dvornik - which councils are ecumenical

Which Councils are Ecumenical?

Written by Francis DvornikSunday, 10 December 2006 21:37

Which Councils are Ecumenical? By Francis Dvornik © 1966, Journal of Ecumenical Studies. All Rights Reserved.Reprinted by permission.

It is generally expected that, after the conclusion of the SecondVatican Council the atmosphere will be favorable for dialoguesbetween the representatives of Roman Catholics and the leadersof other Christian churches with a view to finding ways towards abetter understanding and a more intimate rapprochement whichcould lead finally to a reunion.

Many Catholic leaders think that a dialogue with the EasternOrthodox Churches should begin as early as possible and hopefor positive results since there are no fundamental dogmaticdifferences between the Roman and Orthodox Churches.

This may be true, but it is premature to expect a speedyagreement between the Eastern Churches and Rome. There aremany other aspects in the constitution, historical development, thementality and spiritual life of Eastern Christianity which are notsufficiently understood by the West, and which will make thedialogue much more difficult than is expected by the optimisticobserver.

In this paper I would like to call attention to a difference betweenthe Catholics and the Orthodox which could be regarded asminor—namely, the number of ecumenical councils which areaccepted by these Churches. But it is not minor, for it bears withinit another question: by what criteria may a council be called trulyecumenical?

It is known that the Orthodox recognize only seven councils asecumenical, the first being that of Nicaea (325) and the last thesecond of Nicaea (787), which condemned the iconoclastic heresy

1 / 22

http://astro.temple.edu/~dialogue/jesindex.htm



regarding representations of Christ and the saints and the worshipof their images as unlawful.

The Roman Church added to the Seven Ecumenical Councils theSynod of 869-870 which condemned the Patriarch Photius as ausurper of the patriarchal throne of Constantinople and confirmedthe reinstatement of St. Ignatius in his stead, as the EighthEcumenical Council. This Council called itself ecumenical becauseit was convoked by an Emperor—Basil I—as were all previousecumenical councils. The invitations to assist at it were addressedto the bishops of the Empire and it was attended by therepresentatives of Pope Hadrian II and four other Patriarchs. Inspite of this it was opened in the presence of only twelve bishops,and its Acts were signed by only the one hundred and ten Fatherswho had responded to the repeated exhortations of the Emperor toappear at its sessions. The reason for this meagre attendance wasthat the great majority of Byzantine prelates considered theaccusations launched against Photius as unjust, since he hadbeen canonically elected by a local synod after the resignation ofIgnatius in 856. Because the majority of the clergy had ignored thedecisions of this Council Ignatius had difficulties in theadministration of his patriarchate. Fortunately, this situation wascleared up when the Emperor brought Photius back from exile andentrusted him with the education of his sons. Then both Ignatiusand Photius were reconciled. Another council was planned inorder to seal the reconciliation of the followers of Ignatius and ofPhotius and to end the schism in the Byzantine Church. TheEmperor and Ignatius asked Pope John VIII to send hisrepresentatives to the new council. Unfortunately, before the Papallegates reached Constantinople, Ignatius died, and Photius wasreinstated as Patriarch. The Council took place in November of 879and ended in March, 880. Photius was reinstated by the numerousconciliar Fathers with the assent of the papal legates and therepresentatives of the other Patriarchs. The Council of 869-870

2 / 22



which had condemned Photius and his followers was abrogated.This explains why we do not have the Greek original of the Acts ofthis Council, but only a Latin translation made by the papallibrarian Anastasius who, in 870, was in Constantinople as envoyof the Emperor Louis II. There exists also a Greek extract of theActs compiled by an opponent of Photius who had refused toaccept him as patriarch even after his reconciliation with Ignatiusand restoration by the Council of 879-880 confirmed by John VIII.This extract was incorporated into the so-called anti-Photiancollection compiled in a very biased manner by a zealot whowished to justify the refusal of the extremist party to accept thedecisions of the Council of 879-880 and to recognize Photius astheir legitimate Patriarch.

The Photian Council was also convoked by the Emperor Basil I,and representatives of all five patriarchs were present togetherwith 380 Fathers. The Fathers were thus fully entitled to designatethe assembly as a “holy and ecumenical synod.” In the Acts thiscouncil is called “a holy Synod convoked under the most holy andecumenical Patriarch Photius for the union of the holy andapostolic Church of God.”

