By Francis Dvornik
1966, Journal of Ecumenical Studies. All Rights Reserved.
Reprinted by permission.
Which Councils are Ecumenical?
1 / 22
2 / 22
3 / 22
4 / 22
5 / 22
6 / 22
8
and edited, most probably on the basis of an older treatise by an
Ignatian between the years 886-891, regards the Ignatian council
as the Eighth ecumenical. The second version contained in some
manuscripts of the fourteenth century speaks of the Eighth
ecumenical as that of the union between Photius and John VIII.
9
However, there is also another explanation of the promotion of the
two synods to ecumenical councils. The partisans of the
hesychasts were naturally interested in stressing the importance
of the synod of 1341. When promoting it to an ecumenical council
they could not overlook the synod of union described in their
prototype. In the Byzantine tradition it was regarded as an
important assembly. They could thus not place their synod of 1341
immediately after the seven councils as the Eighth. This place was
given to the Photian synod, and the hesychast synod was
numbered as the Ninth. The Ignatian synod of 869-870, of course,
did not exist for them, as for all Byzantines, because it was
cancelled in 880.
In a similar way we can explain the designation of the Photian
synod as the Eighth ecumenical in the fourteenth century versions
of the Synodicon Vetus. Their prototype, reedited by an Ignatian at
a time when the Photian controversy was still a passionate topic,
stopped at the synod of 869-870 which he called the Eighth
Ecumenical. The Byzantines of the fourteenth century looked at
this incident from a long way off. If a council could be called the
Eighth Ecumenical it could be in their minds only the synod of
879-880, which had cancelled the Ignatian council. This explains
why in the new version of the Synodicon the Eighth council is that
which marked the reconciliation between Photius and John VIII.
7 / 22
These are the few exceptions from the general rule accepted by
the Byzantine Church which admits only seven ecumenical
councils, exceptions which might have been inspired by anti-Latin
trends in the fourteenth century or, at least, which show the
mentality of this period. Otherwise, in all official and private
documents from the eighth century to modern times it is stressed
that the Orthodox Church admitted only seven ecumenical
councils as the basis of the orthodox faith. This is particularly
documented by the numerous short treatises on councils which
are found in manuscripts in all major European libraries. 10 Some
of them can be regarded as a sort of catechism teaching the main
dogmas of the orthodox faith.
The conviction that only the first seven councils can be regarded
as ecumenical, and that this character can in no way be attributed
to the council of 869-870, was so firmly imbedded in Greek minds
that even those Greeks who had accepted the union with Rome,
concluded at the councils of Lyons and of Florence, hesitated to
accept the Latin practice of regarding the Ignatian council of
869-870 as the Eighth Ecumenical. This is especially illustrated by
two treatises on ecumenical councils written by Greek Uniats after
the Council of Florence. I found them in the Greek Ms. 1712 in the
National Library in Paris, and I published the main passages
concerning our question in Mlanges Eugne Tisserant. 11
After enumerating the seven ecumenical councils, and after
mentioning the synod of orthodoxy under Theodora, the widow of
the last iconoclastic Emperor Theophilus, the author of the first
treatise continues: The eighth holy and ecumenical synod was
held in Lyons under John the Pope of Rome. This synod was
convened against Photius who had become patriarch of
Constantinople in defiance of the canons. He had unjustly usurped
the throne when Ignatius the holy was still alive. Indeed, it was he
who effected the schism between the Greeks and the Latins. He
8 / 22
denied that the most Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, but
only from the Father. Because of that the Synod condemned him
and defined that the Spirit proceeded from the Son as from the
Father.
The Ninth holy and ecumenical Synod was held in Constantinople
under Gregory, the Pope of Rome, and Bekkos, the patriarch of
Constantinople. This Synod also was assembled for the same
matter. After being assembled [this Synod] decreed in a very clear
and plain way that the Holy Spirit proceeded also from the Son as
from the Father, and presented it to the Church to believe [in], to
praise and to worship.
"The Tenth holy, great and ecumenical Synod was held in the city
of Florence, under Eugenius, the Pope of Rome, John
Palaeologus, the most glorious emperor of the Romans, and
Joseph, the patriarch of Constantinople. This also had convened
for the same matter. Because of that [the Synod] declared
solemnly that the Holy Spirit proceeded also from the Son in its
own definition, although this was not added to the symbol of the
faith in the Eastern Churches.
