Orthodox Church have ecumunical Councils?

Hello, I was wondering :slight_smile:

  1. Does the :hey_bud: Orthodox Church :hey_bud: Still have Ecumenical Councils?

  2. If not is there a pacific reason?

The :bowdown: Catholic Church :bowdown: has had 21 Ecumenical Councils


The Orthodox will hold their first ecumenical council in 1200years in Istanbul in 2016.

Twelve heads of autonomous Orthodox churches, the second-largest family of Christian churches agreed to hold a summit of bishops, or ecumenical council.

My guess is they don’t hold them unless they have a good reason too. Same as us.


Other sources describe it as a “pan-Orthodox council,” not explicitly an “ecumenical” one. The communique calls it the “Holy and Great Synod".

Not sure what the difference is, maybe one of our esteemed Orthodox friends on here can enlighten us.

IIRC whether or not a council is ecumenical is decided years or decades after the council had happened. If the faithful reject the findings of the upcoming council, it will not be considered ecumenical, like Florence.

Can one church, either in Rome or Constantinople have a truly ecumenical council by itself?

I am sure this will draw howls of protest from both sides.

But even St John Paul II has said the church must breathe with BOTH lungs, both East and West. And I don’t think he was speaking of only Eastern and Latin Catholicism, but of Catholic and Orthodox.

Since the Church only held councils of the ecumenical kind when there was serious heresy attacking the Church from within, I wouldn’t be getting so cockey about having held so many more councils since the schism. It could actually make a good argument that Rome seriously went off the rails once it had cut itself off from the mediating influence of the Eastern Patriarchates.


I think it’s obvious to most people Pope John Paul II was simply trying to be nice and bring about unity with his words about the two lungs :slight_smile:

It doesn’t mean they are literally part of the Church, Pope John Paul’s own catechism explains what full communion with the Church means.

Yes, we can, the Successor of Peter and the Bishops in communion with him as the College of Bishops can have an ecumenical Council. Retired Bishops are not required or any Bishop who’s not in communion with the Successor of Peter because in our perspective they have no authority.

I wasn’t, I was saying it so you’s would know how many we have as information. I would not try to be rude to you’s.

God Bless You

Maybe you should edit out the emoticons from your post. They sure give a different impression from what you claim

God Bless You

Thank you. May God also bless you.

I put them to make people laugh because they are funny, not to make people angry :slight_smile:

This is new to me so I started using them.

Can EO posters here really say with a straight face that no significant heresy has cropped up in the last thousand years or so that warranted an ecumenical council? Seems like a rather, err, bold claim to me…

I did not say that at all. What I did say is that in my opinion just one part, one lung of the church can have a council on their own and legitimately call it Ecumenical.

In my opinion, there can be no ecumenical council unless the Supreme Bishop agrees, if all Bishops are equal, then even together they can’t boss another Bishop about unless there is a Supreme Bishop who agrees.

You probably have a different opinion :slight_smile:

You don’t believe there is a Supreme Bishop I assume, if that’s the case I don’t understand what makes an ecumenical council above other Bishops and gives them the Supremacy of the Church

I think Podromos would disagree with me as well. Orthodox teaching states that they constitute the entire church by themselves as well.

Perhaps I am not a good Orthodox, but that is what I believe. And I think that is the way for reunion and not just submission.

I believe:

Wherever Peter is there is the Church.

I think submission is important but not the only important thing :slight_smile:

What’s so hard to understand? Individual bishops have always been subject to a council accepted as ecumenical–this is true both for the Catholic Church, which has a bishop with universal jurisdiction, and for the Orthodox, which does not. Really, whether or not a church has a bishop with universal jurisdiction is irrelevant to the question of whether an ecumenical council has authority over the entire church.

Perhaps to you and other Latin Catholics. But that is not the way to reunion and also smacks of triumphalism to boot.

I accept Peter the Holy Father myself, but I doubt that any one person can have immediate personal jurisdiction over the entire Christian world. When it comes right down to it, that is highly impractical.

I disagree:

In exercising supreme, full, and immediate power in the universal Church, the Roman pontiff makes use of the departments of the Roman Curia which, therefore, perform their duties in his name and with his authority for the good of the churches and in the service of the sacred pastors.


I believe that’s because that the Pope acknowledges them Councils.

I did not mention juridstiction, I said a Supreme Bishop. It is relevant to if they have authority over other Bishops, because unless there is someone that has authority over other Bishops, in other words a Supreme Bishop, that accepts the Ecumenical Council, there is no logical way for the Council to have authority over other Bishops.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.