How Does the Orthodox Church Know Which Councils Are Ecumenical?

The Orthodox Church confesses the faith of seven Ecumenical Councils, from Nicaea in 325 to the second Council of Nicaea in 787. Their creed is sung at every Divine Liturgy, and their definitions about Christ and the Trinity bind every Orthodox Christian. Yet the Church held many other large councils in those centuries, and some of them also called themselves "holy," "great" and "ecumenical." Several were summoned by emperors, just as the accepted councils were, and one had nearly as many bishops as the council that condemned it.

So Catholics, Protestants and skeptics ask a fair question: how does the Orthodox Church know which councils are ecumenical? The usual short answer is that the Church receives true councils and rejects false ones. That is accurate, but alone it can sound like a slogan that wins by definition, since whatever the Church accepted was ecumenical and the Church is whoever accepted it.

In brief

No council became ecumenical simply because an emperor summoned it, because many bishops attended, or because it gave itself the title. Councils with all of those features were later rejected: Rimini and Seleucia in 359, the second Council of Ephesus in 449, which Pope Leo called a meeting "not of judges but of robbers," and the iconoclast council of Hieria in 754, which styled itself the "Seventh" ecumenical synod. Recognition of true councils was gradual. Nicaea took more than fifty years to prevail, and the second Council of Nicaea was rejected by a Frankish synod before the West received it. When Nicaea II refuted Hieria, it named its tests: agreement with the earlier councils and tradition, the assent of the leading churches, and a teaching that went out to the whole Church. Orthodox writers add that the whole body of the faithful guards the faith. These are not a legal checklist, and Georges Florovsky admits the risk of circularity. Some questions remain open within Orthodoxy, including the status of the council of 879-880 and of the fourteenth-century councils that vindicated St. Gregory Palamas.

Thesis: The Orthodox Church recognizes a council as ecumenical when its teaching is found, over time, to agree with Scripture and the apostolic faith already confessed by the whole Church and is received by that Church as its own; this is a real historical pattern, not a mechanical test, and a few questions about it remain unsettled.

The historical evidence

At the Church's first council, in Jerusalem (Acts 15, NKJV), the apostles' letter begins, "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us" (Acts 15:28), and the decision was made "with the whole church" (Acts 15:22). The Orthodox Church in America's catechism describes the later pattern: the Church settled disputes "by reaching a consensus of opinion among all the believers," and "not all such councils were automatically approved and accepted by the Church."¹

Nicaea (325) and its long reception

The Council of Nicaea confessed the Son to be of one essence with the Father against Arius. St. Athanasius later wrote that "the word of the Lord which came through the ecumenical Synod at Nicaea, abides forever."² But Nicaea did not end the dispute. In 359 the emperor Constantius divided a planned council, "convening the Western Bishops at Ariminum in Italy, and the Eastern at Seleucia."³ According to Athanasius, the bishops at Ariminum (Rimini) first declared themselves "satisfied with the Nicene alone," but were then "treated with violence in Thrace" to make them accept the innovations of the anti-Nicene party, which "ventured to write that it ought not to be said that the Son had Essence or Subsistence."⁴ St. Jerome's verdict is famous: "The whole world groaned, and was astonished to find itself Arian."⁵

On a formal count, those councils had as strong a claim as Nicaea. The Church did not receive them. In 381 the bishops at Constantinople decreed that "the Faith of the Three Hundred and Eighteen Fathers assembled at Nice in Bithynia shall not be set aside, but shall remain firm."⁶ That council was itself not summoned as an ecumenical council, and Rome had no part in calling it; its standing came from later acceptance.⁷ {{very-strong: Nicaea's creed did not prevail at once; in 359 imperially summoned councils at Rimini and Seleucia set it aside, and it was reaffirmed in 381, more than fifty years after Nicaea met.}}

Athanasius' main case for Nicaea was that it had "a reasonable cause," that it agreed "with the ancient bishops," and that its fathers "breathe the spirit of Scripture."⁴

