|
But why, it will be asked, have so many councils contradicted each other? …Roman Catholics now believe only in councils approved by the Vatican; and the Greek Catholics believe only in those approved in Constantinople. Protestants deride them both. |
Voltaire (1694-1778), Philosophical Dictionary |
Mainstream Churches hold that ecumenical councils embody the true doctrine of the whole Church. Unfortunately they do not agree about which councils are ecumenical and therefore infallible. The Anglican Church usually recognises six :
- Nicæa (AD 325)
- Constantinople I (AD 381)
- Ephesus (AD 431)
- Chalcedon (AD 451)
- Constantinople II (AD 553)
- Constantinople III (AD 680-1)
The Eastern Churches recognise in addition a second Council of Nicæa held in 787. The Roman Church accepts these seven councils along with 14 of its own.
As with other sources of authority, there are big problems in determining validity. How can we know which councils were truly ecumenical and therefore infallible as all mainstream Churches believe? It cannot be a question of who calls the council, for it is not even clear who has the right to convoke a valid council. They have been convoked by all sorts of people. The most important one ever, Nicæa, was called by a Roman emperor. He sent out the invitations. Participants travelled under his orders, to his council, held at a place and time of his choosing. Later, at least in theory, it was the patriarchs* who acted together to convoke councils. This is rather an embarrassment to the Roman Church, which now claims that only the Pope may convoke such councils.
It cannot be a question of who attends. Valid councils have been held without the representation of all the patriarchs. The bishops of Rome played a small part in the councils listed above. In fact the First Ecumenical Council of Constantinople was convoked solely from the East. The Pope (Damasus I) was not even invited. No bishop of the Western Church was present at its meetings, even as an observer. Despite this, the Roman Church now holds that its own college of bishops may form an infallible ecumenical council (code of canon law 749.2).
It cannot be a question of whether or not the council was convened as an ecumenical council. The councils of Ariminum and Seleucia held in 359 were convoked as ecumenical councils, but their rulings on the deity of Christ failed to find universal acceptance. For this reason they ceased to be regarded as ecumenical. Often, grounds are found for disregarding inconvenient councils, and their rulings can then be ignored on the grounds that they were not ecumenical after all. This happened to a council held at Ephesus in 449. The Fourth Ecumenical Council ( Chalcedon) in 451 reversed almost all of the decisions made by the council at Ephesus. Now the council held at Ephesus is dismissed as an illegal sham and is called the Robber Council because of the level of intimidation, violence, duress and bribery used to secure its outcome. Yet in truth it was unremarkable compared with other councils in its level of intimidation, violence, duress and bribery. The previous council held in Ephesus in 431, for example, was at least as bad, yet it is still regarded as ecumenical. As so often, the forces that determined which councils prevailed were political. There is little doubt amongst historians that if the Emperor, Theodosius II, had not died in 450 then the Fourth Ecumenical Council, of Chalcedon, the following year would never have taken place, and the council held in Ephesus in 449 would have continued to be regarded as ecumenical.
It cannot be a question of universal acceptance. As we have seen the Protestant, Roman and Eastern Churches all disagree about which councils should be counted as ecumenical. And there are further difficulties with each of the six that they do all accept. Each of them was rejected by sizeable groups of Christians at the time it was held, in each case causing a schism.
Sometimes, infallible ecumenical councils contradicted previous infallible ecumenical councils in an attempt to heal a schism. For example the decrees of the Fourth Ecumenical Council, at Chalcedon (451), were amended by the Fifth Ecumenical Council at Constantinople (553), with the hope of reuniting the warring schismatic factions. Specifically, a document known as the Three Chapters was accepted in 451 but condemned in 553.
In summary there is no clear external criterion by which a council may be judged to be ecumenical or not. This fact is now accepted by at least some orthodox theologians*. As so often the practice is the opposite of the theory. Instead of doctrine being determined by valid councils, the validity of a council is determined by the subsequent popularity of its rulings. The assignment of authority is thus circular, and flexible, allowing each Church to make its own selection.
There is a further problem with the councils that are accepted as ecumenical and thus infallible. This is that their solemn statements and requirements are routinely ignored when they cease to suit changing fashions. Thus for example the Ecumenical Council of Nicæa prohibited kneeling on Sundays (canon 20). Other infallible councils prohibited the practice of bishops translating from one See to another, and dozens of other such practices that are now accepted without demur.
|
