By Francis Dvornik

© 1966, Journal of Ecumenical Studies. All Rights Reserved.

Reprinted by permission.
It is generally expected that, after the conclusion of the
Second Vatican Council the atmosphere will be favorable
for dialogues between the representatives of Roman
Catholics and the leaders of other Christian churches with
a view to finding ways towards a better understanding
and a more intimate rapprochement which could lead
finally to a reunion.

Many Catholic leaders think that a dialogue with the

Eastern Orthodox Churches should begin as early as
possible and hope for positive results since there are no
fundamental dogmatic differences between the Roman
and Orthodox Churches.

This may be true, but it is premature to expect a speedy

agreement between the Eastern Churches and Rome.
There are many other aspects in the constitution,
historical development, the mentality and spiritual life of
Eastern Christianity which are not sufficiently understood
by the West, and which will make the dialogue much more
difficult than is expected by the optimistic observer.

In this paper I would like to call attention to a difference

between the Catholics and the Orthodox which could be
regarded as minor—namely, the number of ecumenical
councils which are accepted by these Churches. But it is
not minor, for it bears within it another question: by what
criteria may a council be called truly ecumenical?

It is known that the Orthodox recognize only seven

councils as ecumenical, the first being that of Nicaea
(325) and the last the second of Nicaea (787), which
condemned the iconoclastic heresy regarding
representations of Christ and the saints and the worship of
their images as unlawful.
The Roman Church added to the Seven Ecumenical
Councils the Synod of 869-870 which condemned the
Patriarch Photius as a usurper of the patriarchal throne of
Constantinople and confirmed the reinstatement of St.
Ignatius in his stead, as the Eighth Ecumenical Council.
This Council called itself ecumenical because it was con-
voked by an Emperor—Basil I—as were all previous
ecumenical councils. The invitations to assist at it were
addressed to the bishops of the Empire and it was
attended by the representatives of Pope Hadrian II and
four other Patriarchs. In spite of this it was opened in the
presence of only twelve bishops, and its Acts were signed
by only the one hundred and ten Fathers who had
responded to the repeated exhortations of the Emperor to
appear at its sessions. The reason for this meagre
attendance was that the great majority of Byzantine
prelates considered the accusations launched against
Photius as unjust, since he had been canonically elected
by a local synod after the resignation of Ignatius in 856.
Because the majority of the clergy had ignored the
decisions of this Council Ignatius had difficulties in the
administration of his patriarchate. Fortunately, this
situation was cleared up when the Emperor brought
Photius back from exile and entrusted him with the
education of his sons. Then both Ignatius and Photius
were reconciled. Another council was planned in order to
seal the reconciliation of the followers of Ignatius and of
Photius and to end the schism in the Byzantine Church.
The Emperor and Ignatius asked Pope John VIII to send
his representatives to the new council. Unfortunately,
before the Papal legates reached Constantinople, Ignatius
died, and Photius was reinstated as Patriarch. The Council
took place in November of 879 and ended in March, 880.
Photius was reinstated by the numerous conciliar Fathers
with the assent of the papal legates and the
representatives of the other Patriarchs. The Council of
869-870 which had condemned Photius and his followers
was abrogated. This explains why we do not have the
Greek original of the Acts of this Council, but only a Latin
translation made by the papal librarian Anastasius who, in
870, was in Constantinople as envoy of the Emperor Louis
II. There exists also a Greek extract of the Acts compiled
by an opponent of Photius who had refused to accept him
as patriarch even after his reconciliation with Ignatius and
restoration by the Council of 879-880 confirmed by John
VIII. This extract was incorporated into the so-called anti-
Photian collection compiled in a very biased manner by a
zealot who wished to justify the refusal of the extremist
party to accept the decisions of the Council of 879-880 and
to recognize Photius as their legitimate Patriarch.

The Photian Council was also convoked by the Emperor

Basil I, and representatives of all five patriarchs were
present together with 380 Fathers. The Fathers were thus
fully entitled to designate the assembly as a “holy and
ecumenical synod.” In the Acts this council is called “a
holy Synod convoked under the most holy and ecumenical
Patriarch Photius for the union of the holy and apostolic
Church of God.”