Ephesus (449): the council called a robbery

In 449 a council met at Ephesus over the teaching of Eutyches, whom Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox alike condemn for denying that Christ shares our human nature. Dioscorus of Alexandria led it, the emperor Theodosius II named its leading bishops, and a papal legate attended.⁸ It deposed Archbishop Flavian of Constantinople. Pope Leo called it "that meeting, not of judges but of robbers, at Ephesus," where its leaders "spared neither those brethren who opposed them nor those who assented to them."⁹ Florovsky names it as the example of councils "actually disavowed, in spite of their formal regularity."¹⁰

Chalcedon (451) and the churches that did not receive it

Two years later the Council of Chalcedon declared Flavian unjustly deposed. When Leo's Tome was read, the bishops cried, "Peter has spoken thus through Leo," and also, "Leo and Cyril taught the same thing."¹¹ The acclamation applies the test of agreement with St. Cyril and Ephesus 431. Some bishops first asked for explanations, and in a later session each declared the Tome in agreement with Nicaea, Constantinople and Cyril before subscribing. The Catholic bishop Bossuet, writing as a Gallican (a position the First Vatican Council later rejected), argued that Leo's letter, though written "with the whole authority of the Apostolic See," was "subjected, as usual, to the examination of an Universal Council."¹¹ (On Chalcedon's definition, see What Did the Council of Chalcedon Actually Define About Jesus Christ?)

Here the Orthodox account meets a hard fact. The churches now called Oriental Orthodox, among them the Coptic, Syriac and Armenian churches, did not receive Chalcedon. In 1990 the official joint commission of the two families agreed that "both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage." The Orthodox stated that the four later councils teach the same Christology, "while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation."¹² If reception meant acceptance by every church with a claim to apostolic continuity, Chalcedon was never received in that sense.

Hieria (754): the council that called itself the seventh

The clearest test case is the iconoclast council of 754, called by the emperor Constantine V while the see of Constantinople was vacant. The historian Hefele, following the chronicler Theophanes, counted 338 bishops and noted that "the Patriarchates of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were not represented."¹³ Its decree, preserved because Nicaea II read it aloud to refute it, begins, "The holy and Ecumenical synod," and anathematizes anyone who "does not accept this our Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod." The bishops acclaimed: "Thus we all believe, we all are of the same mind."¹⁴ By the outward marks that impress most, Hieria looked strong: imperial summons, hundreds of bishops, unanimity, the title and the number. What it lacked was any patriarch.

Nicaea II (787): naming the criteria

The second Council of Nicaea, with legates of Pope Hadrian, Patriarch Tarasius of Constantinople and representatives from the Eastern sees, restored the veneration of icons. In its sixth session it answered Hieria's decree point by point, beginning with its title. In John Mendham's 1850 translation:

"Again, how could that be Great or Œcumenic, which the Presidents of other Churches have never received or assented to; but which, on the contrary, they have anathematized? It had not as its fellow helper the then Pope of Rome, or his conclave: neither was it authorized by his Legate, nor by Encyclic Epistle from him, as the custom is in Councils. Neither do we find that the Patriarchs of the East, of Antioch, Alexandria, and the holy City, did at all consent thereto, nor any of their great doctors or high-priests." ¹⁵

The refutation adds that Hieria's teaching did not go "into all lands" as the six councils' teaching did, and that it cannot be "the Seventh, since it has no agreement with the six holy Œcumenic Councils which were before it": six gold coins and one of brass do not make seven gold coins.¹⁵ To Hieria's 338 bishops (Nicaea II had about 350) it replies that its opponents "make a great parade with their vaunted numbers."¹⁶ Nicaea II's own decree states its rule: "we diminish nought, we add nought, but we preserve unchanged all things which pertain to the Catholic Church."¹⁷ {{very-strong: The second Council of Nicaea rejected the iconoclast council of 754, despite its 338 bishops and its claim to be the seventh ecumenical synod, because Rome and the Eastern patriarchs had not taken part or assented and because its teaching disagreed with the six earlier councils.}}