A similar title is given to this synod by the Patriarch Euthymius(907-912). 1 In his treatise on synods the Patriarch gives it thedesignation of “holy and ecumenical synod,” but it is called theEighth—it merely remains the “Union Synod.” This means that itwas assembled in order to seal the union between Rome andConstantinople, disrupted by the condemnation of Photius, whichhad been regarded as unjust by the great majority of the Byzantineclergy, and also to end a schism in the Byzantine patriarchate byreconciling definitely the pro-Photian and the pro-Ignatian clergy.

Of course, no mention is made in this treatise of the IgnatianCouncil of 869-870 which was cancelled ten years later by the

3 / 22

#fn1text



synod of 879-880. Euthymius gives the ecumenical character onlyto the preceding seven councils quoting the definitions of Catholicdoctrines which these councils had confirmed. This treatise waswritten only about three decades after the Photian Council and itsauthor knew the Acts of this council in the version that has comedown to us.

It should not surprise us that Euthymius regarded only sevencouncils as ecumenical. We can quote a document which revealsthat even Photius himself did not add to the seven ecumenical thecouncil which had reinstated him as the Eighth. In the GreekManuscript 47 of the National Library in Paris I found the text of aprofession of faith (fols. 231, 231a), composed by Photius, whichwas to be recited by all candidates to the episcopate. The futurebishops had to subscribe to the Seven Ecumenical Councils andprofess their dogmatic definitions. Even if Photius had composedthis profession during his first patriarchate, there is no reason notto suppose that he used this formula also after the council of879-880. We shall see presently that Photius was primarilyinterested in the ecumenicity of the seventh council and wishedthat it should be solemnly proclaimed by the representatives of allthe patriarchs.

The treatise on synods composed by Euthymius was reedited inthe fourteenth century by Neilos Diasorenos, metropolitan ofRhodes (1357). 2 Neilos was an ardent supporter of the PatriarchPhilotheus and of Gregory Palamas, the protagonists of thehesychast movement. 3 The monk Barlaam, theadversary of their doctrine on the living light of Mount Tabor whichthe mystics were supposed to see when reaching the highestdegree of their ascetic practice, was condemned by a synodconvoked by the Patriarch John XIV Aprenos in 1341. This synodmarked the victory of the hesychasts and was regarded as animportant milestone by all adherents of this movement. It is not

4 / 22

#fn2text

#fn3text



surprising that they placed it alongside the Seven EcumenicalCouncils, the basis of the orthodox faith.

Neilos therefore adapted the treatise of Euthymius to the needs ofthe fourteenth century by adding to the seven councils that ofPhotius (879-880) as the Eighth Ecumenical, and the synod of 1341as the Ninth, giving also an extract from the Acts of this synod. Hewas not alone in this practice. In the Greek Manuscript 968 (fols.392-395) in the National Library of Paris, I found an anonymoustreatise on councils, also based on Euthymius’ tractate, in whichthe Photian Council is added to the seven ecumenicals as theEighth, and that of 1341 as the Ninth. However, the authorconcedes ecumenical character only to the first seven synods.Another version of Euthymius’ treatise is preserved in theManuscript Historicus Graecus 34 in the National Library of Vienna(fols. 359 ff.). 4 These two treatises must have been composedsoon after 1341 by anonymous zealots propagating the hesychastdoctrine. I would be tempted to date them before the writings ofNeilos, because they are not as emphatic concerning theecumenicity of the two last councils as was the Archbishop ofRhodes who, because of his zeal for hesychasm, was promoted bythe Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos to an exarchos in 1366. He lostthis distinction under the Patriarch Makarios (1376-1379) who wasan adversary of the hesychasts.

As said before, it is not surprising that the hesychasts wereanxious to promote the synod of 1341 to that of an ecumenicalcouncil, but why did they add to the seven councils described intheir prototype, the Photian Council as the Eighth? One is temptedto perceive in these later editions an echo of the anti-Latin polemicwhich was very acute in the fourteenth century. Did the Byzantinesof this period know that the Latins had added to the sevencouncils the Ignatian synod of 869-870 which had unjustly, in theiropinion, condemned Photius? It is possible, although we find in

5 / 22

#fn4text



the polemics of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries very fewreferences to general councils. In the twelfth century HugoEtherianus or his brother Leo Tuscus was aware of the differencebetween the Greeks and the Latins in the matter of generalcouncils. 5 But the Latins were, in general, not much interested inthe problem of the councils and their number. They insisted on theprimacy of the pope alone, and many of them were wary ofspeaking about the councils, being uncertain how to reconciletheir authority with the papal primacy. Moreover, the case ofPhotius played a very small role on the polemics of this period.6

