#creed of chalcedon

[wisdomfish]

The Creed of Chalcedon (A.D. 451)

We, then, following the holy Fathers, all with one consent, teach men to confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable (rational) soul and body; consubstantial (coessential) with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the Manhood; in all things like unto us, without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of the Virgin Mary, the Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably; the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather of the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one Person and one Subsistence, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son, and only begotten, God, the Word the Lord Jesus Christ; as the prophets from the beginning (have declared) concerning him, and the Lord Jesus Christ himself has taught us, and the Creed of the holy Fathers has handed down to us.

~ Chaldedon, Bib Sac, 138:552:326

[whencyclopedia]

Council of Chalcedon

The Council of Chalcedon was called in 451 CE by the Roman Emperor Marcian (r. 450-457) to settle debates regarding the nature (hypostases, "reality") of Christ that had begun at two earlier meetings in Ephesus (431 CE and 439 CE). The question was whether Christ was human or divine, a man who became God (through the resurrection and ascension) or God who became a man (through the incarnation, "taking on flesh"), and how his humanity and divinity affected his essence and being, if at all.

Shortly after Emperor Constantine's conversion to Christianity in 312 CE, an Alexandrian presbyter, Arius, applying logic, had simply taught that if God created everything in the universe, then at some point he must have created Christ. This caused debates and even riots throughout the cities of the Roman Empire. If Christ was a creature, then he was subordinate to God. Seeking empire-wide unity, Constantine I (r. 306-337 CE) called for a council meeting at Nicaea in 325 to settle the matter.

The First Council of Nicaea produced what became known as the concept of the Trinity. This concept expressed the belief that Christ was of the identical essence of God, who had manifested himself in the earthly Jesus of Nazareth. It produced the innovation of a creed that dictated what all Christians should believe. The Nicene Creed was now enforced by the legions of the Roman emperor, and Arianism was condemned as heresy. However, those who sided with Arius continued to incorporate his teachings in their communities. One of Constantine's sons, Constantius II (r. 337-361 CE), was an Arian Christian.

With the beginning of the barbarian invasions in this period, Christians were urged to be patriotic Christians, in line with the Imperial Church. However, the Antiochene and Alexandrian communities continued to debate which emperors had such authority (legitimacy), depending upon their views of continuing Arianism at their courts and other topics. The other problem was that the Council of Nicaea only addressed the relationship between God and Christ but said nothing about his nature.

Struggle Among the Sees

For several centuries, Christian bishops had competed with each other in relation to who had the authority to dictate beliefs and rituals for all Christians. The major sees (dioceses) of bishops were Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople, and Rome. The First Council of Constantinople in 381 elevated Rome above all others (as the site of martyrdom of Saint Peter and Paul the Apostle). Alexandria, which had several Christian schools of philosophy, saw this as an insult to their prestige. Antioch resented it because they claimed their community was the first to be called Christians (from Luke's Acts of the Apostles). Jerusalem was the most insulted, as this was the site of the trial and crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth and his resurrection. Thrown into this mix were three more heresies that ultimately required more imperial anathemas and dictates: Paulinism, Novatianism, and Nestorianism.

Continue reading...

[mybeautifulchristianjourney]

The reformers believed the creeds, wrote confessions and believed Sola Scriptura (along with reading the fathers).

"THE CREEDS OF FOUR COUNCILS RECEIVED. And, to say many things with a few words, with a sincere heart we believe, and freely confess with open mouth, whatever things are defined from the Holy Scriptures concerning the mystery of the incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ, and are summed up in the Creeds and decrees of the first four most excellent synods convened at Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon -- together with the Creed of blessed Athanasius [The so-called Athanasian Creed was not written by Athanasius but dates from the ninth century. It is also called the "Quicunque" from the opening word of the Latin text.], and all similar symbols; and we condemn everything contrary to these.

THE SECTS. And in this way we retain the Christian, orthodox and catholic faith whole and unimpaired; knowing that nothing is contained in the aforesaid symbols which is not agreeable to the Word of God, and does not altogether make for a sincere exposition of the faith."

From Second Helvetic confession 1566.

Source: The Protestant Reformation

[thepastisalreadywritten]

SAINT OF THE DAY (January 2)

St. Basil, one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church and Bishop of Caesarea, was likely born in 329 and died on 1 January 379.

He ranks after Athanasius as a defender of the Oriental Church against the heresies of the fourth century, especially Arianism, which denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ. 

He was a strong supporter of the Nicene Creed.

With his friend, Gregory of Nazianzus and his brother, Gregory of Nyssa, he is part of the trio known as "The Three Cappadocians," of which he was the most important in practical genius and theological writings.

