When is a Synod of the Church
considered Ecumenical?
1. Which has been convened by an Emperor of the Roman Empire, extending over an Ecumenical (pan-Roman) range, and of course a pan-Christian range.2. Whose rulings have been accepted by the entire, worldwide, Orthodox Church, throughout History.3. Whose rulings have been formulated by a Divinely-inspired Father.4. Whose rulings bear the acceptance of the Roman Patriarchates.5. Which has dealt with crucial Theological issues.
We shall now
set
out only
a
brief overview of the Ecumenical Synods of the Church,
leaving the more detailed descriptions for other, more
specialized articles.
1st
Ecumenical Synod:
325
A.D.,
in Nicea of Bithynia.
Convened by the Emperor Constantine the Great.
318
bishops participated.
The issue dealt with was Arius’ blasphemous assertion that the
Son and Logos of God is a creation and not of the same essence (Homousios)
as the Father. The same Synod ruled on the dates of celebration
of Easter. The Symbol of Faith (the Nicene Creed) also began
to be drafted.
2nd
Ecumenical Synod:
381
A.D.,
in Constantinople.
Convened by Theodosius the Great. 150 Orthodox
and 36 Macedonian bishops participated. The Synod was presided
over by Saint Gregory the Theologian, bishop of Constantinople.
Areios was once again condemned, as was the heresy of the
Macedonios, who taught that the Holy Spirit is a creation of
God, hence his being nicknamed Pneumatomachos (the
Spirit-battler). Also condemned Apollinarianism, Eunomians,
Eudoxians, Sabellians, Marcellians, and Photinians (who taught
that Jesus was a mere man upon whom the Logos rested).
3rd
Ecumenical Synod:
431
A.D.,
in Ephesus.
Convened by Theodosius II. This Synod dogmatized
against Nestorianism, in the Temple of the basilica of the Holy
Mother, with 200 bishops participating. It condemned Nestorius,
bishop of Constantinople, and dogmatized that the Holy Mother
can also be addressed as “Theotokos” (=who gave birth to God,
). Changes to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed were
forbidden with punishment of deposition for clerics and
excommunication for laity prescribed.
4th
Ecumenical Synod:
451
A.D.,
in Chalcedon of Asia Minor.
Convened by the Emperor Marcian and the Empress
Pulcheria.
630
bishops participated.
It annulled the (Robber) Council of 449 which
took place in Ephesus. The Eutychian doctrine of Monophysitism
was condemned in this Synod. The ‘Tome of Leo’ was affirmed.
Simony was condemned. Condemned Nestorianism.
5th
Ecumenical Synod:
5th
May to
21st
June of
553 A.D., in Constantinople.
Convened by the Emperor Justinian and the Empress
Theodora.
165
Fathers participated.
Condemned Evagrius , Didymus , Origen, and
Theodore of Mopsuestia
(Nestorius’
teacher).
6th
Ecumenical Synod:
680
A.D.,
in Constantinople.
Convened by the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus.
150 – 289 bishops participated. This Synod condemned the heresy
of Monothelitism. This Synod formulated that Christ has a
Divine will, as well as a human will that is obeisant to the
Divine will. Affirmed the teachings of Saint Maximus the
Confessor. The following were condemned, amongst others: s
Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter (Patriarchs of
Constantinople); Pope Honorius; Patriarch Cyrus of Alexandria.
Quinisext
Ecumenical Synod:
691 A.D., in Constantinople.
Convened by Justinian II; took place in “the
Trullo of the Palace”, hence its being named “The Synod of
Trullo”. This was not an independent Synod;
it merely systematized and fulfilled the task of
the preceding two Synods (the 5th and the 6th),
hence, albeit Ecumenical, was also referred to as “Quinisext”,
given that it was a segment of those two Synods and was not
numbered as a separate Ecumenical Synod.
7th
Ecumenical Synod:
787 A.D., in Nicea of Bithynia, in the temple of
Hagia Sophia.
Convened by the Emperor Constantine and his
mother Irene the Athenian.
367
fathers
participated.