However, a strong echo of the anti-Latin polemic can be detectedin Neilos’ treatise on another point in contest: the question ofFilioque. He insists on the condemnation of the addition ofFilioque to the Creed said by the papal legates in their professionof faith at the end of the Photian synod and he adds to his accounton the Photian council an extract from the famous letter of JohnVIII to Photius in connection with the Filioque incident, which issaid to have been sent to Constantinople after the Photian council,and the authenticity of which is doubtful. Moreover, it should bestressed that many prominent supporters of hesychasm,especially Gregory Palamas, Philotheos, Neilos of Rhodes, NeilosKabasilas, were very much engaged in anti-Latin polemics. Thus,we must not exclude the thought that the addition of the Photiancouncil to the seven ecumenicals as the Eighth could beinterpreted as a condemnation of the Latin practice of regardingthe censures proclaimed against Photius by the synod of 869-870as just and still valid.

It is possible that a similar operation was made in the new versionof the Synodicon Vetus. 7 Its first and most important versioncontained in the Manuscript of Mount Sinai

6 / 22

#fn5text

#fn6text

#fn7text



8and edited, most probably on the basis of an older treatise by anIgnatian between the years 886-891, regards the Ignatian councilas the Eighth ecumenical. The second version contained in somemanuscripts of the fourteenth century speaks of the Eighthecumenical as that “of the union between Photius and John VIII.”9

However, there is also another explanation of the promotion of thetwo synods to ecumenical councils. The partisans of thehesychasts were naturally interested in stressing the importanceof the synod of 1341. When promoting it to an ecumenical councilthey could not overlook the synod of union described in theirprototype. In the Byzantine tradition it was regarded as animportant assembly. They could thus not place their synod of 1341immediately after the seven councils as the Eighth. This place wasgiven to the Photian synod, and the hesychast synod wasnumbered as the Ninth. The Ignatian synod of 869-870, of course,did not exist for them, as for all Byzantines, because it wascancelled in 880.

In a similar way we can explain the designation of the Photiansynod as the Eighth ecumenical in the fourteenth century versionsof the Synodicon Vetus. Their prototype, reedited by an Ignatian ata time when the Photian controversy was still a passionate topic,stopped at the synod of 869-870 which he called the EighthEcumenical. The Byzantines of the fourteenth century looked atthis incident from a long way off. If a council could be called theEighth Ecumenical it could be in their minds only the synod of879-880, which had cancelled the Ignatian council. This explainswhy in the new version of the Synodicon the Eighth council is thatwhich marked the reconciliation between Photius and John VIII.

7 / 22

#fn8text

#fn9text



These are the few exceptions from the general rule accepted bythe Byzantine Church which admits only seven ecumenicalcouncils, exceptions which might have been inspired by anti-Latintrends in the fourteenth century or, at least, which show thementality of this period. Otherwise, in all official and privatedocuments from the eighth century to modern times it is stressedthat the Orthodox Church admitted only seven ecumenicalcouncils as the basis of the orthodox faith. This is particularlydocumented by the numerous short treatises on councils whichare found in manuscripts in all major European libraries. 10 Someof them can be regarded as a sort of catechism teaching the maindogmas of the orthodox faith.

The conviction that only the first seven councils can be regardedas ecumenical, and that this character can in no way be attributedto the council of 869-870, was so firmly imbedded in Greek mindsthat even those Greeks who had accepted the union with Rome,concluded at the councils of Lyons and of Florence, hesitated toaccept the Latin practice of regarding the Ignatian council of869-870 as the Eighth Ecumenical. This is especially illustrated bytwo treatises on ecumenical councils written by Greek Uniats afterthe Council of Florence. I found them in the Greek Ms. 1712 in theNational Library in Paris, and I published the main passagesconcerning our question in “Mélanges Eugène Tisserant.” 11

After enumerating the seven ecumenical councils, and aftermentioning the synod of orthodoxy under Theodora, the widow ofthe last iconoclastic Emperor Theophilus, the author of the firsttreatise continues: “The eighth holy and ecumenical synod washeld in Lyons under John the Pope of Rome. This synod wasconvened against Photius who had become patriarch ofConstantinople in defiance of the canons. He had unjustly usurpedthe throne when Ignatius the holy was still alive. Indeed, it was hewho effected the schism between the Greeks and the Latins. He

8 / 22

#fn10text

#fn11text



denied that the most Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, butonly from the Father. Because of that the Synod condemned himand defined that the Spirit proceeded from the Son as from theFather.