Basil resisted the pressure from Emperor Valens, an Arian himself, who wanted to keep him in silence and admit the heretics to communion. 

No wonder, when the great St. Athanasius died, the responsibility of being the defender of the faith against Aryanism fell upon Basil.

Seventy-two years after his death, the Council of Chalcedon described him as “the great Basil, minister of grace who has expounded the truth to the whole earth.”

[pastorhogg]

This Day in Church History

The old church of St. Euphemia, sitting atop a hill in Chalcedon across the Bosphorus from Constantinople, hosted the fourth great council of the church in the fall of 451. The emperor called the bishops together to combat a series of heresies about the person of Christ and to formulate a creed that would unite Christianity. The nature of Christ was the chief theological question of the first…

[brookstonalmanac]

Events 10.22 (before 1920)

451 – The Chalcedonian Creed, regarding the divine and human nature of Jesus, is adopted by the Council of Chalcedon, an ecumenical council. 794 – Emperor Kanmu relocates the Japanese capital to Heian-kyō (now Kyoto). 906 – Ahmad ibn Kayghalagh leads a raid against the Byzantine Empire, taking 4,000–5,000 captives. 1383 – The male line of the Portuguese House of Burgundy becomes extinct with the death of King Fernando, leaving only his daughter Beatrice. Rival claimants begin a period of civil war and disorder. 1633 – The Ming dynasty defeats the Dutch East India Company. 1707 – Four British naval vessels run aground on the Isles of Scilly because of faulty navigation. In response, the first Longitude Act is enacted in 1714. 1721 – The Russian Empire is proclaimed by Tsar Peter I after the Swedish defeat in the Great Northern War. 1730 – Construction of the Ladoga Canal is completed. 1739 – The War of Jenkins' Ear begins with the first attack on La Guaira. 1746 – The College of New Jersey (later renamed Princeton University) receives its charter 1777 – American Revolutionary War: American defenders of Fort Mercer on the Delaware River repulse repeated Hessian attacks in the Battle of Red Bank. 1784 – Russia founds a colony on Kodiak Island, Alaska. 1790 – Northwest Indian War: Native American forces defeat the United States, ending the Harmar Campaign. 1797 – André-Jacques Garnerin makes the first recorded parachute jump, from 1,000 metres (3,300 ft) above Paris. 1836 – Sam Houston is inaugurated as the first President of the Republic of Texas. 1844 – The Millerites (followers of Baptist preacher William Miller) anticipate the end of the world in conjunction with the Second Advent of Christ. The following day becomes known as the Great Disappointment. 1859 – Spain declares war on Morocco. 1866 – A plebiscite ratifies the annexation of Veneto and Mantua to Italy, which had occurred three days before on October 19. 1875 – The first telegraphic connection in Argentina becomes operational. 1877 – The Blantyre mining disaster in Scotland kills 207 miners. 1878 – The Bramall Lane stadium sees the first rugby match played under floodlights. 1879 – Using a filament of carbonized thread, Thomas Edison tests the first practical electric incandescent light bulb (lasting 131⁄2 hours before burning out). 1883 – The Metropolitan Opera House in New York City opens with a performance of Gounod's Faust. 1884 – The International Meridian Conference designates the Royal Observatory, Greenwich as the world's prime meridian. 1895 – In Paris an express train derails after overrunning the buffer stop, crossing almost 30 metres (100 ft) of concourse before crashing through a wall and falling 10 metres (33 ft) to the road below. 1907 – A run on the stock of the Knickerbocker Trust Company sets events in motion that will spark the Panic of 1907. 1910 – Hawley Harvey Crippen (the first felon to be arrested with the help of radio) is convicted of poisoning his wife.

[aria-i-adagio]

Because apparently it needs to be said: Christianity is no more a monolith than any other religion.

The difference between the Roman Catholic Church and the Southern Baptist Convention are stark, and arguably irreconcilable, at the finer levels of theology. That's just one example of two "Christianities" that really the same religion in name only.

There are multiple ways in which the crucifixion/salvation are understood, most of which are *not* 'put your hand on the television and say this prayer with me for a get out of jail free card.' Often there's more than one at play at any given time, but different branches of Christianity tend to emphasize different ones.

Original sin/the Fall doesn't mean the same thing in Eastern Christianity theology as it does Western Christianity.

Universal salvation has been considered at least a possibility since the 3rd century. Christianity can and does exist without the concept of a literal hell.

Calvin's idea of the elect? Yeah... It's a big deal, but it's not a pan Christian belief.

Nicene Creed? Plenty of Protestants reject it. And let's not even get started on the Council of Chalcedon.

