The Eastern Orthodox Church recognizes seven ecumenical councils. The ecumenical councils formulated precise dogmatic definitions of the Christian Faith which are understood by the Orthodox Church to be inspired by God and infallible. They likewise formulated numerous canon laws which govern the life of the Orthodox Church. According to Mr. David Bercot, the assertions made by the Eastern Orthodox Church about the ecumenical councils are “glorified myths.”i Mr. Bercot is an author, church historian, and former Anglican priest. His special field of interest and study has been the early Church, particularly the Pre-Nicene Church. He has authored several books, notably A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, and recorded nearly seventy lectures, including “The Myth of the Seven Ecumenical Councils” (Scroll Publishing, 2002). Since Bercot speaks frequently on the subject of early Christianity, his message about the ecumenical councils will raise concerns to Orthodox Christians, and also to any potential converts to Orthodox Christianity. In the words of Bercot, “We can definitely say that the Seven Ecumenical Councils are a myth.”ii What is an Eastern Orthodox response?
 |
| Holy Fathers of the first six Ecumenical Councils |
First, the number of bishops in attendance at the ecumenical councils is problematic for Bercot. For instance, the Council of Constantinople I (381) was attended by only 150 bishops and, in Bercot's perspective, is the “paradigm example” of how the ecumenical councils have been “mythicized.” Similarly, the Council of Constantinople II (553) was only attended by 152 bishops. Although the Council of Chalcedon (451) was attended by 520 bishops or their representatives, being the largest of the seven ecumenical councils, Bercot protests that it was not ecumenical because not all the bishops of the Church attended. With such a high degree of scrutiny Bercot is forced to reject all the general councils because no ancient council ever included all the bishops of the Orthodox Church. Even at the Council of Nicaea (325), Pope Sylvester declined to come because of his old age, but he sent two representatives. In fact, none of the Popes of Rome were personally present at the seven ecumenical councils, but they sent papal legates instead.
To Orthodox Christians the number of bishops in attendance at a general council is in itself no proof of ecumenicity one way or the other. Perfect attendance of bishops does not make a council ecumenical, nor does the lack of attending bishops nullify an ecumenical council. In its two parts, the Arian Council of Ariminum-Seleucia (359) was attended by at least 560 bishops, more than the bishops in attendance at the first or second ecumenical councils, but it is not considered by the Orthodox Church as ecumenical. A general council large in attendance may later prove to be a “Council of Robbers”, such as the Council of Ephesus (449) with 170 bishops present. There is also the heretical Iconoclast Council of Constantinople (754), attended by 338 bishops, which was overturned by the Second Council of Nicaea (787). In the words of Bishop Kallistos Ware, “Church history shows that truth cannot be determined merely by counting heads” (“The Exercise of Authority in the Orthodox Church.” An Ecclesiastical and Theological Review of the Archbishopric of Thyateira and Great Britain, 3 [1982], 955).iii
Bercot also calls attention to the proceedings of the Council of Ephesus (431) being convened before the bishops from Antioch arrived. Nestorius was condemned by St. Cyril of Alexandria and by Bishop Memnon of Ephesus along with their groups of bishops. But Bishop John of Antioch, who arrived four days after the council began, did not accept the ruling. Bercot emphasizes that the decision of the council was not the decision of all the bishops of the Church. In this case, there's more to the story. Bishop John of Antioch later came to accept the condemnation of Nestorius, and both Alexandria and Antioch agreed to the Formula of Union. The Council of Ephesus in 431 (along with the Formula of Union two years later), subsequently became recognized as the Third Ecumenical Council. The Council of Chalcedon (451) affirmed St. Cyril's Second Letter to Nestorius as the valid interpretation of the Creed. So the initial absence of Antiochian bishops at the Council of Ephesus was no hinderance to ecumenicity when Antioch later consented to the council's decrees.