A similar title is given to this synod by the Patriarch

Euthymius (907-912).1 In his treatise on synods the
Patriarch gives it the designation of “holy and ecumenical
synod,” but it is called the Eighth—it merely remains the
“Union Synod.” This means that it was assembled in order
to seal the union between Rome and Constantinople,
disrupted by the condemnation of Photius, which had been
regarded as unjust by the great majority of the Byzantine
clergy, and also to end a schism in the Byzantine
patriarchate by reconciling definitely the pro-Photian and
the pro-Ignatian clergy.

Of course, no mention is made in this treatise of the

Ignatian Council of 869-870 which was cancelled ten
years later by the synod of 879-880. Euthymius gives the
ecumenical character only to the preceding seven councils
quoting the definitions of Catholic doctrines which these
councils had confirmed. This treatise was written only
about three decades after the Photian Council and its
author knew the Acts of this council in the version that
has come down to us.
It should not surprise us that Euthymius regarded only
seven councils as ecumenical. We can quote a document
which reveals that even Photius himself did not add to the
seven ecumenical the council which had reinstated him as
the Eighth. In the Greek Manuscript 47 of the National
Library in Paris I found the text of a profession of faith
(fols. 231, 231a), composed by Photius, which was to be
recited by all candidates to the episcopate. The future
bishops had to subscribe to the Seven Ecumenical Councils
and profess their dogmatic definitions. Even if Photius had
composed this profession during his first patriarchate,
there is no reason not to suppose that he used this
formula also after the council of 879-880. We shall see
presently that Photius was primarily interested in the
ecumenicity of the seventh council and wished that it
should be solemnly proclaimed by the representatives of
all the patriarchs.

The treatise on synods composed by Euthymius was

reedited in the fourteenth century by Neilos Diasorenos,
metropolitan of Rhodes (1357).2 Neilos was an ardent
supporter of the Patriarch Philotheus and of Gregory
Palamas, the protagonists of the hesychast movement.3
The monk Barlaam, the adversary of their doctrine on the
living light of Mount Tabor which the mystics were
supposed to see when reaching the highest degree of their
ascetic practice, was condemned by a synod convoked by
the Patriarch John XIV Aprenos in 1341. This synod
marked the victory of the hesychasts and was regarded as
an important milestone by all adherents of this movement.
It is not surprising that they placed it alongside the Seven
Ecumenical Councils, the basis of the orthodox faith.

Neilos therefore adapted the treatise of Euthymius to the

needs of the fourteenth century by adding to the seven
councils that of Photius (879-880) as the Eighth
Ecumenical, and the synod of 1341 as the Ninth, giving
also an extract from the Acts of this synod. He was not
alone in this practice. In the Greek Manuscript 968 (fols.
392-395) in the National Library of Paris, I found an
anonymous treatise on councils, also based on Euthymius’
tractate, in which the Photian Council is added to the
seven ecumenicals as the Eighth, and that of 1341 as the
Ninth. However, the author concedes ecumenical
character only to the first seven synods. Another version
of Euthymius’ treatise is preserved in the Manuscript
Historicus Graecus 34 in the National Library of Vienna
(fols. 359 ff.).4 These two treatises must have been
composed soon after 1341 by anonymous zealots
propagating the hesychast doctrine. I would be tempted to
date them before the writings of Neilos, because they are
not as emphatic concerning the ecumenicity of the two
last councils as was the Archbishop of Rhodes who,
because of his zeal for hesychasm, was promoted by the
Patriarch Philotheos Kokkinos to an exarchos in 1366. He
lost this distinction under the Patriarch Makarios (1376-
1379) who was an adversary of the hesychasts.