“The Ninth holy and ecumenical Synod was held in Constantinopleunder Gregory, the Pope of Rome, and Bekkos, the patriarch ofConstantinople. This Synod also was assembled for the samematter. After being assembled [this Synod] decreed in a very clearand plain way that the Holy Spirit proceeded also from the Son asfrom the Father, and presented it to the Church to believe [in], topraise and to worship.

"The Tenth holy, great and ecumenical Synod was held in the cityof Florence, under Eugenius, the Pope of Rome, JohnPalaeologus, the most glorious emperor of the Romans, andJoseph, the patriarch of Constantinople. This also had convenedfor the same matter. Because of that [the Synod] declaredsolemnly that the Holy Spirit proceeded also from the Son in itsown definition, although this was not added to the symbol of thefaith in the Eastern Churches.”

The second short treatise gives also first the description of theseven ecumenical councils adding to them the council of Lyons asthe Eighth, that under the Patriarch Bekkos as the Ninth, and thecouncil of Florence as the Tenth. The author attributes theconvocation of the Council of Lyons to Pope John VIII whom heregards as immediate successor to Pope Nicholas, omittingHadrian II, who was responsible for the condemnation of Photiusat the Council of 869-870. Both authors knew about thecondemnation of Photius by a synod, but had a very hazy ideawhich synod it was. In this respect they were influenced by thetradition deeply rooted in Byzantine minds that only the first sevencouncils could be given the ecumenical character. None of the

9 / 22



numerous treatises on councils, which they must have known,said anything about the Ignatian synod of 869-870.

It was natural for a Greek Uniat to regard the two councils whichhad proclaimed the union between the two Churches—that ofLyons (1274) and that of Florence (1438, 1439)—as ecumenical andto add them to the first seven councils. However, it was daring topromote even the local synod convoked by Bekkos in 1277 to anecumenical council. One understands this promotion, because itwas this synod which had to proclaim the union concluded atLyons, in Constantinople.

The Orthodox Church is proud of this tradition. 12 We can detectan echo of this glorious past of the Eastern Church in theencyclical letter of the ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras writtenin 1950 on the occasion of the feast of Orthodoxy, in which thePatriarch thanked most solemnly his predecessors for havingpreserved uncorrupted the faith proclaimed by the sevenecumenical councils during the turbulent stages of history.13

How and when did it happen that the Western Church abandonedthe primitive tradition, common to East and West, adding to thefirst seven ecumenical councils the synod of 869-870 as the EighthEcumenical? I studied this problem in my book on the PhotianSchism, 14 and I came to the conclusion that even the Romancuria had accepted the decisions of the council which hadrestored Photius, and which continued to recognize as ecumenicalcouncils binding all Christians, only the seven primitive synods.Among other documents we can quote a letter of Pope Marinus II(942-946) to Sicus, Bishop of Capua, and that of Pope Leo IX toPeter, the Patriarch of Antioch. Both Popes knew only the sevengeneral councils. Equally important is the formula of the

10 / 22

#fn12text

#fn13text

#fn14text



profession of faith which every Pope had to recite and sign afterhis election. This formula is preserved in the so-called LiberDiurnus, 15 a kind of school-book intended for thetraining of papal notaries, containing copies of most of theformulae and instructions. The official formulary used is in thepapal chancery. The formula for the profession of faithenumerated originally only four councils, but the Fifth, Sixth andthe Seventh were added after these councils had been accepted inRome. The Seventh Council could have been added only after thePhotian council of 879-880. During this council Photius asked thatthe ecumenical character of this council should be officiallyrecognized by the whole Church. 16 It canbe shown that before this date the Seventh Council had not yetbeen added to the six ecumenical councils in Rome. The latestedition of the formula containing the profession of faith of thenewly elected popes is preserved in the collection of Canon Lawcomposed by Cardinal Deusdedit during the reign of Pope GregoryVII (1073-1085). He copied it from the Liber Diurnus which thenmust have been reedited in the eleventh century, most probablyduring the reign of Leo IX. It is very significant that in this newedition of the formula only seven councils are enumerated asecumenical and binding upon all Christians. Also, the so-called Cautio Episcopi, or the profession form recited by bishops after their election,contained in the new edition of the Liber Diurnus, enumerates onlyseven ecumenical councils. All this shows clearly that up to theend of the eleventh century the Roman chancellery recognizedonly seven ecumenical councils, excluding the council of 869-870,and that of 879-880. Both Churches were thus in perfect accord onthis important matter.