 |
| Emperor Constantine and the bishops of the First Council of Nicaea (325), holding the Niceno–Constantinopolitan Creed of 381 |
A second problem to ecumenicity for Bercot is the geographical representation at the ecumenical councils. For instance, he complains that most of the Church wasn't represented at the seventh ecumenical council. With the exception of the Council of Nicaea (325), he points out that the councils never represented the entire Christian world. But this is not a problem from an Orthodox standpoint. What is more important than a local church's participation in an ecumenical council is a local church's acceptance of a council as ecumenical. The acceptance of an ecumenical council as such by the local churches could be a long process influenced by many factors, but it was normally decided by local church councils. Similarly, various canons of local church councils were later accepted by the ecumenical councils. For example, canons from the early councils of Ancyra (314), Neocaesarea (315), Gangra (325-381), Antioch (314), and Laodicea (343-381) were formally accepted by later ecumenical councils.iv So the Orthodox concept of ecumenicity involves a back and forth process and interaction between local and general councils of the Church, regardless of having absolute geographical representation.
It is certainly important for the bishops in attendance at an ecumenical council to represent the broader Christian world and universal Church. Such representation distinguishes general councils from regional councils. For Orthodox Christians the ecumenical councils “received the title Oikoumenike Synodos, from oikoumenikos, meaning from all the inhabited earth–in actual fact, the land which belonged to Greco-Roman civilization” (Michael Pomazansky and Seraphim Rose, ed., Orthodox Dogmatic Theology [Platina, CA: Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood, 2005], 246).v However, it is not necessary that the entire catholic Church be represented at a council as a prerequisite for ecumenicity. The councils of Ariminum-Seleucia (359), and Ferrara-Florence (1438-1445) were just as representative of the Church as the seven ecumenical councils, yet neither one is regarded as genuinely ecumenical by the Orthodox Church.
In his lecture, Bercot defines “ecumenical” in the literal sense of the word that requires representation from every local church. But there is a more nuanced meaning within Orthodoxy. The holy fathers at the Council of Nicaea (325) did not refer to their synod as “ecumenical”, but rather “the great and holy Synod”v(i (The Synodal Letter, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Second Series, 14. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. 14 vols., [1890–1900; repr., Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994], 14.53). Archbishop Peter L'Huillier notes that “not until later did the term 'ecumenical council' receive specific acceptance by being exclusively applied to a very definite type of church assembly” (The Church of the Ancient Councils: The Disciplinary Work of the First Four Ecumenical Councils [Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir's Seminary Press, 1996], 19).vii Further, he states that an “ecumenical council” could designate “either a truly general council or a wider council than the episcopal assemblies of one diocese” (Ibid., 130).viii
In the early Church the term oikoumene “generally referred to the Byzantine empire,” says Bishop Hilarion Alfeyev, but churches outside of the Byzantine world did not usually participate in the Ecumenical Councils (“The Reception of the Ecumenical Councils in the Early Church.” St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 47:3-4 [2003], 414).ix Councils were also called “ecumenical” because bishops of the entire Roman Empire were invited by imperial orders, though not all local churches immediately accepted them as ecumenical. Therefore, “ecumenical”, according to Fr. John Meyendorff, has a specific meaning in the context of Church and Empire, or the Byzantine theory of Symphonia (“What is an Ecumenical Council?” St. Vladimir's Theological Quarterly, 17 [Nov 4, 1973], 266).x In the words of Fr. Georges Florovsky, “In a certain sense the General Councils as inaugurated at Nicea may be described as 'Imperial Councils,' . . . and this was probably the first and original meaning of the term 'Ecumenical' as applied to the Councils” (Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, 1 [Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972], 95).xi