This Synod reinstated and protected the holy
icons, by anathematizing iconoclasm (the opposition to the
veneration of icons ), also condemning the idea of depicting the
invisible and incorporeal Holy Trinity. It annulled the false
council of 754 Adoration of icons, was not accepted because it
is for God alone. In this Synod, the theology pertaining to the
depiction of Christ and the Saints as a depiction of visible
personages, was set out.
8th
Ecumenical Synod:
879-880 A.D.,
in Constantinople.
Convened by the Emperor Basil the Macedon.
Headed by the (Orthodox at the time) Pope of Rome, John VIII
(872-882) and the Patriarch of Constantinople-New Rome, Fotios
the Great (858-867, 877-886). This Synod validated the rulings
of the 7th Ecumenical Synod by expelling those who did not
recognise Nicæa II as Seventh Ecumenical Synod. It anathematized
the “Filioque” addition to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed,
which had just begun to be imposed, abrogating the decrees of
the Robber Council of 869-870. It also condemned the heretic
synods of Charlemagne in Frankfurt (794 A.D.) and in Aachen (809
A.D.). This council was later repudiated by the West in favor
the robber council which had deposed Photius.
9th
Ecumenical Synod:
1341-1351
A.D.
Three separate synods (1341, 1349 ,1351) are
regarded as a whole because they dealt with the same issue. This
Synod dogmatized on the uncreated Essence and the uncreated
Energy of God, as well as on Hesychasm, by condemning Varlaam
the Calabrian. Rejected teaching that the attributes of God are
identical with the essence. Condemned those who think the light
of Christ’s Transfiguration was a created apparition. Condemned
those who deny the energy of God is uncreated.
This Synod therefore preoccupied itself with
theological issues, it was convened by an emperor (Synodic
Volume of 1341 A.D.) and a Divinely-inspired father participated
therein (Saint Gregory Palamas), and its rulings were accepted
by the entire Church. Consequently, this Synod is of equal
stature to an Ecumenical Synod. The 9th Ecumenical
Synod of 1341 condemned the Platonic mysticism of Varlaam the
Calabrian, who had arrived from the West as a proselyte to
Orthodoxy. Rejection of this Platonic type of mysticism was of
course the traditional Patristic response.
The above nine Ecumenical Synods were published
as roman laws validated by the Emperor, after having been
previously signed by the respective five roman Patriarchs,
Metropolitans and Bishops. The Emperor would convene these
Ecumenical Synods in collaboration with the Five Roman
Patriarchates, of (a) Old Rome, (b) Constantinople-New Rome, (c)
Alexandria, (d) Antioch, which was included in 451 A.D. and (e)
Jerusalem. The
9th
Ecumenical Synod of
1341 A.D.
was an exception,
as its Minutes were validated by only four roman Patriarchs and
signed by the roman Emperor.
The Patriarchate of Old Rome was now absent, as
it had been violently seized by the Franks, the Longobards and
the Germans, with the help of the Normans. This onslaught began
in
983 A.D.
and
was completed by 1009-1046 A.D.. After
the year 1045 A.D., the Popes of Rome -with the exception of
Pope Benedict X (1058-9 A.D.) - were no longer romans, but
members of the Frankish-Latin aristocracy which had subjugated
the roman populations. After the fall of the Roman Empire and
its Emperor, in 1453 A.D. the four roman Patriarchates of
Constantinople-New Rome, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem
continued to convene Synods, with which they continued the
tradition of the Ecumenical Synods. The only reason that these
Synods were not named “Ecumenical” is simply because this title
signified “Imperial” and the rulings of such Synods became
components of Roman Law. In other words, after the year 1453
A.D., the rulings of the roman Synods were considered components
of Ecclesiastic Law, and no longer of Imperial Law. The Roman
Empire no longer existed, nor a roman emperor who would issue
roman Laws. Thus,
these
nine Ecumenical Synods were understood to be both ecclesiastic
Laws and roman Laws. The Synods that were convened after
1453 A.D.
comprise a part of Ecclesiastic Law, and have the same authority
as the previous Ecumenical Synods (except in the imagination of
some contemporary Orthodox, who have been misled by the Russian
Orthodoxy of Peter the Great, and the so-called “neo-Greek”
theology of certain Western-educated theologians.)