I have tried also to explain why the Ignatian Council had beenadded in the West to the list as the Eighth Ecumenical. Thishappened during the reign of Gregory VII, who had opened the

11 / 22

#fn15text

#fn16text



Lateran archives to his canonists who were looking for newarguments for the papal primacy and who were against theintervention of laymen in the appointment of bishops and abbots.They needed a strongly worded official document which theycould use in their fight against the investiture, or appointment ofclergy to ecclesiastical dignities by influential laymen. They foundsuch a document in Canon twenty-two voted by the IgnatianCouncil, which forbade laymen to influence the appointment ofprelates. All canonists and reformists of the Gregorian period usedthis canon as their most powerful weapon in their struggle for thefreedom of the Church in the election of prelates. To give moreweight to this argument they promoted the Ignatian Council to oneof the most important ecumenical synods, overlooking the Acts ofthe Photian Council which had cancelled the Council of 869-70,although the Acts of this council were also kept in the LateranArchives. Only Cardinal Deusdedit copied a part of the Acts of thePhotian Synod of 861 and of 879-880. He was followed by Ivo ofChartres, who, in the famous prologue to his col1ection of CanonLaw, quoted a long passage of the letter of John VIII to Basil Iconcerning the restoration of Photius in the "doctored" versionread at the council. 17

The controversy between Latins and Greeks concerning thenumber of ecumenical synods was begun very late, only in thefifteenth century, during the Council of Ferrara-Florence. Duringthe discussion on the Filioque use was made of the Acts of thefirst councils. When, at the beginning of the sixth session,Cardinal Julian Cesarini asked the Greeks to lend him the bookcontaining the Acts of the Eighth Council, 18 the metropolitan ofEphesus answered that the Greeks did not possess these Acts.This is understandable because these Acts were destroyed whenthe Council of 869-870 was abrogated. “But even were it [thisbook] in our possession,” said the metropolitan, “we could on noaccount be asked to number among the ecumenical councils a

12 / 22

#fn17text

#fn18text



synod which not only was never approved, but was evencondemned, for the synod mentioned by Your Holiness drew upActs against Photius . . . ,” but another synod was subsequentlyheld which reinstated Photius and abrogated the first synod. Thiscouncil, also called the Eighth, met under Pope John. It also dealtwith the question of addition to the Synod, deciding that nothingshould be added. . . . Since then the Acts of that council wereannulled, it is not these, but rather the Acts of the subsequentcouncil that should be looked for. The Cardinal, surprised by thisoutburst, assured the Metropolitan that nothing should be readfrom the Eighth Council. However, five days later, in the course ofthe seventh session, the Archbishop of Rhodes, speaking in thename of the Latins, attacked the Metropolitan of Ephesus in a verypassionate way. He maintained that Photius was an enemy of theRoman Church and was rightly condemned by the Eighth Council.“As to what you recently affirmed,” continued the Archbishop,“namely, that a synod was summoned later and condemned theEighth Council, I say that this seems very unlikely. It will not do tocome forward with any doubtful argument to prove the contrary,that the synod did pass such a condemnation, for neither the Popenor his representative were present.” “Because the Latins had noknowledge of such a synod, therefore, the council you mentionednever took place.” 19 In spite of this sharp encounter, the question of the number ofecumenical synods was left open. The Greeks continued to countonly seven ecumenical councils and in the council's definitionsevery reference to the Eighth Council was intentionally omitted. Itshould be stressed that even the Greek Uniats did not accept theLatin thesis concerning the Eighth Council. This is illustrated bythe attitude of the Greek Bishop Bartholomew Abraham of Crete.Because the Latin text of the Acts of the Council of Florence waslost, the Archbishop of Ravenna asked the Bishop of Crete totranslate the Greek Acts into Latin. He did it in an abridged form,but in his preface he called the Council of Florence the Eighth

13 / 22

#fn19text



Ecumenical. He did so with the full approval of the papalchancellery given to the translation under Pope Clement VII(1523-1534), in 1526. This title was given to the Council of Florencealso by one of the first editors of conciliar Acts, Laurence Surius,in 1567, although with some hesitation.20