Which books are in the Bible? Varies. Status of non canonical texts? Depends on who you ask. Calculation of the date of Easter/Pascha? Lol.

Christianity, writ large, and various Christianities have a hell of a lot to be critiqued for and to answer for in their history and theology, but it is not accurate, fair, or informed to base a critique of all of Christianity on Franklin Graham or Joel Olsteen. Trust me, you can find plenty to be critiqued in any variety of Christianity you care to. It just won't always be the same thing, and it is disingenuous to pretend that is the case.

(I will personally harangue any american christians who claim to be oppressed because of their religion. They aren't. Full stop.)

[warsofasoiaf]

Given the sheer size of Westeros, shouldn't there be denominations of the Faith of the Seven, and fights over doctrinal disputes?

Yes, this is something that I and several of my friends have remarked upon. There definitely should be schisms and other doctrinal differences that the Faith would need to agree upon. If we look at early Church history, much of the faith and its interpretation depended on prominent church leaders, Arius of Alexandria being one of the most notable. There would also need to be ecumenical councils or their equivalent to clarify and codify doctrine. The hypostatic union of Christianity was not established in the early church doctrine, that didn’t happen until the Church of Chalcedon. In order to combat Arianism which had spread amongst the Germanic population, the Pope added the Filioque clause to the Nicene Creed, which is a theological rift between the Western Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

These sorts of theological discussions should have been among Faith history. The Seven-As-One has all the hallmarks of a sacred mystery, and like many early Christian heresies, different septons would likely try to reason out and rationalize the conception of the Seven. Different arguments could include that there is one divine force which manifests as seven manifestations of the same force. Another might claim that the Seven are separate beings, a pantheon, and that the one is their unity of purpose. Others might go a little more esoteric, and state that the Seven are both Seven and One in a way that is indescribable to mere mortals. Even others might say that the fact that there can be overlap, such as how Catelyn points out that the Mother can be fierce when protecting her young, even though martial prowess is the purview of the Warrior, that the Seven blend into each other in a way that makes them both separate and the same, and that the true miracle of the Seven-As-One is that they can become one while remaining separate, a divine impossibility that cannot be replicated in the mortal world.

This would not merely discussion over theology. Different major septs would argue over primacy and being the capital of the religion. For example, the Filioque controversy not only deals with matters of theology, but in the power of the Bishop of Rome (the Pope) versus the power of the autocephalous heads of the Eastern Orthodox Church. While both churches agree that there is such a thing as papal primacy, they disagree with what it means. The Eastern Orthodox position states that papal primacy is largely an honorific stemming from the dignity and respect that Saint Peter deserves as Rome was his seat. The Roman Catholic position states the papal position can exercise supreme authority over the entire body of the Church. 

This political dispute would have easily found its way into the Faith of the Seven, with different septs claiming primacy by virtue of their position. I’ve speculated that were it to be the case, the Vale would demand supremacy by virtue of being where the Andals first arrived in Westeros as the Andal “promised land” and in recognition of the Seven bringing the Andals safely to the continent. Oldtown would probably boast that they are the center of the faith because they are in the largest city and the faith belongs in the center of the faithful. Lannisport would almost certainly want to get in on that action as well, since they’d be the richest sept, they’d probably advance an argument that states that the capital of the faith should be in the area where the most good works are done, and that would be at the sept with the resources to do it.

You’d also expect some level of syncretism with the Old Gods and the Mother Rhoyne religion, and a lot of conflicts that could erupt over that. Hardliners would denounce any innovation as heresy, and depict previous religious practices as barbaric and wicked. The Old Gods might be depicted as bloodthirsty, and its practitioners accused of truly vile things such as sacrificing babies. Among more moderate voices, particularly those where the Andals intermarried instead of simply conquering, practices and holidays would easily be co-opted by the Faith and used to help increase conversion. Hence you might see in certain areas that godswoods might be a place of quiet, so that the Seven could better hear the prayers of the faithful. 

Culture and artwork would also change the depictions of the Seven. Depending on the regional fashions, you’d see the Seven’s statues to share similarities with the people, in facial features, in clothing, etc. In the Stormlands, where archery often lead to victory over the Reach’s knights, you might see the Warrior depicted with a sword in hand but a bow strung over his shoulder and mace on the baldric to emphasize martial flexibility and dominance, whereas in the Reach he may be depicted ahorse with lance and pennant to depict the famous chivalry of the Reach. Dornish depictions of the Mother might carry a ewer which draws a parallel between the life-giving nature of water in a desert and the life-giving act of bearing a child.

So yeah, I think there should be.