Nicaea II's own patriarchal participation, however, was thinner than its rhetoric. The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem lived under Muslim rule; Henry Percival, editor of the standard English collection of the councils, insists that the other patriarchates "were represented," but grants that the patriarchs "could not attend in person, nor could they even send proctors." The Eastern representatives were a monk and an abbot. Percival also prints a letter of St. Theodore from 826, via the historian J. M. Neale, complaining that the Eastern legates "were brought by our deputies, not sent by their Patriarchs," with Neale's note that Theodore "afterwards changed his opinion."¹⁸ Nor was Nicaea II received at once. In 794 the Frankish Council of Frankfurt, with papal legates present, decided (as Hefele reports from Einhard) that it "should neither be held nor declared to be the Seventh nor ecumenical but wholly without authority." Percival points to a badly made Latin translation of the acts and to Charlemagne's Caroline Books, and judges that the council was "universally recognized" only about a century after it met.¹⁹

Constantinople: 869-870 or 879-880?

The ninth century produced two rival councils at Constantinople. The council of 869-870 deposed Patriarch Photius; in Percival's words, "both the Easterns and Westerns then considered" it the eighth ecumenical synod. The council of 879-880, attended by legates of Pope John VIII, restored him and was, Percival adds, "afterwards accepted by many Easterns as the Eighth of the Ecumenical Synods."¹⁸ The Western Church today counts 869-870 as the eighth ecumenical council; the Orthodox Church does not. The 1848 Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs calls the 879-880 council "the eighth Ecumenical Council," while elsewhere speaking of "the seven Ecumenical Councils."²⁰

The Catholic historian Francis Dvornik argued in 1948 that John VIII approved the acts of 879-880 and that Rome followed his verdict for two centuries: papal professions of faith from the first half of the eleventh century still list seven councils, so that "the Church of Rome knew only seven, and not eight, oecumenical councils." In his reading, 869-870 entered the Western list around 1100 through canonists of the Gregorian reform, who valued its canon against lay interference in episcopal elections.²¹ By 1436 a profession of faith drafted at the Council of Basel named "the eight holy universal councils."²² {{debated: Whether the council of 879-880 should be counted as ecumenical is unsettled among the Orthodox, and Dvornik's account of how the West came to count 869-870 is one historian's reconstruction.}}

Florence (1438-1439): signed but not received

The Council of Ferrara-Florence was the most serious attempt at reunion. Its decree of union, Laetentur caeli ("Let the heavens be glad"), was issued on July 6, 1439 "with the agreement" of the emperor John Palaeologus, "of the deputies of our venerable brothers the patriarchs and of other representatives of the eastern church." It affirmed the Filioque and defined that "the Roman pontiff holds the primacy over the whole world."²² As the Orthodox Church remembers it, St. Mark of Ephesus "was the only one who refused" to sign, and he urged the people of Constantinople to repudiate the union.²³ The union was not received in the Orthodox Church, and a synod at Constantinople in 1484 formally denounced Florence. That synod, Fr. George Dragas notes, "called itself Ecumenical presumably because all four Eastern Patriarchs were present," yet the Orthodox Church does not number it among the ecumenical councils either.²⁴ (See The Council of Florence: Did the Orthodox Church Accept Union With Rome?)

What the Orthodox Church teaches

Dogma. The Orthodox Church confesses the doctrinal definitions of the seven Ecumenical Councils as true and binding. It trusts Christ's promise that "the gates of Hades shall not prevail against" His Church (Matthew 16:18) and that the Spirit "will guide you into all truth" (John 16:13); the Church is "the pillar and ground of the truth" (1 Timothy 3:15). The OCA catechism says the seven councils "have received the universal approval of the entire Church in all times and places" and are "essential sources of Orthodox Christian doctrine."¹ (See The Seven Ecumenical Councils: What They Taught and Why They Matter.)