The second short treatise gives also first the description of the
seven ecumenical councils adding to them the council of Lyons as
the Eighth, that under the Patriarch Bekkos as the Ninth, and the
council of Florence as the Tenth. The author attributes the
convocation of the Council of Lyons to Pope John VIII whom he
regards as immediate successor to Pope Nicholas, omitting
Hadrian II, who was responsible for the condemnation of Photius
at the Council of 869-870. Both authors knew about the
condemnation of Photius by a synod, but had a very hazy idea
which synod it was. In this respect they were influenced by the
tradition deeply rooted in Byzantine minds that only the first seven
councils could be given the ecumenical character. None of the
9 / 22
10 / 22
profession of faith which every Pope had to recite and sign after
his election. This formula is preserved in the so-called Liber
Diurnus,
15 a kind of school-book intended for the
training of papal notaries, containing copies of most of the
formulae and instructions. The official formulary used is in the
papal chancery. The formula for the profession of faith
enumerated originally only four councils, but the Fifth, Sixth and
the Seventh were added after these councils had been accepted in
Rome. The Seventh Council could have been added only after the
Photian council of 879-880. During this council Photius asked that
the ecumenical character of this council should be officially
recognized by the whole Church.
16 It can
be shown that before this date the Seventh Council had not yet
been added to the six ecumenical councils in Rome. The latest
edition of the formula containing the profession of faith of the
newly elected popes is preserved in the collection of Canon Law
composed by Cardinal Deusdedit during the reign of Pope Gregory
VII (1073-1085). He copied it from the Liber Diurnus which then
must have been reedited in the eleventh century, most probably
during the reign of Leo IX. It is very significant that in this new
edition of the formula only seven councils are enumerated as
ecumenical 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 only
seven ecumenical councils. All this shows clearly that up to the
end of the eleventh century the Roman chancellery recognized
only seven ecumenical councils, excluding the council of 869-870,
and that of 879-880. Both Churches were thus in perfect accord on
this important matter.
I have tried also to explain why the Ignatian Council had been
added in the West to the list as the Eighth Ecumenical. This
happened during the reign of Gregory VII, who had opened the
11 / 22
12 / 22
synod which not only was never approved, but was even
condemned, for the synod mentioned by Your Holiness drew up
Acts against Photius . . . , but another synod was subsequently
held which reinstated Photius and abrogated the first synod. This
council, also called the Eighth, met under Pope John. It also dealt
with the question of addition to the Synod, deciding that nothing
should be added. . . . Since then the Acts of that council were
annulled, it is not these, but rather the Acts of the subsequent
council that should be looked for. The Cardinal, surprised by this
outburst, assured the Metropolitan that nothing should be read
from the Eighth Council. However, five days later, in the course of
the seventh session, the Archbishop of Rhodes, speaking in the
name of the Latins, attacked the Metropolitan of Ephesus in a very
passionate way. He maintained that Photius was an enemy of the
Roman 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 the
Eighth Council, I say that this seems very unlikely. It will not do to
come forward with any doubtful argument to prove the contrary,
that the synod did pass such a condemnation, for neither the Pope
nor his representative were present. Because the Latins had no
knowledge of such a synod, therefore, the council you mentioned
never took place.
19
In spite of this sharp encounter, the question of the number of
ecumenical synods was left open. The Greeks continued to count
only seven ecumenical councils and in the council's definitions
every reference to the Eighth Council was intentionally omitted. It
should be stressed that even the Greek Uniats did not accept the
Latin thesis concerning the Eighth Council. This is illustrated by
the attitude of the Greek Bishop Bartholomew Abraham of Crete.
Because the Latin text of the Acts of the Council of Florence was
lost, the Archbishop of Ravenna asked the Bishop of Crete to
translate 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
14 / 22
15 / 22
of the councils held in the West from the twelfth century on. His
work was reprinted several times and the Cardinal became a
leading authority on theological and conciliar matters. No wonder
that another editor of the Conciliar Acts, S. Bini (Cologne, 1606),
following Bellarmin, regarded the designation of the Council of
Florence as the Eighth, which had been retained, although with
some reserve, by his predecessor Surius, as spurious and
declared that the designation Sixteenth should be substituted
for Eighth. What hastened this new trend in conciliar matters
was the preoccupation of the canonists to assure the ecumenical
character to the Council of Trent (1545-1565), opposed and denied
by the Protestants. To achieve this it seemed necessary to add to
the old list of ecumenical councils also the Latin councils held in
the West. When Pope Paul V had ordered a new publication of the
Conciliar Acts, a special congregation was formed to direct the
preliminary work of the editors. Examining the differences
concerning the Council of Florence, the congregation decided in
its session of October 21, 1595, that the Council of Florence
should not be called the Eighth, but the Sixteenth Ecumenical
Counci1.
22 The way
for such a decision was prepared by Bellarmin and Bini. So it
happened that the
Collectio Romana
, the Roman edition of the Conciliar Acts, with the preface of I.
Simond (
Concilia Generalia
4 vols. Rome 1608-1612)
23
accepted Bellarmins numbering of the ecumenical councils and
their example was followed by all editors of Acts of the following
period up to the present time.
This decision is, of course, not a pronunciamento on dogmatic
matters. It was made rather for practical reasons and was based
16 / 22
17 / 22
18 / 22
19 / 22
20 / 22
21 / 22
Jo
22 / 22