Thanks for the question, Anon

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[eternal-echoes]

Catechism of the Catholic Church

III. TRUE GOD AND TRUE MAN

464 The unique and altogether singular event of the Incarnation of the Son of God does not mean that Jesus Christ is part God and part man, nor does it imply that he is the result of a confused mixture of the divine and the human. He became truly man while remaining truly God. Jesus Christ is true God and true man. During the first centuries, the Church had to defend and clarify this truth of faith against the heresies that falsified it.

465 The first heresies denied not so much Christ's divinity as his true humanity (Gnostic Docetism). From apostolic times the Christian faith has insisted on the true incarnation of God's Son "come in the flesh".87 But already in the third century, the Church in a council at Antioch had to affirm against Paul of Samosata that Jesus Christ is Son of God by nature and not by adoption. the first ecumenical council of Nicaea in 325 confessed in its Creed that the Son of God is "begotten, not made, of the same substance (homoousios) as the Father", and condemned Arius, who had affirmed that the Son of God "came to be from things that were not" and that he was "from another substance" than that of the Father.88

466 The Nestorian heresy regarded Christ as a human person joined to the divine person of God's Son. Opposing this heresy, St. Cyril of Alexandria and the third ecumenical council, at Ephesus in 431, confessed "that the Word, uniting to himself in his person the flesh animated by a rational soul, became man."89 Christ's humanity has no other subject than the divine person of the Son of God, who assumed it and made it his own, from his conception. For this reason the Council of Ephesus proclaimed in 431 that Mary truly became the Mother of God by the human conception of the Son of God in her womb: "Mother of God, not that the nature of the Word or his divinity received the beginning of its existence from the holy Virgin, but that, since the holy body, animated by a rational soul, which the Word of God united to himself according to the hypostasis, was born from her, the Word is said to be born according to the flesh."90

467 The Monophysites affirmed that the human nature had ceased to exist as such in Christ when the divine person of God's Son assumed it. Faced with this heresy, the fourth ecumenical council, at Chalcedon in 451, confessed: Following the holy Fathers, we unanimously teach and confess one and the same Son, our Lord Jesus Christ: the same perfect in divinity and perfect in humanity, the same truly God and truly man, composed of rational soul and body; consubstantial with the Father as to his divinity and consubstantial with us as to his humanity; "like us in all things but sin". He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God.91

We confess that one and the same Christ, Lord, and only-begotten Son, is to be acknowledged in two natures without confusion, change, division or separation. the distinction between the natures was never abolished by their union, but rather the character proper to each of the two natures was preserved as they came together in one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis.92

468 After the Council of Chalcedon, some made of Christ's human nature a kind of personal subject. Against them, the fifth ecumenical council, at Constantinople in 553, confessed that "there is but one hypostasis [or person], which is our Lord Jesus Christ, one of the Trinity."93 Thus everything in Christ's human nature is to be attributed to his divine person as its proper subject, not only his miracles but also his sufferings and even his death: "He who was crucified in the flesh, our Lord Jesus Christ, is true God, Lord of glory, and one of the Holy Trinity."94

469 The Church thus confesses that Jesus is inseparably true God and true man. He is truly the Son of God who, without ceasing to be God and Lord, became a man and our brother: "What he was, he remained and what he was not, he assumed", sings the Roman Liturgy.95 and the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom proclaims and sings: "O only-begotten Son and Word of God, immortal being, you who deigned for our salvation to become incarnate of the holy Mother of God and ever-virgin Mary, you who without change became man and were crucified, O Christ our God, you who by your death have crushed death, you who are one of the Holy Trinity, glorified with the Father and the Holy Spirit, save us!"96

[buggie-hagen]

The church will continue to use the Creed of Chalcedon in this process of testing, rejecting every view that tears God and human existence apart in the person of Jesus Christ and every view that separates the salvation of humankind from the person of Christ.

Carl E. Braaten, Christian Dogmatics, vol. 1, 514.

[malkaviansyndromes]

@grunfeld-bach

The Catholic Church, sometimes referred to as the Roman Catholic Church, is the largest Christian church, with approximately 1.3 billion baptised Catholics worldwide as of 2018.[4] As the world's oldest and largest continuously functioning international institution,[7] it has played a prominent role in the history and development of Western civilization.[8] The church is headed by the Bishop of Rome, known as the pope. Its central administration is the Holy See.