This is why nowadays we find Orthodox who call
themselves The Church of the Seven Ecumenical Synods. Many
(uninformed)
Orthodox are totally oblivious to the existence of the 8th
and the 9th Ecumenical Synods. The 8th
Ecumenical Synod in 879 A.D. simply condemned those who “add” or
“remove” anything from the Symbol of Faith (Creed), as well as
those who do not accept the rulings pertaining to the worship of
Icons, per the 7th Ecumenical Synod.
The reason that the Franks –who are being
condemned- are not for the time being clearly denoted, is that
they might hopefully revise their stance.
In a previous chapter, we outlined the required
characteristics of a Synod acceptable by the Church, in order
for it to be confirmed as an Ecumenical Synod. These
characteristics are found in all nine (plus the Quinisext)
Synods that we mentioned above. These characteristics, which
are set out in this article, have been taken from the book of
the Rev. Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, Hierotheos Vlachos, titled
“Ecclesiastic Conviction”, (published by Genethlion of Theotokos).
The Ecumenical status of the 9th Ecumenical Synod is
also analyzed therein, extensively.
Naturally, the 8th Ecumenical Synod
itself not only repeated that the 7th was Ecumenical
(which, until that time, had not been acknowledged by some as
the 7th Ecumenical Synod), but it also frequently
refers to itself as “Ecumenical” in its Minutes, and in fact in
its very canons -which have been fully accepted by the worldwide
Ecclesiastic body of Orthodoxy! (Rallis and Potlis,
Constitution, 2, 705, etc.; Ecclesiastic History by Stephanides,
pages 363-364.). So, how is it possible for a Synod (the 8th)
which , for some , is allegedly not Ecumenical, to validate
another Synod (the 7th) which is Ecumenical? Based
on this logic, we are indirectly doubting the Ecumenicity of the
7th, unbeknownst to us!
During his interpretation of these canons,
Theodore of Balsamon (end 12th century) acknowledges
it as being the 8th Ecumenical Synod, while Neilos of
Rhodos (†1379) calls it the “Eighth Ecumenical”, as do
others
(J.Hergenrother, Photius II, page 539 onwards).
Of course, the most important Orthodox Theologian
of the 20th century – father John Romanides – (Graduate
of the Greek College of Brookline Massachusetts, the Yale
University’s School of Theology, Doctor of the School of
Theology of the Capodistrian University of Athens, the
Philosophical School of Harvard University (School of Arts and
Sciences. Professor Emeritus of the School of Theology of the
Aristotelian University of Thessaloniki and Visiting Professor
of the Theological School of Saint John the Damasceneof the
Balamand University of Lebanon since 1970. He has also studied
with the Russian Seminar of Saint Vladimir of New York, and the
also Russian Institute of Saint Serge in Paris and Munich,
Germany)
is in full agreement with the aforementioned
positions.
Fr.
John Romanides expounds on these two last
Ecumenical Synods in extensive memoranda of his. The title of
one of his writings is characteristic: “The
cure for the sickness of Religion: the Nine Ecumenical Synods
and the other Ecclesiastic Synods until 1453”.
You can locate this article, in the related link below, among
the other links pertaining to this article.
It is however imperative that we do not confine
ourselves to the names of theologians, or even of bishops, but
to seek an OFFICIAL acknowledgement of our positions, from the
Universal Orthodox Church. A document such as this, which
dispels every doubt that the Ecumenical Synods are NOT ONLY
SEVEN, is a letter which had been sent to the Pope by ALL OF THE
ROMAN PATRIARCHATES, in 1848. This letter was signed, not only
by the Patriarchs, but also by the (named) Bishops of their
respective Holy Synods.
Very clearly
mentioned in this letter is the wording
“EIGHTH
ECUMENICAL SYNOD”,
where the all-familiar “Filioque” was condemned, and
furthermore, the Pope himself had also participated (who at the
time was still Orthodox).
