Replies

I disagree with gbcdoj on his assertion that all five patriarchs had to agree for the councils to be valid. Usually the Pope would sin for the Church, but the Emperor was the law behind it. Councils sometimes passed canons that were not to pope's liking, and some refused to sign them. The Councils were passed regardless and usually another pope would, under sometimes very obvious pressure and threats, agree to with the Emperor and the Council and sign it.

I have seen other Orthodox assert that all the patriarchs needed to agree - I guess this isn't really a settled issue in the Orthodox Church. Why did the previous seven Councils seek confirmation from the Pope if it wasn't necessary? In the letter of the Council of Chalcedon to St. Leo I it is stated that the "force of all" rests upon his confirmation of the council.

Are you saying that it was the Emperor's consent that made a council Ecumenical?

apples and oranges - the Pope needs to be at an ecumenical council just like the Pope of Alexandria, etc needs to be, but the Roman Pope does not have a veto vote to council decisions. The Council decisions are binding to the attending Pope even if he has reservations about them.

Pope Leo objected to Canon 28 and refused to sign it. It is obvious that both the Latin and the Greek side of the Church recognzied the Council despite his objection. The canon had to do with Constantinople being given a place of honor in the Church second only to Rome, and its See jurisdiction in the East equal to that of Rome in the West. The bishops in the east were ordained by Eastern Patriarchs, and not the Pope.

The councils were Ecumenical because they involved the bishops from the Greek and Latin side, and because the Pope's legates were present.