Bercot takes the former criticism of ecumenicity a step even further by pointing out that the ecumenical councils were not accepted by the entire Christian world, including schismatics and heretics. Apparently he has a problem with excluding early Christian sects from the Orthodox Catholic Church. He challenges the ecumenicity of the councils based on the fact that the Novatianist bishop of Constantinople, Acesius, declined his invitation to the Council of Nicaea (325) from St. Constantine the emperor. He adds that schismatic groups of “believers” like the Donatists and Novatianists didn't accept the Council of Constantinople I (381). Why should schismatic groups be included in the conciliar councils and universal decrees of the Orthodox Church, from which communion they have previously separated themselves? Sadly Bercot validates the sectarians and heretics in his critique of the councils. In fact, in another lecture series called “Kingdom Christians Through the Ages”, Bercot promotes the Donatists, Novatianists, and Nestorians as movements that “stood against the world” since the time of Emperor Constantine when Christianity had “compromised with the world.”xii
Bercot notes that the Nestorians (whom he refers to as the Church of the East) didn't accept the decision of the Council of Ephesus (431). He also asks: How is the Council of Chalcedon (451) “ecumenical” if some patriarchs refused to accept it (he has in mind the Miaphysites, also known as the Orientals)? Appealing to an opposing church council, Bercot adds that the Council of Frankfurt (794) revoked the decrees of the Seventh Ecumenical Council regarding the veneration of icons. In cases such as these, it is plain that Bercot wishes to include the heretics within the Church, even after their doctrines were condemned by the ecumenical councils. The Arians, Apollinarians, Sabellianists, Nestorians, Miaphysites, Monophysites, Monothelites, and Iconoclasts did not accept the Orthodox dogmatic Christology of the ecumenical councils, and had subsequently fallen away from the Church because of their heresies. These communities can be reunited to the Orthodox Church only through acceptance of Orthodox Christology. But it is inconceivable for the Orthodox Church to impugn the councils' dogmatic definitions by including the heretical communities which reject them without repentance. Although Bercot agrees with the Nicene Creed and believes Arius was a heretic, he generally downplays the heresies condemned by the councils and criticizes the Church's dogmatic definitions as “going beyond the Scriptures.”
Following this train of thought to its logical conclusion, Bercot finally challenges ecumenicity on the basis that the entire present-day Christian world disagrees upon which ecumenical councils are accepted. That is to say, the Coptics, Armenians, and Orientals only recognizes three of the seven councils, and the Nestorians accept only two councils. In the West, the Roman Catholics claim 21 ecumenical councils (including the seven councils) and the Anglicans only acknowledge four of the seven councils. According to Bercot, the Eastern Orthodox Church falls by the same “circular reasoning” it uses to promote itself and the ecumenical councils. But, for that matter, all of the heterodox confessions could be charged by Bercot with the same “circular reasoning” because they all appeal to their own authority when it comes to their reception or rejection of any given council. Not only do the teachings of heterodox confessions ascribe to heresies which were condemned by the Orthodox Church at her ecumenical councils, but also there is no unity between themselves concerning which councils are truly ecumenical. Therefore, appealing to the heterodox confessions only further complicates ecumenicity of the councils.
It is understandable that in his criticism of the councils, Bercot, as a former Anglican and current Anabaptist, imports a heterodox or Protestant usage of the word “ecumenical” to include all of Christendom, rather than employing an Orthodox meaning of the word, as it is used in the context of the ecumenical councils. Though he doesn't explicitly say so, Bercot appears to promote the ecumenical “branch theory” (once popular among Anglicans), that the Church is divided into Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Protestant “branches.” Obviously this idea completely contradicts Orthodox ecclesiology, that the Body of Christ is the one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church, meaning that the Orthodox Church is undivided and not many bodies or churches. When referring to ecumenical councils and the ecumenical movement, the word “ecumenical” is used in entirely different ways, and Bercot, as a Protestant, defaults to the latter definition.
