On the Unique Nature of Ecumenical Councils

St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite

Source: The Rudder (Pedalion) of the Metaphorical Ship of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Orthodox Christians, or All the Sacred and Divine Canons, by St. Nicodemos the Hagiorite, from English translation published by the Orthodox Christian Educational Society, Chicago, 1957, pp. 155-158, footnote 1 to the Prolegomena of the First Ecumenical Council.

 

 

I find some four characteristic features of Ecumenical Council here and there referred to by many authors, and especially by Dositheus (p. 1018 of the Dodecadiblos). Three of them are remote and common, and pertain to some local councils, whereas the other one is the most proximate, and, so to speak, the essential one, the constituent one, and is in fact the peculiar difference which distinguishes all Ecumenical Councils.

Thus, the chief distinguishing feature of all Ecumenical Councils is the fact that they are convoked at the behest, not of the Pope or of such and such a patriarch, but by imperial orders, i.e., at the behest of emperors or kings. This was the case also in connection with the council held in Sardica, which was convoked by Constantius and Constance; and also in connection with the council held in Antioch, which too was convoked by command of Constantius, though for another purpose than that of dedicating the temple in Antioch (Dositheus, p. 183 of the Dodecabiblus).

Second, for the purpose of discussing matters of faith, and consequently to render a decision, and give a dogmatic definition at every one of the Ecumenical Councils (Dositheus, p. 633 of the Dodecabiblus); but this too was the fact in connection with certain local councils, such as that held in Carthage, which created a discussion against the heresy of Pelagius and of Celestius, and laid down dogmatic definitions.

Third, for all dogmas laid down by them and their canons to be orthodox, pious, and in agreement with the divine Scriptures or previous Ecumenical Councils. Wherefore the axiom of St. Maximus uttered in regard to such a case became famous wherein he said: “Pious faith validates the councils held,” and again, “the correctness of dogmas judges the councils.” But this feature too is common to most local councils, with some exceptions.

Fourth and last, for all Orthodox patriarchs and prelates of the catholic Church to agree and to accept everything that has been decreed and ordained by the Ecumenical Councils, either by their personal presence or by their own legate, or deputy, or, in the absence of such a representative, by means of a letter of their own.

This agreement and accord of the patriarchs and prelates of an ecumenical council is, as we have said, the constituent and distinctive characteristic of ecumenical councils. It is constituent because it constitutes them and causes them to be truly ecumenical in correspondence with their name.

It is distinctive because, being observed in no local council, it serves to distinguish ecumenical from local councils. Hence the council held in the days of Copronymus in Blacherna, though called ecumenical by the Iconomachs (or Iconoclasts), was criticized and refused recognition by St. Germanus and Damascenus, and Stephen the younger, and many others, as well as by the Seventh Ecumenical Council in its sixth Act, all of them declaring that without the concurrence of all other patriarchs there can be no ecumenical council, nor can any be called such. For on the part of the Seventh Council Epiphanius said: “How again can it be a great and ecumenical council, when it is one which the presidents of the other churches neither accepted nor agreed to, but in fact dismissed it with an anathema?” (Dositheus, p. 634 of the Dodecabiblus). With nearly the same criticisms St. Maximus criticized the pseudo council of the Monothelete Pyrrhus because he called it an ecumenical council.

I said that the agreement and acceptance by all patriarchs is what constitutes ecumenical councils, and not their personal presence alone, nor their representation by legates or deputies of their own. For in none of the seven Ecumenical Councils was any Pope personally present, while at the Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils the Popes Damasus and Vigilius were not present either in person or by deputy; yet those Ecumenical Councils remained ecumenical, because the same Popes agreed to all that those councils ordained or prescribed, and with their letters and signatures they accepted them. That personal presence alone or representation by deputy does not constitute ecumenical councils, but rather agreement, is shown by two councils, that held in Sardica, I mean, and that held in Florence. The one held in Sardica, in spite of the fact that it was called ecumenical at the commencement of it (see in its Prologue) and all the patriarchs were present at it, some personally and others by proxy, yet because of the fact that the patriarchs and prelates of the East separated and failed to agree to the things it prescribed, what started as an ecumenical council became in the end and in its affect a local council.