The Christian beliefs of Catholicism are based the Nicene Creed. The Catholic Church teaches that it is the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic church founded by Jesus Christ in his Great Commission,[9][10][note 1] that its bishops are the successors of Christ's apostles, and that the pope is the successor to Saint Peter upon whom primacy was conferred by Jesus Christ.[13] It maintains that it practises the original Christian faith, reserving infallibility, passed down by sacred tradition.[14] The Latin Church, the twenty-three Eastern Catholic Churches, and institutes such as mendicant orders, enclosed monastic orders and third orders reflect a variety of theological and spiritual emphases in the church.[15][16]

Of its seven sacraments the Eucharist is the principal one, celebrated liturgically in the Mass.[17] The church teaches that through consecration by a priest the sacrificial bread and wine become the body and blood of Christ. The Virgin Mary is venerated in the Catholic Church as Mother of God and Queen of Heaven, honoured in dogmas and devotions.[18] Its teaching includes Divine Mercy, sanctification through faith and evangelization of the Gospel as well as Catholic social teaching, which emphasises voluntary support for the sick, the poor, and the afflicted through the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. The Catholic Church is the largest non-government provider of education and health care in the world.[19]

The Catholic Church has influenced Western philosophy, culture, art, and science. Catholics live all over the world through missions, diaspora, and conversions. Since the 20th century the majority reside in the southern hemisphere due to secularization in Europe, and increased persecution in the Middle East.

The Catholic Church shared communion with the Eastern Orthodox Church until the East–West Schism in 1054, disputing particularly the authority of the pope. Before the Council of Ephesus in AD 431 the Church of the East also shared in this communion, as did the Oriental Orthodox churches before the Council of Chalcedon in AD 451, all separating primarily over differences in Christology. In the 16th century, the Reformation led to Protestantism also breaking away.

From the late 20th century the Catholic Church has been criticized for its teachings on sexuality, its absence of female priests, and its handling of sexual abuse cases involving clergy.

Contents

1Name

2Organization

[wisdomfish]

The Creed of Chalcedon set forth the normative theological standard concerning the two natures of Jesus Christ (divine and human), thus rejecting various christological heresies (such as Monophysitism, the doctrine that there is only one nature in Christ, a belief still held by the Coptic Church).

Samples, Kenneth Richard. ‘Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions. p. 55

[whencyclopedia]

The Growth of Christianity in the Roman Empire

A map illustrating the rise and spread of Christianity from a small, unorganized sect in the Roman province of Judea, across the urban centers and rural areas of the Empire, through Constantine the Great's 325 Council of Nicaea (which codified the Nicene Creed as set formal beliefs) and the 380 Edict of Thessalonica under Theodosius I (when Christianity officially became a state religion) until the 451 Council of Chalcedon when debates about the human and divine nature of Jesus consumed the early Church. The map also depicts the spread of some of the significant heresies of that era - Arian Ascendancy, Nestorianism, and Monophysitism.

[thepastisalreadywritten]

SAINT OF THE DAY (January 2)

St. Basil was one of the most distinguished Doctors of the Church and Bishop of Caesarea.

He was born into the wealthy Cappadocian Greek family of Basil the Elder and Emmelia of Caesarea in Cappadocia around 330.

He was one of ten children, and his parents were known for their piety.

He ranks after Athanasius as a defender of the Oriental Church against the heresies of the fourth century, especially Arianism, which denied the divine nature of Jesus Christ. 

He was a strong supporter of the Nicene Creed.

With his friend Gregory of Nazianzus and his brother Gregory of Nyssa, he was part of the trio known as "The Three Cappadocians."

Basil resisted the pressure from Emperor Valens, an Arian himself, who wanted to keep him in silence and admit the heretics to communion. 

When the great St. Athanasius died, the responsibility of being the defender of the faith against Aryanism fell upon Basil.

Historians disagree about the exact date of Basil's death, which was either 1 or 2 January 379.

Basil was tireless in pastoral care. He preached twice a day to huge crowds, built a hospital that was called a wonder of the world—as a youth he had organized famine relief and worked in a soup kitchen himself—and fought the prostitution business.

Basil was also best known as an orator. Though not recognized greatly in his lifetime, his writings rightly place him among the great teachers of the Church.

Seventy-two years after his death, the Council of Chalcedon described him as “the great Basil, minister of grace who has expounded the truth to the whole earth.”

NOTE:

Nicene Creed, also called Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, a Christian statement of faith that is the only ecumenical creed because it is accepted as authoritative by the Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, and major Protestant churches.

[kabane52]

What is an Ecumenical Council?

In response to a common question: what is the Orthodox theology of Ecumenical Councils? How do Orthodox Christians identify authentic Ecumenical Councils? And in this light, how does the Orthodox Church reject the unionist councils of II Lyons and Florence, which established communion with Rome and dogmatically taught the Filioque? 

