression. Another Coptic Orthodox on another forum told me it was viewed as Ecumenical.
That would be news to me, as I've never once heard it mentioned in any of our liturgies. The most I've heard (and this I've repeated here) is that if it
were treated as though it is ecumenical -- say, if icons were made of it and placed in churches, or of course if it were added to the appropriate places in the liturgy -- then I would consider it to be so. But at best it has kind of an ambiguous status, in the sense that we do not exactly disclaim it (it's a part of our history, so there's no point in pretending that it didn't happen), but we also do not afford it space alongside the councils we actually do recognize. Think of how mixed the reaction of the EO was to their recent
Pan-Orthodox Council: some things were agreed to by some, some things were disagreed with by others, and it seems that many deliberately shied away from officially approving what had happened there, or accepting them as binding upon all Eastern Orthodox churches (see, for instance, the Russian Orthodox Church's ultimate decision, as reported at the link).
I don't mean to imply that things are still as close to being in flux regarding Ephesus II as they may or may not be among the EO regarding Crete (it's just a general analogy), only that there is something in between accepting a council and calling it a "robber council". I would say that for us Ephesus II exists in that sort of in-between area, and we're fine with it staying there, because we have already dealt with the bad that came out of it (Eutyches, for instance, who was condemned at Ephesus III in 475), insofar as it is possible with regard to that council in particular (not Chalcedon, which took on a life of its own due to circumstances beyond anyone's control).