Likewise the council held in Florence, though called ecumenical, yet because of the fact that the legate of the patriarch of Antioch and the deputies of the bishops of the East, and foremost the patriarch of Alexandria, Marcus, I mean, that most holy man of Ephesus, failed to agree to it, what had been an ecumenical turned out a local council in point of fact.

What am I saying “local” for? Why, it was rightly and justly condemned as a pseudo council because it lacked even the third constituent of ecumenical councils. For the definition it set forth was not in agreement with Holy Writ and the other councils. Do you see that a disagreement of some patriarchs makes ecumenical councils local ones? Whereas, on the other hand, agreement of all the patriarchs of an ecumenical council makes even local councils ecumenical and converts them into catholic councils. For the local councils accepted by the Ecumenical Councils, and especially by the Sixth, and their Canons acquired an ecumenical, in effect, and catholic power and dignity.

From these statements which have been made here the definition of an ecumenical council can easily be framed as follows: “An ecumenical council is one that has been convoked by command of an emperor or king, one that has set forth a dogmatic definition concerning faith, and one that ordains or prescribes things which are pious and orthodox and agreeable to the Holy Scriptures and to previous ecumenical councils, and one which all the patriarchs and prelates of the catholic Church have agreed to accept, either by their personal presence or by proxy, or, in the absence of these, by means of their letters and signatures. So every ecumenical council that possesses these characteristic features is in fact the Holy and Catholic Church itself in which in the Symbol of Faith (called the Creed in English) we profess to believe.

Hence arise four other points, according to those versed in theology, to enrich its features. These points are:

First, that of being ever-living and imperishable; for “He will give you another Comforter, that He may abide with you forever. And, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the age” (John 14:16; Matt. 28:20; cf. also John 14:26).

Second, that of being infallible and sinless. For the Church, which the Ecumenical Council takes the place of as its personal representative, is a pillar and framework of the truth, according to St. Paul (I Tim. 3:15); accordingly, whatever seems right to Ecumenical Councils seems right also to the Holy Spirit of Truth; for, it says, “He shall teach you all things and remind you of everything I have said unto you” (John 14:26). Which in fact is proved certain in the case of Ecumenical Councils. For if c. VIII of St. Gregory the Miracle-worker says, concerning the local council held in Ancyra, “until such time as something seems right in common to saints met together and before them to the Holy Spirit,” how much more is not this true when said in regard to Ecumenical Councils? which the Holy Spirit Itself supervises and illumines, and will not permit them to err in their decisions? For God inspires His righteousness in innumerable priests gathered in a council, according to the letter of the Council of Carthage addressed to Celestinus.

Third, that of having the supreme and highest office, not only as proposing what is right and just and true by way of advice and compelling those opposed thereto to yield submission, by inflicting upon them proper ecclesiastical penances, and examining and judging them all, including Popes and Patriarchs, and all prelates, clergymen, and laymen in any part of the world whatsoever.

And fourth, that of setting a limit and termination to every question or matter of any kind that may arise or grow up, whether it relate to an individual or have a common effect, and to settle every quarrel and dispute of heretics and schismatics. For the Church is called catholic, says Cyril the patriarch of Jerusalem (in article 18 of his catechism), because she teaches catholically, completely and indifferently, all dogmas that offer men knowledge concerning things visible and invisible. For not the Holy Bible, but the Ecumenical Council is proclaimed by all to be the final judge of ecclesiastical matters, according to c. VI. of the 2nd Ecum. C., whose vote and decision is not subject to appeal to any other higher tribunal. For if an appeal consists in taking a case from one court to some other court that is higher or of greater authority, according to Book IX of the Basilica, Title I, any dubious or uncertain vote of bishops is subject to review by the Metropolitans; and any such vote of Metropolitans is subject to review by the Exarch or Patriarch of the diocese; and that of the Patriarch is subject to review by an Ecumenical Council; and herewith end every appeal and there is a stop to further procedure because there is no higher court than the Ecumenical Council.

But if the court of patriarchs is not subject to appeal, according to the Basilica, and Justinian, and Leo the Wise, yet this is intelligible in view of the fact that one patriarch cannot act as judge of another patriarch and render any decision concerning him, and not on account of the Ecumenical Council, which can review and examine into all matters judged and decided by all Patriarchs and Popes, just as though they had never been decided at all. For even though the vote of the eparch, because of its being exempt from re-examination, is not subject to appeal, yet in spite of this the disputes which the eparch cannot settle are reviewed and decided by the emperor himself.