Common teaching. Orthodox theologians broadly agree that no external mark alone makes a council ecumenical, and that the whole Church guards the faith. The 1848 Encyclical says neither patriarchs nor councils could introduce novelties, "because the protector of religion is the very body of the Church, even the people themselves."²⁵ Florovsky calls councils "occasional charismatic events" rather than a "canonical institution," recognized "not because of their formal canonical competence" but because they "witnessed to the Truth, in conformity with the Scripture as handed down in Apostolic Tradition."¹⁰

Theological opinion. How reception works, whether the number of ecumenical councils is closed at seven, and whether 879-880 or the Palamite councils of 1341-1351 share their authority are matters on which Orthodox theologians differ. A 2022 Romanian study of the Palamite synods reports that some Orthodox count them as a ninth ecumenical council and others do not.²⁶

The marks that recur

• Agreement with Scripture and the apostolic tradition, including earlier councils. Athanasius applied it to Nicaea, Chalcedon to Leo's Tome, Nicaea II to Hieria and Mark of Ephesus to Florence. St. Vincent of Lérins, writing around 434, gave it classic form: hold "that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all," fortified "first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church."²⁷
• Participation or assent of the churches, especially the ancient patriarchal sees, Rome among them in the first millennium.
• Reception by the whole Church over time, in its worship, preaching and faith. This is why the verdict on Nicaea took decades and on Nicaea II about a century.
• Not numbers or imperial summons. Rimini, Ephesus 449 and Hieria had both.

These marks are not a formula applied in advance. Florovsky is blunt: "There is no space now to discuss the theory of reception. In fact, there was no theory."¹⁰ Vincent says that when "the Arian poison" had infected "almost the whole world," the true believer was the one "preferring the ancient belief to the novel misbelief."²⁷ On how Orthodoxy understands Tradition more broadly, see Why "Tradition" Is Different for Protestants and Orthodox Christians.

Is reception circular?

The most serious objection is logical. If a council is true because the Church receives it, and the true Church is the body that receives true councils, the argument runs in a circle. Florovsky admits it: "We may seem to be involved here in a vicious circle. We may be actually involved in it, if we insist on formal guarantees in doctrinal matters." Such guarantees, he says, "do not exist and cannot be produced, especially in advance."¹⁰

Three things keep the Orthodox position from being a closed circle, though they do not make it a proof. First, reception is never the only test. A council is measured against Scripture and the faith already confessed, and anyone can read Nicaea II's case against Hieria and judge whether it is sound. Second, the history is public: reception unfolded over decades and left records that can be checked. Third, the Orthodox openly admit that their premise is a matter of faith: Christ's promise that the Spirit will guide His Church. The history is read in the light of that promise, not used to prove it. Protestants who trust that the Spirit guided the Church to recognize the New Testament books rely on a similar trust.

The official Catholic-Orthodox dialogue has described reception in a text its members approved in 2007 (the Russian delegation had withdrawn). The Ravenna Document says a council's ecumenicity "is recognized through a process of reception of either long or short duration," in which "the people of God as a whole" recognize "the one apostolic faith," and adds that this process "is differently interpreted in East and West."²⁸

Objections and responses

"A council is ecumenical when the pope confirms it."

The Second Vatican Council teaches: "A council is never ecumenical unless it is confirmed or at least accepted as such by the successor of Peter; and it is prerogative of the Roman Pontiff to convoke these councils, to preside over them and to confirm them."²⁹ Catholics can cite real first-millennium evidence: Nicaea II named the lack of a papal legate or letter as a reason Hieria failed, and Chalcedon hailed Leo's Tome as Peter speaking. Rome's agreement mattered greatly. (See What Is the Catholic Magisterium?)