 |
| Second Council of Nicaea (787), the Seventh Ecumenical Council |
Yet another issue from Bercot's point of reference is the consciousness of ecumenicity at the time a general council was convened. The Council of Constantinople I (381) was not viewed as ecumenical until a century later, and is “hardly Ecumenical” in his estimation. He adds that the Iconoclast Council of Constantinople (754) viewed itself as ecumenical, but was later rejected by the Orthodox Church at the Second Council of Nicaea (787). Other councils were intended to be ecumenical and later repudiated, such as the Robber Council of Ephesus (449). The Orthodox Church has no problem acknowledging that some councils were immediately recognized as ecumenical, while the recognition of others was postponed.xiii
Overall, the reception or rejection of any given ecumenical council appears “arbitrary” to Bercot. He thinks there is little to nothing in the Seven Ecumenical Councils to distinguish them from other councils. By way of summary, Bercot argues that there were far more than seven ecumenical councils, and many of the rejected councils have all the same earmarks as those that are received by the Orthodox Church. Viewing the councils through Protestant glasses, Bercot has protested the ecumenicity of the councils on the basis of his own set of external criteria or conclusive formula. In the words of Fr. John Meyendorff, “The history of 'reception' or 'rejection' of other councils is well known to historians, but it remains an embarrassment to those theologians who seek clear-cut external criteria of the Church's infallibility” (“What is an Ecumenical Council?”, 266).xiv From an Orthodox standpoint, none of the external criteria of the councils, taken in isolation, is adequate to guarantee ecumenicity. According to Bishop Kallistos Ware, “there exists no criterion or set of criteria that will automatically ensure the ecumenicity of a council” (“The Exercise of Authority...”, 957).xv In this way Bercot's critical approach to ecumenicity, and the councils in general, is unwarranted when contrasted to Orthodox doctrine.
Notwithstanding, the ecumenical councils are not without distinguishing characteristics. According to St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite (1749-1809), there are four distinctive features: (1) It is convened by imperial orders; (2) A dogmatic definition should be rendered; (3) The dogmas must be in agreement with the Scriptures and previous ecumenical councils; and (4) It must have universal recognition of the catholic Church (The Rudder, tr. D. Cummings [Chicago, IL: Orthodox Educational Society, 1957], 155-156, 483-484).xvi The last distinguishing feature is critical. In other words, genuine ecumenicity, and thus infallibility, is based upon whether or not the council in question was subsequently recognized as ecumenical by the universal Orthodox Church, particularly the major patriarchates.
According to Bishop Ware and theologians of the Russian Orthodox tradition, this is the single decisive and retrospective “test of ecumenicity”: Has a particular council been accepted “by the general conscience of the Church?” (“The Exercise of Authority...”, 957).xvii Bishop Ware uses the analogy of a living body:
When healthy, a physical organism instinctively rejects from its system whatever is alien, while absorbing all that is life-giving. So it is with the Body of Christ: in the continuing life of the divine-human organism of the Church, error is continually rejected and truth is retained. How this will happen, we cannot determine in advance by juridical criteria; that it will happen, we know for certain from our Lord's own promise (John 16:13) (Ibid., 958).xviii
As the Body of Christ, “a spiritual organism”, the Orthodox Church has “a single spirit, a single common faith, a single and common catholic consciousness, guided by the Holy Spirit,” writes Fr. Michael Pomazansky. This catholic consciousness is forever with the Church and expressed in the ecumenical councils. When the Church was confronted with heresies or false councils, “the catholic consciousness of the Church was disturbed and was not pacified until authentic Christian truth was restored and confirmed by means of another council.”xix Fr. Seraphim Rose elaborates:
True councils–those which express Orthodox truth–are accepted by the Church's catholic consciousness; false councils–those which teach heresy or reject some aspect of the Church's Tradition–are rejected by the same catholic consciousness. The Orthodox Church is the Church not of “councils” as such, but only of the true councils, inspired by the Holy Spirit, which conform to the Church's catholic consciousness (in Pomazansky, Orthodox Dogmatic Theology, 41, n. 21).xx
As early heresies presented the Church with an urgent necessity to more precisely define the Faith in ecumenical councils, the heretical Gnostic documents prompted the early Church to delineate the New Testament canon in a similar process. What may prove helpful to David Bercot and his listeners is this important comparison between the ecumenicity of the Seven Ecumenical Councils and canonicity of the New Testament Scriptures. Both the canon and the councils belong to the Orthodox Church which preceded them both. Both the ecumenicity of the Councils and the canonicity of the Scriptures developed after a long process within the history of the early Church. Though the Gospels, Acts, Epistles, and Revelation were written within the first century, the process of their canonization was still not complete at the time of the First Council of Nicaea (325). It was St. Athanasius, a champion of orthodoxy at Nicaea, who first listed exactly the same 27 books that would formally become the New Testament canon. Ironically, the present canon was also first accepted and recognized in a church council, the Council of Rome (382), which took place under Pope Damasus I.