So that the Ecumenical Council sustains the same logical relationship in the Church (Dositheus, pp. 309 and 384 of the Dodecabiblos) as the Emperor sustains in the State. I said that the final judge in the Church is not the Holy Bible, as Lutherocalvinists claim, but the Ecumenical Council, because in many places divine Scripture speaks obscurely or unclearly, and therefore every one of the heretics can distort the obscure or unclear meaning of the Scriptures in favour of his own heresy, must needs interpret their true meaning because there is no one else that can do this, but the Ecumenical Council.

Another thing that deserves notice is the fact that besides the genuine and catholic books of the Bible, the heretics have dared to inscribe their spurious and heretical books as canonical, and on this account the Ecumenical Council approves those which are genuine, but rejects those which are spurious and apocryphal, as did the Sixth Ecumenical Council in regard to the Apostolical Injunctions, and as did also the First such Council (see also the footnote to Ap. c. LIX).

That is why sacred Augustine, being well aware of this, elegantly stated his opinion (in his Letter 154) in the following words: “I would not have believed in the Gospel had not the trustworthiness of the Church convinced me.” From all that has been said, therefore, it logically is to be inferred that no one can oppose or gainsay the Ecumenical Councils and remain pious and orthodox, but, on the contrary, everybody in general and indiscriminately is under obligation to obey them and to be persuaded by them. For whosoever opposes them and comes into conflict with them is opposing and coming into conflict with the Holy Spirit which speaks through the Ecumenical Councils, and thereby becomes both a heretic and an anathematized wretch, since Pope Dialogus (Book I, Letter 24) anathematizes those who refuse to heed the Ecumenical Councils.

And even the councils themselves anathematize those who refuse to obey them. Why should I say “heretic”? Whoever disobeys the Church is considered a heathen and an impious sinner, and in the place of the Church stands the Ecumenical Council. For “if,” says the Lord, “he disobey the Church, let him be unto thee like a heathen man and a publican” (Matt. 18:17). For the ultimate vote and decision of the Church is the Ecumenical Council, according to St. Augustine (Letter 162). And this is that same thing which God commanded to be kept in connection with the council of the priests of the old Law. “If,” said He, “there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea.... And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge who shall be in those days, and inquire; and they shall show thee the sentence of judgment: ... thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand, nor to the left. And the man who will act with a hand of arrogance, so as not to obey the priest, or the judge, even that man shall die: and thou shalt put away the evil one from Israel” (Deut. 17:8-12).

But besides all that we have said we must add the following fact, to wit, that only seven councils have been called ecumenical properly and preeminently, because all of these were assembled and held in accordance with the laws governing ecumenical councils, and because everything that was necessary to knowledge in them was duly ordained. Hence all questions that arise or spring up can easily be settled by reference to what has been ordained by the seven (Dositheus, p. 633 of the Dodecabiblus).

After the Seventh, notwithstanding that other councils were called ecumenical, such as the First-and-Second, and the one held in the temple of St. Sophia (thus styled in English, though the meaning of the name is “Holy Wisdom”), were nevertheless thus called improperly and unwarrantedly, because not one of them was assembled and held in accordance with the laws governing ecumenical councils; wherefore they could not be counted along with the seven Ecumenical Councils and lead to an increase of their number. For the Council called Ecumenical by the Latins, that held against Photius, I mean, was later denounced and outlawed by the Council held in favor of Photius, and was condemned to lose all right to be called even a council at all, though all the seven Ecumenical Councils, by reason of their being ecumenical, are entitled to equal honor.

This first Council however, both because of its ancient date and because of its holiness, has always been and will always remain the original example and model; accordingly it serves as the fundamental idea of all ecumenical councils, and it was imitated by the other councils held after it thenceforth, both as respects addresses and seats and as respects definitions. Accordingly, Dialogus called it the head of all councils; and one thing is uttered by the mouth of everybody, to wit, that what was prescribed in Nicaea must prevail without fail. The Council held in Carthage labored hard both in its records and in its Canons, and it made great efforts also in its letters to Boniface and Celestinus, to prevent their accepting any other Canons than these genuine Canons of the First Council held in Nicaea. Both Athanasius the Great and divine Chrysostom shouted loudly to have no other Canons prevail except the Canons of the Council in Nicaea.