As said before, it is not surprising that the hesychasts

were anxious to promote the synod of 1341 to that of an
ecumenical council, but why did they add to the seven
councils described in their prototype, the Photian Council
as the Eighth? One is tempted to perceive in these later
editions an echo of the anti-Latin polemic which was very
acute in the fourteenth century. Did the Byzantines of this
period know that the Latins had added to the seven
councils the Ignatian synod of 869-870 which had
unjustly, in their opinion, condemned Photius? It is
possible, although we find in the polemics of the twelfth
and thirteenth centuries very few references to general
councils. In the twelfth century Hugo Etherianus or his
brother Leo Tuscus was aware of the difference between
the Greeks and the Latins in the matter of general
councils.5 But the Latins were, in general, not much
interested in the problem of the councils and their
number. They insisted on the primacy of the pope alone,
and many of them were wary of speaking about the
councils, being uncertain how to reconcile their authority
with the papal primacy. Moreover, the case of Photius
played a very small role on the polemics of this period.6
However, a strong echo of the anti-Latin polemic can be
detected in Neilos’ treatise on another point in contest:
the question of Filioque. He insists on the condemnation of
the addition of Filioque to the Creed said by the papal
legates in their profession of faith at the end of the
Photian synod and he adds to his account on the Photian
council an extract from the famous letter of John VIII to
Photius in connection with the Filioque incident, which is
said to have been sent to Constantinople after the Photian
council, and the authenticity of which is doubtful.
Moreover, it should be stressed that many prominent
supporters of hesychasm, especially Gregory Palamas,
Philotheos, Neilos of Rhodes, Neilos Kabasilas, were very
much engaged in anti-Latin polemics. Thus, we must not
exclude the thought that the addition of the Photian
council to the seven ecumenicals as the Eighth could be
interpreted as a condemnation of the Latin practice of
regarding the censures proclaimed against Photius by the
synod of 869-870 as just and still valid.

It is possible that a similar operation was made in the new

version of the Synodicon Vetus.7 Its first and most
important version contained in the Manuscript of Mount
Sinai8 and edited, most probably on the basis of an older
treatise by an Ignatian between the years 886-891,
regards the Ignatian council as the Eighth ecumenical. The
second version contained in some manuscripts of the
fourteenth century speaks of the Eighth ecumenical as
that “of the union between Photius and John VIII.”9

However, there is also another explanation of the

promotion of the two synods to ecumenical councils. The
partisans of the hesychasts were naturally interested in
stressing the importance of the synod of 1341. When
promoting it to an ecumenical council they could not
overlook the synod of union described in their prototype.
In the Byzantine tradition it was regarded as an important
assembly. They could thus not place their synod of 1341
immediately after the seven councils as the Eighth. This
place was given to the Photian synod, and the hesychast
synod was numbered as the Ninth. The Ignatian synod of
869-870, of course, did not exist for them, as for all
Byzantines, because it was cancelled in 880.

In a similar way we can explain the designation of the

Photian synod as the Eighth ecumenical in the fourteenth
century versions of the Synodicon Vetus. Their prototype,
reedited by an Ignatian at a time when the Photian
controversy was still a passionate topic, stopped at the
synod of 869-870 which he called the Eighth Ecumenical.
The Byzantines of the fourteenth century looked at this
incident from a long way off. If a council could be called
the Eighth Ecumenical it could be in their minds only the
synod of 879-880, which had cancelled the Ignatian
council. This explains why in the new version of the
Synodicon the Eighth council is that which marked the
reconciliation between Photius and John VIII.

These are the few exceptions from the general rule

accepted by the Byzantine Church which admits only
seven ecumenical councils, exceptions which might have
been inspired by anti-Latin trends in the fourteenth
century or, at least, which show the mentality of this
period. Otherwise, in all official and private documents
from the eighth century to modern times it is stressed that
the Orthodox Church admitted only seven ecumenical
councils as the basis of the orthodox faith. This is
particularly documented by the numerous short treatises
on councils which are found in manuscripts in all major
European libraries.10 Some of them can be regarded as a
sort of catechism teaching the main dogmas of the
orthodox faith.

The conviction that only the first seven councils can be

regarded as ecumenical, and that this character can in no
way be attributed to the council of 869-870, was so firmly
imbedded in Greek minds that even those Greeks who had
accepted the union with Rome, concluded at the councils
of Lyons and of Florence, hesitated to accept the Latin
practice of regarding the Ignatian council of 869-870 as
the Eighth Ecumenical. This is especially illustrated by two
treatises on ecumenical councils written by Greek Uniats
after the Council of Florence. I found them in the Greek
Ms. 1712 in the National Library in Paris, and I published
the main passages concerning our question in “Mélanges
Eugène Tisserant.”11

After enumerating the seven ecumenical councils, and

after mentioning the synod of orthodoxy under Theodora,
the widow of the last iconoclastic Emperor Theophilus, the
author of the first treatise continues: “The eighth holy and
ecumenical synod was held in Lyons under John the Pope
of Rome. This synod was convened against Photius who
had become patriarch of Constantinople in defiance of the
canons. He had unjustly usurped the throne when Ignatius
the holy was still alive. Indeed, it was he who effected the
schism between the Greeks and the Latins. He denied that
the most Holy Spirit proceeds also from the Son, but only
from the Father. Because of that the Synod condemned
him and defined that the Spirit proceeded from the Son as
from the Father.