In a similar fashion to Bercot's lecture on the councils, a critic of New Testament canonicity could just as easily present a lecture entitled “The Myth of the Biblical Canon” with the same sort of arguments against authenticity. Comparisons could be made between the earliest biblical canons, emphasizing the differences between them.xxi Canonicity could be challenged by the fact that certain canonical epistles and books were sometimes disputed, while other uncanonical books were sometimes accepted in the early Church. Just as Bercot appealed to heretical councils to challenge ecumenicity, there exist canons from heretics, such as the canon of Marcion, and also Gnostic documents outside the boundaries of canonicity.xxii Because there is no biblical list for the New Testament to authenticate itself, its canonicity is impossible to establish without appealing to another infallible authority such as the Orthodox Church which assembled and “canonized” the 27 books of the New Testament at the councils of Rome (382), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397, 419). Both the New Testament canon and the ecumenical councils alike owe their authority to the Orthodox Church.
Thus, in the sixth century (prior to the Sixth and Seventh Councils), St. Gregory the Dialogist (c. 540-604) explained how he accepted both the Gospels and the Councils because of the universal agreement of the Church. In the following noteworthy quotation, St. Gregory gave expression to the mind of the Orthodox Church of his day:
I confess that I receive and revere, as the four books of the Gospel so also the four Councils. . . . The fifth council also I equally venerate. . . . But all persons whom the aforesaid venerable Councils repudiate I repudiate; those whom they venerate I embrace; since, they having been constituted by universal consent, he overthrows not them but himself, whosoever presumes either to loose those whom they bind, or to bind those whom they loose. Whosoever, therefore, thinks otherwise, let him be anathema. But whosoever holds the faith of the aforesaid synods, peace be to him from God the Father, through Jesus Christ His Son, Who lives and reigns consubstantially God with Him in the Unity of the Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen (Epistle 25, in NPNF-2, 12.81-82).xxiii
In the Orthodox Church, what makes a council ecumenical is not the number of bishops attending, not any requirement that every local church be represented in it, not a consciousness of ecumenicity at the time it is convened, but rather that it remain faithful to Orthodoxy, that its criterion is truth, and that it be universally recognized as such by the Orthodox Church, particularly the bishops of the major patriarchates. Like other Western scholars, Mr. Bercot has rejected the Seven Ecumenical Councils by applying his own criterion of ecumenicity. It comes down to a question of authority. But the dogmatic authority and ecumenicity of the Seven Councils is grounded in the infallibility of the Orthodox Church as the Body of Christ. Either there exists a single true Church with authority and infallibility in its ecumenical councils, or no Church at all. Bercot cannot accept the ecumenicity of the Seven Councils because he first rejects the legitimacy and authority of the Orthodox Church. The Lord promised that He will build His Church, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it (Matt. 16:18), and that the Spirit of truth will guide it into all truth (John 16:13). Like the New Testament canon, the Ecumenical Councils have the Orthodox Church as their source of authority. According to Scripture, the Church is “the pillar and ground of the Truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). Its ultimate authority, with the promised presence and guidance of the Holy Spirit throughout history, resolves Bercot's alleged mythologizing of the Seven Ecumenical Councils.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.