The most common answer today is that of corporate, universal reception: we identify a Council as authentically ecumenical and infallible when it is received as such by the whole church- bishops and laypeople alike.

This idea ecumenical councils has become popular, but it has problems. But we need to recognize before we address those problems that the Roman Catholic notion of an ecumenical council and its relationship to defined dogma is deeply flawed. 

The way that RC apologists typically frame the question is as follows:

“An Ecumenical Council is an act of the extraordinary magisterium of the Church, and as such is subject to a specific promise of infallibility through the Holy Spirit. In order for it to function as such in the life of the Church, there must be specific canonical standards by which a person can identify ecumenical councils- standards independent of the doctrine taught, for if its legitimacy turns on its doctrinal accuracy, it cannot succeed in its purpose of resolving doubt about a particular doctrine.” 

Consequently, an ecumenical council is thought to be able to actually define something as dogma which had previously been an acceptable theologumenon only. Before Vatican I, you could be a Roman Catholic in good standing and reject the idea of papal infallibility. Afterwards, you would be a heretic. James Likoudis, an RC apologist, actually told me that before the Nicene definition Arian Christology was an acceptable, though problematic, theologumenon. You do not find this in the undivided Church. St. Cyril issued his Twelve Anathemas before the Council of Ephesus. Eutychianism was a heresy and recognized as such before the definitions of Chalcedon. Maximus declared that he would have no communion with monothelites because they were heretics. And this was before the Sixth Council defined monothelitism as heresy. So clearly, a doctrine’s dogmatic identity is not actually created by the decree of an Ecumenical Council. The Council does not exist to make one theologumenon a dogma and another theologumenon a heresy. 

That’s point one. Point two is an historical point. The fundamental question is not what kind of Church one personally would have founded if one was Christ. The question is what kind of Church Christ actually founded. So all of the arguments about the “need” for a specified canonical standard independent of the defined doctrines need to be tossed out the window. Orthodox and RCs both claim authenticity on the basis of continuity with the undivided Church of East and West during the first thousand years. It does not matter how precise the RC idea of an EC is defined. If it is contradicted by the actual Councils of those first thousand years, it’s worthless. So let’s consider the following facts in light of the idea that papal ratification is the necessary and sufficient condition for a Council to be authoritative:

-The Second Ecumenical Council was not received in the Western Church until Chalcedon. It was presided over by Patriarch St. Meletius of Antioch who was out of communion with the Church of Rome who preferred Paulinus as patriarch. -The Fifth Ecumenical Council rendered a definitive negative judgment on Pope Vigilius of Rome, declaring that the “only way in which truth can be made manifest” is through collegial communion, not primatial authority alone.

-The 649 Lateran Synod was convoked by the Pope to be an ecumenical council- and it was confirmed by the Bishop of Rome as such. Yet it is not an ecumenical council either in Rome’s listing or our own. This is a direct falsification of the RC view.

-The Seventh Ecumenical Council was regarded by Pope Hadrian as a major and authentic Local Synod of the Church of Constantinople, but not an Ecumenical Synod. Even a century afterwards, during the papacy of Nicholas I, the Seventh Council was not received as an ecumenical council. If papal ratification is that which is necessary to identify the true Ecumenical Councils, why did the Church refer to it as authoritative before its ultimate confirmation in the Church of Rome?

-The Fourth Council of Constantinople which condemned the Filioque, affirmed the 381 Creed as the single and definitive Creed binding the whole Catholic Church into unity of faith, and rehabilitated St. Photios of Constantinople- overturning the Synod which had condemned him ten years earlier- was confirmed as authoritative by Pope John VIII of Rome and commemorated as such for the next two centuries. In the eleventh century, the Gregorian reformers erased it from history and retroactively confirmed the earlier IV Constantinople as ecumenical. So if the popes confirm two councils diametrically opposed to each other, to which do we look?

The RC view fails completely to pass the bar of history. However elegant one thinks it might be, it is not the teaching of the one Church of Christ which bound together the East and the West. Let’s consider some additional facts from the Middle Ages which raise serious questions about the coherence of the RC view:

-The Council of Constance is commemorated as an ecumenical council and was convoked by the civil authority to resolve the great Western schism with three competing lines of popes. It defined the supreme authority of the Ecumenical Council over the popes, confirming the longstanding canonical constitution of the Latin Church which the Gregorian reformers had been unable to eradicate completely. That the pope was authoritative except in the case of heresy or an attempt to violate the legislation of the Church actually remained in Latin canon law until 1917 which struck this qualification from the canon that “the first See is judged by no one.” The Council of Constance resolved the schism by deposing two popes, convincing the third to resign, and electing Martin V. Its teaching was a major school of ecclesiological thought in the West, especially but not only in the Gallican Church, until it was stamped out by Pius IX in 1870.