“The Ninth holy and ecumenical Synod was held in

Constantinople under Gregory, the Pope of Rome, and
Bekkos, the patriarch of Constantinople. This Synod also
was assembled for the same matter. After being
assembled [this Synod] decreed in a very clear and plain
way that the Holy Spirit proceeded also from the Son as
from the Father, and presented it to the Church to believe
[in], to praise and to worship.

"The Tenth holy, great and ecumenical Synod was held in

the city of Florence, under Eugenius, the Pope of Rome,
John Palaeologus, the most glorious emperor of the
Romans, and Joseph, the patriarch of Constantinople. This
also had convened for the same matter. Because of that
[the Synod] declared solemnly that the Holy Spirit
proceeded also from the Son in its own definition,
although this was not added to the symbol of the faith in
the Eastern Churches.”
The second short treatise gives also first the description of
the seven ecumenical councils adding to them the council
of Lyons as the Eighth, that under the Patriarch Bekkos as
the Ninth, and the council of Florence as the Tenth. The
author attributes the convocation of the Council of Lyons
to Pope John VIII whom he regards as immediate
successor to Pope Nicholas, omitting Hadrian II, who was
responsible for the condemnation of Photius at the Council
of 869-870. Both authors knew about the condemnation of
Photius by a synod, but had a very hazy idea which synod
it was. In this respect they were influenced by the
tradition deeply rooted in Byzantine minds that only the
first seven councils could be given the ecumenical
character. None of the numerous treatises on councils,
which they must have known, said anything about the
Ignatian synod of 869-870.

It was natural for a Greek Uniat to regard the two councils

which had proclaimed the union between the two
Churches—that of Lyons (1274) and that of Florence
(1438, 1439)—as ecumenical and to add them to the first
seven councils. However, it was daring to promote even
the local synod convoked by Bekkos in 1277 to an
ecumenical council. One understands this promotion,
because it was this synod which had to proclaim the union
concluded at Lyons, in Constantinople.

The Orthodox Church is proud of this tradition.12 We can

detect an echo of this glorious past of the Eastern Church
in the encyclical letter of the ecumenical Patriarch
Athenagoras written in 1950 on the occasion of the feast
of Orthodoxy, in which the Patriarch thanked most
solemnly his predecessors for having preserved
uncorrupted the faith proclaimed by the seven ecumenical
councils during the turbulent stages of history.13

How and when did it happen that the Western Church

abandoned the primitive tradition, common to East and
West, adding to the first seven ecumenical councils the
synod of 869-870 as the Eighth Ecumenical? I studied this
problem in my book on the Photian Schism,14 and I came
to the conclusion that even the Roman curia had accepted
the decisions of the council which had restored Photius,
and which continued to recognize as ecumenical councils
binding all Christians, only the seven primitive synods.
Among other documents we can quote a letter of Pope
Marinus II (942-946) to Sicus, Bishop of Capua, and that
of Pope Leo IX to Peter, the Patriarch of Antioch. Both
Popes knew only the seven general councils. Equally
important is the formula of the profession of faith which
every Pope had to recite and sign after his election. This
formula is preserved in the so-called Liber Diurnus,15 a
kind of school-book intended for the training of papal
notaries, containing copies of most of the formulae and
instructions. The official formulary used is in the papal
chancery. The formula for the profession of faith
enumerated originally only four councils, but the Fifth,
Sixth and the Seventh were added after these councils had
been accepted in Rome. The Seventh Council could have
been added only after the Photian council of 879-880.
During this council Photius asked that the ecumenical
character of this council should be officially recognized by
the whole Church.16 It can be shown that before this date
the Seventh Council had not yet been added to the six
ecumenical councils in Rome. The latest edition of the
formula containing the profession of faith of the newly
elected popes is preserved in the collection of Canon Law
composed by Cardinal Deusdedit during the reign of Pope
Gregory VII (1073-1085). He copied it from the Liber
Diurnus which then must have been reedited in the
eleventh century, most probably during the reign of Leo
IX. It is very significant that in this new edition of the
formula only seven councils are enumerated as
ecumenical and binding upon all Christians. Also, the so-
called Cautio Episcopi, or the profession form recited by
bishops after their election, contained in the new edition
of the Liber Diurnus, enumerates only seven ecumenical
councils. All this shows clearly that up to the end of the
eleventh century the Roman chancellery recognized only
seven ecumenical councils, excluding the council of 869-
870, and that of 879-880. Both Churches were thus in
perfect accord on this important matter.