The Orthodox reply is that this evidence shows Rome's consent as a necessary part of the Church's consent, not a separate guarantee. Emperors convoked the councils; Constantinople I met without Rome's involvement; Leo's Tome was formally received only after the bishops tested it against Cyril and the earlier councils; and a papal legate attended Ephesus 449 without being able to stop it. Catholics fairly reply that Leo's rejection of that council is what their view predicts; on the Orthodox reading, it prevailed because the wider Church shared it at Chalcedon. Percival remarks that saying no council was received without Rome's confirmation "is only saying that no council has been accepted as ecumenical which has not been ecumenically received," since Rome was then the one patriarchate of the West.⁷ Florence, with papal confirmation and Greek signatures, still failed to be received in the East.

"Councils can err; Scripture alone is the norm."

The Westminster Confession states: "All synods or councils, since the Apostles' times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both."³⁰ Protestants rightly point to Rimini, Ephesus 449 and Hieria, and argue that if a council must agree with the apostolic faith, Scripture is the real authority.

The Orthodox agree that assemblies of bishops have erred; the history above assumes it. They also agree that a council must agree with Scripture, and Paul warns that even "an angel from heaven" preaching another gospel is accursed (Galatians 1:8). The disagreement is over who reads Scripture rightly when sincere readers differ, as Arius and Athanasius did. The Orthodox answer is that the Church, led by the Spirit, recognized the apostolic reading, and a received council expresses that recognition. In practice the positions can come close. The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles say general councils "may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God," yet hold that the three Creeds, the Nicene among them, "ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of holy Scripture."³¹ (See What Is Sola Scriptura?)

"Chalcedon was never received by the whole Church."

This Oriental Orthodox objection is the hardest for the appeal to reception, because it comes from ancient apostolic churches that share the same reverence for Nicaea. To them Chalcedon's "two natures" language seemed to abandon St. Cyril's "one nature of the incarnate Logos." The joint commission later concluded that both families "have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith ... though they have used Christological terms in different ways."¹² That supports Chalcedon's orthodoxy, but it also shows that an orthodox council can go unreceived by part of the apostolic Church for fifteen centuries. The Orthodox position is that reception means the Church's recognition of the apostolic faith, not unanimity among all who claim to be the Church. That is coherent, but it is a theological judgment that the Oriental Orthodox do not share.

"The winners simply decided."

A skeptic may say "reception" is a pious name for whichever party held power at the end. There is truth in this. The councils were called "at the commandment and will of Princes," as Percival puts it, and the Florence union was driven partly by the emperor's need for Western military help as Muslim armies closed in on Constantinople.²³ But the record does not fit a simple story of power. The imperially backed councils of 359, 449 and 754 lost. At Florence, Mark of Ephesus stood almost alone against the emperor's policy, and the Church received his position. (See Nicaea Was Not a One-Vote Cliffhanger.)

"Then could there be an eighth council?"

Orthodox writers disagree. Some count 879-880 or 1341-1351; others hold that an ecumenical council in the strict sense requires a reunited Church. The Ravenna Document notes that the break between East and West "rendered impossible the holding of Ecumenical Councils in the strict sense of the term."²⁸

What we can say confidently

• Councils with imperial summons, large attendance and ecumenical claims were later rejected: Rimini and Seleucia (359), Ephesus (449) and Hieria (754).
• Hieria called itself the "Holy and Ecumenical Seventh Synod"; Nicaea II rejected it for lacking the assent of Rome and the Eastern patriarchs and for contradicting the earlier councils.
• The Frankish Council of Frankfurt rejected Nicaea II in 794, before the West received it.
• The West counts the council of 869-870 as ecumenical; the Orthodox do not, and some Orthodox writers, including the 1848 Encyclical, give that title to 879-880.
• Greek delegates accepted the union of Florence in 1439, but the Orthodox Church did not receive it, and a synod of 1484 denounced it.