Most of the famous theologians of the fifteenth and sixteenthcentury were impressed by the edition of the Acts of the FlorentineCouncil by the Bishop of Crete, although some of them remainedfaithful to the Latin tradition designating the Ignatian Council asthe Eighth Ecumenical. Therefore, they referred to the Council ofFlorence as the Ninth. This can be traced in the writings of FantinoVallaresso, Juan de Torquemada, Reginald Pole, Antonio Agustin,Gasparo Contarini, Michael Eparco. 21

From the beginning of the seventeenth century, however, anotherpractice had started. First of all, the Ignatian Council came moreand more into prominence among church historians. In 1602appeared the tenth volume of the Annates Ecclesiasticis by thefirst modern Catholic historian Cardinal Cesare Baronius whovehemently rejected the title given to the Council of Florence,arguing that this title should be given only to the Council of869-870 which had condemned Photius who, in Baronius’ eyes,was the most dangerous enemy of the Roman Primacy and adetested Father of the schism between East and West. In 1604 M.Rader published in Innsbruck the Acts of this council with theanti-Photianist collection which was regarded as containing themost reliable documents concerning the affair of Photius. Thiswas intended to end the practice inaugurated by the Bishop ofCrete.

On the other side already the Archbishop of Rhodes in his speech

14 / 22

#fn20text

#fn21text



during the seventh session of the Council of Florence, whenrefusing the Greek thesis concerning the annulment of the EighthCouncil, hinted that from the Eighth Council on many importantassemblies were convoked by the Popes, meaning the Westerncouncils, the four Lateran, those of Lyons, Vienna and Constance.These councils more and more attracted the attention of thecanonists. For example, the famous Spanish canonist AntonioAgustin (1517-1586) counted nine councils common to Greeks andLatins—the Ninth the Council of Florence—and seven Latincouncils, namely, the Third, Fourth and Fifth Lateran, the Secondof Lyons, that of Vienna, of Constance and of Trent. Jacobazzi(1538) also added to the eight first councils the Latin assemblies,but left out in his list the first and second councils of Lateran andthat of Basel.

All these hesitations and uncertainties concerning the number ofecumenical councils were put aside by Bellarmin. In the firstvolume of his main work Disputationes de ControvertusChristianae Fidei (Innsbruck, 1586-1593)Cardinal Robert Bellarmin added to the eight first councils allWestern assemblies, giving to the Council of Florence thesixteenth place. He had some reserve concerning the validity ofthe Council of Basel. At the same time he gave a new definition ofa general council, and discussed the conditions which would givea council its ecumenical character and authority binding on allCatholics. The first condition was the convocation by a Pope whoshould preside in person or through a representative. Hementioned also that at the first councils all five patriarchs werepresent representing the bishops of their patriarchates. Now,however, defined Bellarmin, the absence of the oriental patriarchsdoes not affect the ecumenicity of a council convoked by thePope, because “these patriarchs are heretics, or certainlyschismatics.” Bellarmin’s definition put aside the most importantobjection which could be raised against the ecumenical character

15 / 22



of the councils held in the West from the twelfth century on. Hiswork was reprinted several times and the Cardinal became aleading authority on theological and conciliar matters. No wonderthat another editor of the Conciliar Acts, S. Bini (Cologne, 1606),following Bellarmin, regarded the designation of the Council ofFlorence as the Eighth, which had been retained, although withsome reserve, by his predecessor Surius, as spurious anddeclared that the designation “Sixteenth” should be substitutedfor “Eighth.” What hastened this new trend in conciliar matterswas the preoccupation of the canonists to assure the ecumenicalcharacter to the Council of Trent (1545-1565), opposed and deniedby the Protestants. To achieve this it seemed necessary to add tothe old list of ecumenical councils also the Latin councils held inthe West. When Pope Paul V had ordered a new publication of theConciliar Acts, a special congregation was formed to direct thepreliminary work of the editors. Examining the differencesconcerning the Council of Florence, the congregation decided inits session of October 21, 1595, that the Council of Florenceshould not be called the Eighth, but the Sixteenth EcumenicalCounci1. 22 The wayfor such a decision was prepared by Bellarmin and Bini. So ithappened that the Collectio Romana, the Roman edition of the Conciliar Acts, with the preface of I.Simond (Concilia Generalia4 vols. Rome 1608-1612)23accepted Bellarmin’s numbering of the ecumenical councils andtheir example was followed by all editors of Acts of the followingperiod up to the present time.