I have tried also to explain why the Ignatian Council had

been added in the West to the list as the Eighth
Ecumenical. This happened during the reign of Gregory
VII, who had opened the Lateran archives to his canonists
who were looking for new arguments for the papal
primacy and who were against the intervention of laymen
in the appointment of bishops and abbots. They needed a
strongly worded official document which they could use in
their fight against the investiture, or appointment of
clergy to ecclesiastical dignities by influential laymen.
They found such a document in Canon twenty-two voted
by the Ignatian Council, which forbade laymen to
influence the appointment of prelates. All canonists and
reformists of the Gregorian period used this canon as their
most powerful weapon in their struggle for the freedom of
the Church in the election of prelates. To give more weight
to this argument they promoted the Ignatian Council to
one of the most important ecumenical synods, overlooking
the Acts of the Photian Council which had cancelled the
Council of 869-70, although the Acts of this council were
also kept in the Lateran Archives. Only Cardinal Deusdedit
copied a part of the Acts of the Photian Synod of 861 and
of 879-880. He was followed by Ivo of Chartres, who, in
the famous prologue to his col1ection of Canon Law,
quoted a long passage of the letter of John VIII to Basil I
concerning the restoration of Photius in the "doctored"
version read at the council.17

The controversy between Latins and Greeks concerning

the number of ecumenical synods was begun very late,
only in the fifteenth century, during the Council of Ferrara-
Florence. During the discussion on the Filioque use was
made of the Acts of the first councils. When, at the
beginning of the sixth session, Cardinal Julian Cesarini
asked the Greeks to lend him the book containing the Acts
of the Eighth Council,18 the metropolitan of Ephesus
answered that the Greeks did not possess these Acts. This
is understandable because these Acts were destroyed
when the Council of 869-870 was abrogated. “But even
were it [this book] in our possession,” said the
metropolitan, “we could on no account be asked to
number among the ecumenical councils a synod which not
only was never approved, but was even condemned, for
the synod mentioned by Your Holiness drew up Acts
against Photius . . . ,” but another synod was subsequently
held which reinstated Photius and abrogated the first
synod. This council, also called the Eighth, met under Pope
John. It also dealt with the question of addition to the
Synod, deciding that nothing should be added. . . . Since
then the Acts of that council were annulled, it is not these,
but rather the Acts of the subsequent council that should
be looked for. The Cardinal, surprised by this outburst,
assured the Metropolitan that nothing should be read from
the Eighth Council. However, five days later, in the course
of the seventh session, the Archbishop of Rhodes,
speaking in the name of the Latins, attacked the
Metropolitan of Ephesus in a very passionate way. He
maintained that Photius was an enemy of the Roman
Church and was rightly condemned by the Eighth Council.
“As to what you recently affirmed,” continued the
Archbishop, “namely, that a synod was summoned later
and condemned the Eighth Council, I say that this seems
very unlikely. It will not do to come forward with any
doubtful argument to prove the contrary, that the synod
did pass such a condemnation, for neither the Pope nor his
representative were present.” “Because the Latins had no
knowledge of such a synod, therefore, the council you
mentioned never took place.”19 In spite of this sharp
encounter, the question of the number of ecumenical
synods was left open. The Greeks continued to count only
seven ecumenical councils and in the council's definitions
every reference to the Eighth Council was intentionally
omitted. It should be stressed that even the Greek Uniats
did not accept the Latin thesis concerning the Eighth
Council. This is illustrated by the attitude of the Greek
Bishop Bartholomew Abraham of Crete. Because the Latin
text of the Acts of the Council of Florence was lost, the
Archbishop of Ravenna asked the Bishop of Crete to
translate the Greek Acts into Latin. He did it in an abridged
form, but in his preface he called the Council of Florence
the Eighth Ecumenical. He did so with the full approval of
the papal chancellery given to the translation under Pope
Clement VII (1523-1534), in 1526. This title was given to
the Council of Florence also by one of the first editors of
conciliar Acts, Laurence Surius, in 1567, although with
some hesitation.20