This was not a just a private letter to Pius IX.
It was addressed to "All the Bishops Everywhere, Beloved in the
Holy Ghost, Our Venerable, Most Dear Brethren; and to their Most
Pious Clergy; and to All the Genuine Orthodox Sons of the
One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church."
Should we therefore assume here that neither the
Patriarchs nor the members of their Holy Synods knew that the
Ecumenical Synods were supposedly only seven? If this were the
case, it is highly improbable, that not a single one of them,
who signed at the bottom of this document, would have
questioned: “If the Synods are 7 in all, how can we be speaking
of the 8th?” Quite obviously, they were all fully
aware that the Ecumenical Synods were more than 7!
This document can be found (in its English
translation), by visiting the related links mentioned at the end
of this article. Also in Greek (prototype) you can find it
mentioned in Volume 2, pages 902-925 of the book by J. Karmiris,
titled “THE
DOGMATIC AND SYMBOLIC MONUMENTS OF THE ORTHODOX CATHOLIC CHURCH”.
Another interesting detail is also the following:
The Papist “Church”, published the so-called “Catholic
Encyclopedia”
in 1907, in which it mentions the Ecumenical Synod of 879-880,
saying that: “This
is the "Psuedosynodus Photiana"
(: the
pseudo-synod of Photios),
which the Orthodox count as the Eighth General Council” http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04312b.htm.
From this, it becomes obvious that even the
Papists knew full well which the Orthodox Synods were, even at
that time. And while the Papists had every reason to withhold
the info about Ecumenical status of that Synod (in which the
Filioque was condemned), by saying that not even we Orthodox
considered it Ecumenical, they did not do this; instead, they
merely slandered it. They obviously refrained from this action,
because it was something quite familiar to everyone at the time,
and any concealment would have had no real repercussions.
Pursuant to the above,
all
those who believe that the Ecumenical Synods of the Orthodox
Church are only
7,
must necessarily give their comprehensive and
documented replies to the following questions:
1. What is incorrect about the criteria of Ecumenicity stated above, and why?2. With what other criteria should they be replaced, and on what Ecclesiological, Historical and Theological basis?3. Based on what logic is it possible for a non-ecumenical (as the 8th is referred to by many) Synod to presume to validate an Ecumenical Synod (the 7th)? Is it possible for the 8th NOT to be Ecumenical, and yet, we resort to it, for its ruling on the Ecumenicity of the 7th? If therefore the 8th was non-existent, would the 7th then in turn not be acknowledged as Ecumenical? Wouldn’t we be going headlong into an absurd logic here?4. Why should we reject the positions of major theologians of the Church –like the ones we mentioned above- and in their place, accept the positions of others, who do not accept the two last Ecumenical Synods?5. What more important evidence is there, that could justify the rejection of the signing of the Holy Synods of the Patriarchates in the letter of 1848 mentioned above, and furthermore, where does one find a ruling of all these Patriarchates, which condemns this admission of more than 7 Ecumenical Synods?
If all the above questions are provided with
documented replies and arguments possessing an authority
equivalent to that which is analyzed in this article, we can
further discuss the matter of how many the Ecumenical Synods
are.
Bibliography
–Links
–
Sources
The
Ecumenicity of the 8th and 9th Ecumenical
Synods is testified by the following, leading Theologians of our
time:
Fr. JOHN ROMANIDES:
REV. METROPOLITAN OF NAFPAKTOS HIEROTHEOS VLACHOS:
PROTOPRESBYTER GEORGE D.
METALLINOS, DEAN OF THE ATHENS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY:
PROTOPRESBYTER GEORGE DRAGAS, PROFESSOR OF THE BOSTON SCHOOL OF
THEOLOGY “THE HOLY CROSS”:
Document: The Encyclical Letter of 1848, in which the holy
synods of the patriarchates refer to the 8th
ecumenical synod very clearly,
by its name:
About Synods and Councils:
Δεν υπάρχουν σχόλια:
Δημοσίευση σχολίου