Martin V who confirmed the Council- obviously, as he depended on it for authority- could not condemn Haec Sancta (the dogmatic constitution on the supremacy of the general council) without compromising his own legitimacy, according to historian Francis Oakley. The reinvention of history was pushed by Eugene IV who condemned it. This is one reason why Florence failed- Eugene IV was trying to take advantage of the Eastern Church to increase the prestige of the papacy against the conciliarists, who remained a major force in RC ecclesiological doctrine. He promulgated a bull by which it was condemned. 

-At the Council of Trent, many of the bishops and the entire French Church rejected the authority of the Council of Florence. Trent did not define the authority of the pope because of the persistence of the traditional teaching. 

-The traditional right of appeal from the pope to a general council was only rejected after the Council of Constance sanctioned it, and yet the canon which absolves one from allegiance to the pope if he is a heretic remained on the books for centuries- such presumes that there is a legal capacity for someone other than the pope to judge him.

So the RC view not only fails the bar of the history of the undivided Church, but the bar of its own medieval tradition! For a principle supposed to provide clarity on the list of authoritative councils, it produced remarkably little clarity, with the “official” list of 21 Ecumenical Councils produced in the relatively recent past- and given Paul VI’s openness to relabeling the post-schism councils as local Western councils, it still remains something of an open question.

--

Let’s turn, finally, to the question of what makes an Ecumenical Council. The Sixth Session of II Nicea discussed this against the 754 robber Synod of Hieria. The Council Fathers recalled that representation was not provided to many of the major Sees, including the Apostolic See of Rome AND the patriarchal Sees of the East. So we aren’t dealing with pure receptionism here in terms of a vague notion of the whole body of faithful. We’re dealing with the ratification of specific particular Churches of longstanding prestige and authority in the canonical tradition. The locus of authority in the Church is, of course, the Spirit of Christ who makes Him present, and the locus of the Spirit is in the Eucharistic Liturgy wherein He makes Christ perfectly present in the Eucharist. The Liturgy is the event wherein a particular community of faithful, gathered around the bishop in apostolic succession, realizes the entirety of the Church Catholic in a particular locale. In the liturgy, by the Spirit, we mystically gather into one the whole universal Church, including the saints of the heavenly court. 

We see in 1 Corinthians 5 and 11 that the authority of the church to render judgments is linked closely with the liturgy, as per the Apostle’s allusion to Jesus’ words in Matthew 16 and 18. The Church is “assembled in the Name of the Lord Jesus” and the Lord taught that “where two or three are gathered in my Name” He is present. He declared likewise that the authority of the keys is linked with this gathered presence, for “if two of you agree on earth about anything” the Father in Heaven will grant it. Bind on earth, bind in heaven. The Fifth Ecumenical Council cites this very text against the unilateral attempt of Pope Vigilius to act against the Council.

This mystical gathering of the whole heavenly court is rooted in the liturgy of the old covenant. When Isaiah enters the Temple, he beholds the Heavenly Court in session under the presidency of the preincarnate Word. Much more could be said about the theology of apostolic succession in light of the biblical teaching on the Heavenly Council- and indeed, the idea of the Communion of Saints is rooted and grounded in this doctrine. But I simply want to note that the conciliar gathering of bishops, whether in local or ecumenical synods, is a manifestation of the heavenly council as focused in the Divine Liturgy and as realized in the Church’s conciliar life. 

This is why there are Synods of Bishops. The Bishops are the ones who preside by divine right at the Divine Liturgy where the Heavenly Throne-Room is made present. We find in Isaiah 24-25 that the Messianic Supper of the Eucharist is linked to the idea of the Divine Council, as also in Exodus 24. And indeed, Jesus Christ at the Table of the Last Supper refers to the apostolic thrones of the Kingdom in this context. In sum, this is the principle: The Spirit’s authority as the definitive witness to the Son is focused in the Liturgy- where the Holy Eucharist realizes the communion of particular Churches. The bishops commemorate their primate, the primate commemorates his synod. This liturgical and eucharistic communion is the basis for the conciliar life of the Church, so that the presence and authority of the Holy Spirit becomes operative therein. We find this in the Acts of the Apostles. The Holy Spirit falls upon Jews from every nation in Acts 2 as well as Gentiles in Acts 10. This church is defined by the obedience to the Apostles’ teaching and the Eucharistic “Breaking of Bread.” Even the two root words of “catholic” makes an appearance in Acts 9, referring to the gathering of the church into one from the ends of the earth. 