Most of the famous theologians of the fifteenth and

sixteenth century were impressed by the edition of the
Acts of the Florentine Council by the Bishop of Crete,
although some of them remained faithful to the Latin
tradition designating the Ignatian Council as the Eighth
Ecumenical. Therefore, they referred to the Council of
Florence as the Ninth. This can be traced in the writings of
Fantino Vallaresso, Juan de Torquemada, Reginald Pole,
Antonio Agustin, Gasparo Contarini, Michael Eparco.21

From the beginning of the seventeenth century, however,

another practice had started. First of all, the Ignatian
Council came more and more into prominence among
church historians. In 1602 appeared the tenth volume of
the Annates Ecclesiasticis by the first modern Catholic
historian Cardinal Cesare Baronius who vehemently
rejected the title given to the Council of Florence, arguing
that this title should be given only to the Council of 869-
870 which had condemned Photius who, in Baronius’ eyes,
was the most dangerous enemy of the Roman Primacy and
a detested Father of the schism between East and West.
In 1604 M. Rader published in Innsbruck the Acts of this
council with the anti-Photianist collection which was
regarded as containing the most reliable documents
concerning the affair of Photius. This was intended to end
the practice inaugurated by the Bishop of Crete.

On the other side already the Archbishop of Rhodes in his

speech during the seventh session of the Council of
Florence, when refusing the Greek thesis concerning the
annulment of the Eighth Council, hinted that from the
Eighth Council on many important assemblies were
convoked by the Popes, meaning the Western councils, the
four Lateran, those of Lyons, Vienna and Constance. These
councils more and more attracted the attention of the
canonists. For example, the famous Spanish canonist
Antonio Agustin (1517-1586) counted nine councils
common to Greeks and Latins—the Ninth the Council of
Florence—and seven Latin councils, namely, the Third,
Fourth and Fifth Lateran, the Second of Lyons, that of
Vienna, of Constance and of Trent. Jacobazzi (1538) also
added to the eight first councils the Latin assemblies, but
left out in his list the first and second councils of Lateran
and that of Basel.

All these hesitations and uncertainties concerning the

number of ecumenical councils were put aside by
Bellarmin. In the first volume of his main work
Disputationes de Controvertus Christianae Fidei
(Innsbruck, 1586-1593) Cardinal Robert Bellarmin added
to the eight first councils all Western assemblies, giving to
the Council of Florence the sixteenth place. He had some
reserve concerning the validity of the Council of Basel. At
the same time he gave a new definition of a general
council, and discussed the conditions which would give a
council its ecumenical character and authority binding on
all Catholics. The first condition was the convocation by a
Pope who should preside in person or through a
representative. He mentioned also that at the first councils
all five patriarchs were present representing the bishops
of their patriarchates. Now, however, defined Bellarmin,
the absence of the oriental patriarchs does not affect the
ecumenicity of a council convoked by the Pope, because
“these patriarchs are heretics, or certainly schismatics.”
Bellarmin’s definition put aside the most important
objection which could be raised against the ecumenical
character of the councils held in the West from the twelfth
century on. His work was reprinted several times and the
Cardinal became a leading authority on theological and
conciliar matters. No wonder that another editor of the
Conciliar Acts, S. Bini (Cologne, 1606), following
Bellarmin, regarded the designation of the Council of
Florence as the Eighth, which had been retained, although
with some reserve, by his predecessor Surius, as spurious
and declared that the designation “Sixteenth” should be
substituted for “Eighth.” What hastened this new trend in
conciliar matters was the preoccupation of the canonists
to assure the ecumenical character to the Council of Trent
(1545-1565), opposed and denied by the Protestants. To
achieve this it seemed necessary to add to the old list of
ecumenical councils also the Latin councils held in the
West. When Pope Paul V had ordered a new publication of
the Conciliar Acts, a special congregation was formed to
direct the preliminary work of the editors. Examining the
differences concerning the Council of Florence, the
congregation decided in its session of October 21, 1595,
that the Council of Florence should not be called the
Eighth, but the Sixteenth Ecumenical Counci1.22 The way
for such a decision was prepared by Bellarmin and Bini. So
it happened that the Collectio Romana, the Roman edition
of the Conciliar Acts, with the preface of I. Simond
(Concilia Generalia 4 vols. Rome 1608-1612)23 accepted
Bellarmin’s numbering of the ecumenical councils and
their example was followed by all editors of Acts of the
following period up to the present time.