What remains disputed

• Whether reception can be explained without circularity; Florovsky admits that no formal guarantees exist.
• Whether the councils of 879-880 and 1341-1351 should be counted as ecumenical, and whether a future ecumenical council is possible before East and West are reunited.
• Whether Chalcedon's non-reception by the Oriental Orthodox weakens the Orthodox appeal to reception.
• Whether papal confirmation was, in the first millennium, a distinct requirement or part of the whole Church's consent.

Conclusion

The Orthodox answer is less tidy than a rule and more trustworthy than a slogan. The Church did not recognize councils by counting bishops or obeying emperors. It recognized them slowly, testing what they taught against the faith received from the apostles and prayed in its liturgy, and it rejected councils that failed that test even when they bore many outward marks of authority, appealing always to the faith "believed everywhere, always, by all."

In the end this rests on trust that Christ keeps His promise and that the Holy Spirit leads His Church into truth, as the apostles wrote: "it seemed good to the Holy Spirit, and to us." The Orthodox can show that this trust is not arbitrary, because reception happened in public and gave reasons. They cannot show that it is free of faith, and they should not pretend to. Where questions remain open, the Church's own history counsels patience: what is true is received in time, by the whole body, in prayer. To follow the story through the Fathers themselves, the Church Fathers guide is a good next step.