This decision is, of course, not a pronunciamento on dogmaticmatters. It was made rather for practical reasons and was based

16 / 22

#fn22text

#fn23text



on works of canonists and theologians of that period. It had notsolved the problem of the Ignatian and the Photian councils,making its solution rather more difficult; There is only one way toachieve an understanding. The Western Church has to revive thetradition which she herself had followed up to the twelfth century,and the memory of which was alive in the West up to theseventeenth century, as is illustrated by the history of the Councilof Florence, and recognize only the seven primitive councils,excluding the so-called Eighth.

Concerning the Western councils, the Orthodox will have twoobjections to the value the Latins give them. According to theorthodox teaching, only a council which makes a dogmaticdecision can be regarded as ecumenical. 24 All other councils arelocal. This was one of the reasons that the councils of 869-870 andof 879-880 were not regarded as ecumenical because they wereconvoked to decide on a matter of discipline and canon law. Whenwe apply this ruling we see that many of the Western councils donot qualify.

As to the acceptance of Western councils by the Orthodox, let usrecall the words which Nicetos, the Bishop of Nicomedia,addressed in 1136 to Anselm, Bishop of Havelberg, during theirdiscussion of the Roman primacy. 25 “The Roman Church, whoseprimacy among its sisters we accept, to which we give the firstplace of honor as president of a general council, separated itself[from us] . . . . When therefore, because of these circumstances,this Church assembles a council with its Western bishops, withoutour knowledge of what is happening, it is right that its bishopsshould accept its decrees and observe them with the venerationdue to them. . . . But, we, although we are in accord with theRoman Church concerning the Catholic faith, how could we,because we do not keep assemblies at the same time she does,accept decisions which had been taken without our advice, and of

17 / 22

#fn24text

#fn25text



which we even do not know anything?”

These words recall another mark or character which a councilmust have in order to be called ecumenical, according to theOrthodox Church, namely that all five patriarchs should be presentat such an assembly and that its decisions should be accepted bythe whole Church. Because of this reason, says the Greekspecialist of canon law, H. Alivisatos, 26 the Eastern Church,although it considers itself a continuation of the primitive andindivisible Church, has abstained from convoking an EighthEcumenical Council for the reason that it would not be acceptedas such by the Roman Church. A council which is not accepted inunanimous fashion does not possess the character of catholicity.

In the discussion of this and other problems dividing Eastern andWestern Christianity we should recall the recommendation givenby the Fathers during the fourth session of the Synod of Union(879-880). 27 The holy Synod said: Every Church has certain oldusages which it has inherited. One should not quarrel and argueabout them. Let the Roman Church observe its usages; this islegitimate. But let also the Church of Constantinople observecertain usages which it has inherited from old times. Let it belikewise so in the Oriental sees. . . . Many things would have nothappened if the Churches had followed this recommendation inthe past.

Francis Dvornik (Roman Catholic), has been on the faculty of theCharles IV University of Prague, College de France, CambridgeUniversity and Harvard University. His many books include: ThePhotian Schism: History and Legend; The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantiumand Byzance et la Primauté

18 / 22

#fn26text

#fn27text



.

1 The treatise is preserved in Ms. Arundel 529 of the BritishMuseum. See my book, The Photian Schism (Cambridge, 1948),pp. 383, 456-457.

2 See K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen Literatur(Munich, 1897), p. 109, and H. G. Beck, Kirche und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich(Munich, 1959), p. 787.

3 Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (NewBrunswick, 1957), pp. 456ff.

4 Cf. F. Dvornik, pp. 384, 420, 456.

5 Ibid., p. 347. (See also below, footnote #25).

6 Ibid. 348ff., 397ff.

7 Published by J. Pappe in J. A. Fabricins’ Bibliotheca Graeca(Hamburg, 1809), vol. 12, pp. 360-421.

8 Sinaiticus Graecus, No. 418 (1117), fols. 357a-365a. Cf. F.Dvornik, The Patriarch Photius in the Light ofRecent Research (Munich, 1958), pp.35ff.

9 A new edition of the Synodicon and its versions on the basis ofall available manuscripts is being prepared by John Parker.