And so what do we find? The Synod of Jerusalem is firmly established upon this theology. The Apostles are gathered into one at the very site of Pentecost. The issues is the standards by which Jews and Gentiles exist in the communion of the one Church. The Apostles, thus gathered together into one, manifest the authority of the Spirit made present: “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us.” Thereafter, we have the first recorded canonical legislation in the three canons of the Apostolic Synod. In the life of the universal Church, then, the canonical constitution develops through synods of bishops, gathered by the Eucharist and operative in the authority of the Holy Spirit. It is these synods which establish the legal basis for the Church’s common life. That is why Pope St. Victor of Rome called for the convokation of synods throughout the Church to establish one common date for Great and Holy Pascha. Each Eucharist, through which the Church is gathered into one, is an image of Pascha (The Paschal Liturgy is the Eucharistic Service proper, the Sunday after Pascha consecrates all Sundays of the year into miniature paschal services) and the gathering into one occurs through liturgical worship (compare 1 Corinthians 5 which refers to the paschal lamb in the context of the authoritative nature of the Church). As such, it is proper for the churches to worship according to a common pattern of time. 

The supreme authority of the Church is the Ecumenical Synod. It is the Ecumenical Synod which embodies most perfectly the eucharistic gathering-into-one which occurs in each particular Church. The Dicache records the prayer of the bishop that the bread which had been scattered across the world might be gathered into one Eucharist, signifying the gathering-into-one of the Church. The gathering together of all nations into one family is described in Isaiah 2 and Isaiah 24-25, at Zion, through the Messianic Supper of the Lamb in God’s presence. The Ecumenical Council is an instance where all the churches of Christ visibly gather into a single place through the bishops who sum up and are interior to their local Churches, per the maxim of St. Cyprian: “The Church is in the Bishop and the Bishop is in the Church.

The Ecumenical Synod therefore is a special instance of the Spirit’s charismatic authority focused on the Liturgy being made present visibly. Its canonical legislation binds the universal Church together by a common pattern of life and process for healing ruptures in communion. The pope of Rome may not revoke this legislation by his own authority, as was recognized in the Western Church well into the Middle Ages. The Gallican Church powerfully objected to Gregory VII’s uncanonical interventions into their local affairs.

So how do we know when a Council is Ecumenical? The reception of “the people”? Not quite. The reception which happens occurs in a formal manner through the bishops holding primatial authority and gathering together the churches in their region into a single communion. Just as there are diptychs of the major primatial sees which commemorate each other in their Liturgy (the visible signification of the universal Church), so also the professions made by the bishops of the major Sees in their installation includes a formal oath of allegiance to the specific Ecumenical Councils which give the Church in its Communion its pattern of life. That is the visible sign of the communion.

Does this process take time? No doubt. There’s no “insta-council” tool. But so many Roman Catholic arguments implicitly assume that the Spirit does not actually guide history and preserve the Church. The pope is needed to be the final authority ensuring definitively that every bishop professes the same thing. Supposedly, without the pope, all the bishops would just be able to go their own way. But this is just not true- the Holy Spirit is real, and really works in history to create the communion which Christ gave as gift to the Church. It is the Holy Spirit who works to make manifest the common life of the Church in the patriarchal oaths of allegiance to the Holy Synods. 

So the short answer here is this: an Ecumenical Council is known as such through its being recognized by the bishops of the major Sees (who hold primatial authority in their region) as the pattern of life to which they are bound to conform. Even though the Second and Seventh Councils were not received by the Popes for some time, the Popes of Rome firmly professed their Apostolic orthodoxy. 

Contrast this with II Lyons and Florence. II Lyons lacked representation from most of the churches in the Orthodox communion. Florence’s decrees lacked the participation of the first hierarch of the Church, as Ecumenical Patriarch Joseph had died. By the canonical standards, St. Mark of Ephesus and most of the other hierarchs could not legally proclaim union until an Ecumenical Patriarch was elected. Moreover, the Councils provide a pattern of common life, but their authority is manifested in a sacramental, liturgical context wherein the Bishops pledge allegiance to their teaching in consecration, installation, and the sacramental commemoration of the other Sees professing this in common. After Florence, the Orthodox representatives did not partake of the chalice at Pope Eugene IV’s Mass. They stopped at Venice and celebrated the Divine Liturgy- without the commemoration of Eugene IV. Upon their return home, most of them immediately renounced the union- most of the local Churches therefore never commemorated Rome and the Council. Indeed, not even the Church of Constantinople did so until the Emperor received angry letters from the Pope, at which point a very small unionist sect arose in the city and took over the Church of Hagia Sophia until the city fell.