Notes

1. Thomas Hopko, The Orthodox Faith, vol. 1, Doctrine and Scripture, "Sources of Christian Doctrine: The Councils" (Orthodox Church in America, online edition at oca.org). ↩
2. Athanasius, Ad Afros (Synodal Letter to the Bishops of Africa) 2, trans. Archibald Robertson, NPNF2 vol. 4. The same section gives the traditional number of 318 bishops at Nicaea. ↩
3. Athanasius, De Synodis 1, trans. John Henry Newman and Archibald Robertson, NPNF2 vol. 4. ↩
4. Athanasius, Ad Afros 2-4, 9. Athanasius says the orthodox bishops at Ariminum numbered "nearly 200." He also argues that the Nicene bishops "are more than those at local synods." ↩
5. Jerome, Dialogue against the Luciferians 19, trans. W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W. G. Martley, NPNF2 vol. 6. ↩
6. First Council of Constantinople (381), Canon I, in Henry R. Percival, ed., The Seven Ecumenical Councils, NPNF2 vol. 14. ↩
7. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Introduction, section II, "Concerning Ecumenical Councils in General." Percival defines an ecumenical synod as "a synod the decrees of which have found acceptance by the Church in the whole world," notes that it need not be "assembled with the intention of its being ecumenical, such was not the case with I. Constantinople," and that the councils "were all called together at the commandment and will of Princes," Constantinople I "without any knowledge of the matter on the part of the Pope." ↩
8. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, notes to the canons of Chalcedon, on Juvenal of Jerusalem: at "the disgraceful Latrocinium, Juvenal occupied the third place, after Dioscorus and the papal legate, having been specially named by Theodosius." Percival also notes that Chalcedon declared Flavian "unjustly deposed." On Eutyches, both families condemn "the Eutychian heresy" and describe Eutyches as denying "the double consubstantiality of the Logos": Second Agreed Statement (1990), sections 1 and 7 (see note 12). ↩
9. Leo the Great, Letter 95, to the empress Pulcheria, trans. Charles Lett Feltoe, NPNF2 vol. 12. ↩
10. Georges Florovsky, "The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers," in Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Collected Works vol. 1 (Belmont, MA: Nordland, 1972), chapter 6, quotations at 96-97 (the essay first appeared in a 1967 Festschrift for Ernst Benz). ↩
11. Council of Chalcedon, Session II (continued), in Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils; and the extracts from Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet, Defensio Declarationis Cleri Gallicani VII.17 and Gallia Orthodoxa 59-61 (trans. T. W. Allies), printed in the same volume; Percival notes Bossuet's "somewhat isolated position as a Gallican." For the later Catholic teaching, see the First Vatican Council, Pastor Aeternus (1870), chapter 4: papal definitions "are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable" (Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, English text at papalencyclicals.net). ↩
12. Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches, Second Agreed Statement (Chambésy, September 23-28, 1990), sections 7-9, which build on the First Agreed Statement (Anba Bishoy Monastery, Egypt, June 1989). ↩
13. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, "Excursus on the Conciliabulum Styling Itself the Seventh Ecumenical Council," quoting Karl Joseph von Hefele, History of the Councils, vol. 5. ↩
14. "Epitome of the Definition of the Iconoclastic Conciliabulum held in Constantinople, A.D. 754," with the acclamations following it, in Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils (from the sixth session of Nicaea II). ↩
15. Second Council of Nicaea, Session VI, in John Mendham, trans., The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea, Held A.D. 787 (London: W. E. Painter, 1850), 306-308; checked against the scanned edition (archive.org). Mendham prints "Œcumenic"; the readthesaints.com transcription modernizes some instances to "Ecumenical." The modern scholarly translation is Richard Price, The Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (787) (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2018), not consulted here. ↩
16. Mendham, The Seventh General Council, 329, where the iconoclast decree's claim to "Three Hundred and Thirty-Eight Bishops" is also read. Nicaea II's attendance of "three hundred and fifty bishops" is from Percival's introduction to the Seventh Council, point 1(e) (note 18). ↩
17. "The Decree of the Holy, Great, Ecumenical Synod, the Second of Nice," in Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils. ↩
18. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, Introduction to the Seventh Ecumenical Council, points 1(d)-(f); "Historical Note on the So-Called 'Eighth General Council' and Subsequent Councils," on the councils of 869 and 879; and Percival's note 546 in the "Excursus on the Reception of the Seventh Council," quoting J. M. Neale, History of the Holy Eastern Church, on Theodore's letter to Arsenius. The Eastern representatives are named in the emperors' letter read at the first session (John, "most pious Monk," and Thomas, "Priest and Abbot"). ↩
19. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils, "Excursus on the Council of Frankfort, A.D. 794," quoting Hefele, who cites Einhard; Percival's "Excursus on the Reception of the Seventh Council," on the Latin translation sent to Charlemagne and the Caroline Books; and his "Historical Note" (note 18) on the council's later recognition. ↩
20. Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), sections 3 and 5 (5.xi), English text in the Internet Modern History Sourcebook (Fordham University), from orthodoxinfo.com. ↩
21. Francis Dvornik, The Photian Schism: History and Legend (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948), chapters 6-7 on the council of 879-880 and John VIII's approval; quotation at 319, where Dvornik also notes that 869-870 "is regarded to-day as an oecumenical council by the Western Church"; conclusion at 329-330. ↩
22. Council of Basel, Session 23 (March 26, 1436), on the profession of the supreme pontiff; Council of Florence, Session 6 (July 6, 1439), Laetentur caeli; both in Norman P. Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, English text at papalencyclicals.net. ↩
23. "Saint Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus," Lives of the Saints, Orthodox Church in America (oca.org), which says the emperor "was seeking military assistance from the West." For "the commandment and will of Princes," see note 7. ↩
24. George Dragas, "The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholic Converts into the Orthodox Church, with Special Reference to the Decisions of the Synods of 1484 (Constantinople), 1755 (Constantinople) and 1667 (Moscow)," paper read at the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Dialogue (USA), 1998, section 2; online at myriobiblos.gr. ↩
25. Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs (1848), section 17. ↩
26. Maxim Marian Vlad, "Sinoade palamite. Evaluare istorică, ecleziologică și canonică" [Palamite Synods: Historical, Ecclesiological and Canonical Assessment], Teologie și Educație la Dunărea de Jos 20 (2022): 80-115, English abstract. ↩
27. Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium 2.4, 2.6 and 4.10, trans. C. A. Heurtley, NPNF2 vol. 11. Vincent dates his work about three years after the Council of Ephesus (431). ↩
28. Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, "Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church" (Ravenna Document), 2007, sections 37 and 39. On the Russian Orthodox delegation's withdrawal over the presence of the Church of Estonia, see Catholic News Agency, "Catholic-Orthodox dialogue draws to a close, theme for next meeting is the role of the Pope," October 15, 2007 (now hosted at ewtnnews.com). ↩
29. Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium 22 (1964). ↩
30. Westminster Confession of Faith, chapter 31, "Of Synods and Councils," section 3 in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church edition. ↩
31. Articles of Religion (Thirty-Nine Articles), Articles XXI and VIII, Book of Common Prayer (1662), text at churchofengland.org. ↩