10 Cf. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, pp. 452ff. Only one such

19 / 22

#fn1ref

#fn2ref

#fn3ref

#fn4ref

#fn5ref

#fn6ref

#fn7ref

#fn8ref

#fn9ref

#fn10ref



treatise has been published by Ch. Justellus in his Nomocanon Photii . . . Accessere ejusdem Photii, Nili metropolitaeRhodi et Anonymi tractatus de synodis oecumenicis(Paris, 1615). This treatise and that of Neilos are reprinted by G. A.Rhallis in his Syntagma(Athens 1885-1889), p. 370-374, 389-395.

11 Studi et Testi, No. 232 (1964), vol. 2, pp. 93-101.

12 Cf. H. Alivisatos, “Les Conciles Oecuménique V, VI, VII et VIII,” Le Concile et les conciles, edition de Chevetogne (1960), p. 120.

13 It was published in the official review of the Patriarchate, Orthodoxia(1950), No.2, p. 39-41. A French translation appeared in the Istina(1954), No. 1, pp. 46, 47.

14 Ibid., pp. 314ff.

15 Cf. Ibid., pp. 318ff., 435ff.

16 At the beginning of the fifth session Photius asked that Romeand all other Patriarchs should regard the council of 787 asecumenical and should add this council to the six others. Allrepresentatives of the patriarchs did so solemnly when signing thedecisions of the Photian Council. Mansi, Concilia 17, col. 493,508ff.

17 I discussed lvo’s prologue in my book, The Photian Schism, pp.302-308. On pp. 335-341 I quoted some canonists who had copiedparts of lvo’s prologue. Since then I found lvo’s prologue with the

20 / 22

#fn11ref

#fn12ref

#fn13ref

#fn14ref

#fn15ref

#fn16ref

#fn17ref



letter of John VIII in several other collections of canon law whichare not yet published. This shows that Ivo’s prologue with thepapal letter rehabilitating Photius exercised a greater influence onWestern canonists than has been thought.

18 Mansi, Concilia, vol. 31, cols. 528-551; cf. Dvornik, The PhotianSchism , pp.362ff.

19 Cf. also Quae supersunt Actorum Graecorum Concilii Florentini, part I, ed. J. Gill (Rome 1953, Concilium Florentinum, series B.vol. V, 1), p. 90.

20 See Dvornik, The Photian Schism, pp. 364ff. More detaileddescription is given by V. Peri, “II numero dei concili ecumenicinella tradizione cattolica moderna,” Aevum37 (1963), pp. 472ff., and I consili e le chiese(Rome, Cultura 29, 1964), pp. 55ff.

21 See V. Peri, I Concili e le Chiese, p. 57.

22 The history of this edition was examined in detail by Peri in hisstudy Il Numero dei Concili, pp. 484ff. He used the archives ofthe Vatican and reproduced the most important decisions of theCongregation.

23 On the Roman Edition see for details V. Peri “Due protagonistidell Editio Romani dei concili ecumenici.” Studio Testi, 237, pp.131-232. See also G. Leonardi “Per la storia dell’edizione romana.” Ibid. pp. 583-637.

21 / 22

#fn18ref

#fn19ref

#fn20ref

#fn21ref

#fn22ref

#fn23ref



24 Already in 1177 Hugo Etherianus, or his brother Leo Tuscus,gave such a definition of an ecumenical council according to theGreeks. See the quotation in Dvornik, The Photian Schism, p.347. This definition is given in many Greek manuscripts containingtreatises on councils. Let me quote here the Ms. 1319 of theBibliotheque National in Paris. The Ms. is of the thirteenth century.On fol. 9 we read: “The Ecumenical Councils are [Synods] whichwere assembled on the order of an Emperor, which includedbishops from all the Roman Empire, which discussed a problem ofthe faith and proclaimed a symbol of faith. All other councils arelocal.” This Ms. gives the list of general and also local synods.

25 Dialogi, Migne, Faires Latini, vol. 188, col. 1217ff. (chs. 7-8).

26 Ibid., p. 120.

27 Mansi, XVII, Col. 489. Francis Dvornik, “WhichCouncils are Ecumenical?” Journal of Ecumenical Studies3(2), 1966, pp. 314-328.

22 / 22

#fn24ref

#fn25ref

#fn26ref

#fn27ref

dvornik - which councils are ecumenical

Documents

number of ecumenical

ecumenical councils

ecumenical becauseit

previousecumenical councils

councils asecumenical

council ignatius

eastern churches

christian churches