Bibliography

Primary sources

• The Holy Bible, New King James Version. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982.
• Athanasius. Ad Afros Epistola Synodica and De Synodis. Translated by Archibald Robertson and John Henry Newman. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 4. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1892. Revised edition at newadvent.org.
• Jerome. Dialogue against the Luciferians. Translated by W. H. Fremantle, G. Lewis and W. G. Martley. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 6. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1893. Revised edition at newadvent.org.
• Leo the Great. Letter 95. Translated by Charles Lett Feltoe. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 12. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1895. Revised edition at newadvent.org.
• Vincent of Lérins. Commonitorium. Translated by C. A. Heurtley. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 11. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1894. Revised edition at newadvent.org.
• Percival, Henry R., ed. The Seven Ecumenical Councils. Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2nd series, vol. 14. 1900. Text at ccel.org and newadvent.org. Canons and extracts from the acts, the iconoclast definition of 754, and the editor's introduction, notes and excursuses.
• Mendham, John, trans. The Seventh General Council, the Second of Nicaea, Held A.D. 787, in Which the Worship of Images Was Established. London: W. E. Painter, 1850.
• Tanner, Norman P., ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. Councils of Basel and Ferrara-Florence, and the First Vatican Council (Pastor Aeternus, 1870); English text at papalencyclicals.net.
• Encyclical of the Eastern Patriarchs, 1848: A Reply to the Epistle of Pope Pius IX, "to the Easterns." Internet Modern History Sourcebook, Fordham University.
• Joint Commission of the Theological Dialogue between the Orthodox Church and the Oriental Orthodox Churches. First Agreed Statement (1989) and Second Agreed Statement (1990). Texts at dss-syriacpatriarchate.org and copticorthodox.church.
• Joint International Commission for the Theological Dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church. Ecclesiological and Canonical Consequences of the Sacramental Nature of the Church (Ravenna Document). 2007. christianunity.va.

Orthodox and patristic sources

• Florovsky, Georges. "The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers." In Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, vol. 1. Belmont, MA: Nordland Publishing Company, 1972.
• Hopko, Thomas. The Orthodox Faith, vol. 1, Doctrine and Scripture. Orthodox Church in America, online edition at oca.org.
• Orthodox Church in America. "Saint Mark, Archbishop of Ephesus." Lives of the Saints. oca.org.
• Dragas, George. "The Manner of Reception of Roman Catholic Converts into the Orthodox Church, with Special Reference to the Decisions of the Synods of 1484 (Constantinople), 1755 (Constantinople) and 1667 (Moscow)." Paper read at the Orthodox/Roman Catholic Dialogue (USA), 1998. myriobiblos.gr.
• Vlad, Maxim Marian. "Sinoade palamite. Evaluare istorică, ecleziologică și canonică." Teologie și Educație la Dunărea de Jos 20 (2022): 80-115.

Other scholarship (including scholars who disagree)

• Dvornik, Francis. The Photian Schism: History and Legend. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1948.

Sources from the traditions discussed (Catholic and Protestant)

• Second Vatican Council. Lumen Gentium: Dogmatic Constitution on the Church. 1964. vatican.va.
• The Westminster Confession of Faith. Chapter 31. Orthodox Presbyterian Church edition, opc.org.
• Church of England. Articles of Religion (Thirty-Nine Articles), Articles VIII and XXI. Book of Common Prayer, 1662. churchofengland.org.