This decision is, of course, not a pronunciamento on

dogmatic matters. It was made rather for practical
reasons and was based on works of canonists and
theologians of that period. It had not solved the problem
of the Ignatian and the Photian councils, making its
solution rather more difficult; There is only one way to
achieve an understanding. The Western Church has to
revive the tradition which she herself had followed up to
the twelfth century, and the memory of which was alive in
the West up to the seventeenth century, as is illustrated
by the history of the Council of Florence, and recognize
only the seven primitive councils, excluding the so-called
Eighth.
Concerning the Western councils, the Orthodox will have
two objections to the value the Latins give them.
According to the orthodox teaching, only a council which
makes a dogmatic decision can be regarded as
ecumenical.24 All other councils are local. This was one of
the reasons that the councils of 869-870 and of 879-880
were not regarded as ecumenical because they were
convoked to decide on a matter of discipline and canon
law. When we apply this ruling we see that many of the
Western councils do not qualify.

As to the acceptance of Western councils by the Orthodox,

let us recall the words which Nicetos, the Bishop of
Nicomedia, addressed in 1136 to Anselm, Bishop of
Havelberg, during their discussion of the Roman
primacy.25 “The Roman Church, whose primacy among its
sisters we accept, to which we give the first place of honor
as president of a general council, separated itself [from
us] . . . . When therefore, because of these circumstances,
this Church assembles a council with its Western bishops,
without our knowledge of what is happening, it is right
that its bishops should accept its decrees and observe
them with the veneration due to them. . . . But, we,
although we are in accord with the Roman Church
concerning the Catholic faith, how could we, because we
do not keep assemblies at the same time she does, accept
decisions which had been taken without our advice, and of
which we even do not know anything?”

These words recall another mark or character which a

council must have in order to be called ecumenical,
according to the Orthodox Church, namely that all five
patriarchs should be present at such an assembly and that
its decisions should be accepted by the whole Church.
Because of this reason, says the Greek specialist of canon
law, H. Alivisatos,26 the Eastern Church, although it
considers itself a continuation of the primitive and
indivisible Church, has abstained from convoking an
Eighth Ecumenical Council for the reason that it would not
be accepted as such by the Roman Church. A council which
is not accepted in unanimous fashion does not possess the
character of catholicity.

In the discussion of this and other problems dividing

Eastern and Western Christianity we should recall the
recommendation given by the Fathers during the fourth
session of the Synod of Union (879-880).27 The holy Synod
said: Every Church has certain old usages which it has
inherited. One should not quarrel and argue about them.
Let the Roman Church observe its usages; this is
legitimate. But let also the Church of Constantinople
observe certain usages which it has inherited from old
times. Let it be likewise so in the Oriental sees. . . . Many
things would have not happened if the Churches had
followed this recommendation in the past.

Francis Dvornik (Roman Catholic), has been on the faculty

of the Charles IV University of Prague, College de France,
Cambridge University and Harvard University. His many
books include: The Photian Schism: History and Legend;
The Idea of Apostolicity in Byzantium and Byzance et la
Primauté.

1The treatise is preserved in Ms. Arundel 529 of the British

Museum. See my book, The Photian Schism (Cambridge,
1948), pp. 383, 456-457.

2See K. Krumbacher, Geschichte der Byzantinischen

Literatur (Munich, 1897), p. 109, and H. G. Beck, Kirche
und Theologische Literatur im Byzantinischen Reich
(Munich, 1959), p. 787.

3Cf. G. Ostrogorsky, History of the Byzantine State (New

Brunswick, 1957), pp. 456ff.

4 Cf. F. Dvornik, pp. 384, 420, 456.

5 Ibid., p. 347. (See also below, footnote #25).

6 Ibid. 348ff., 397ff.

7Published by J. Pappe in J. A. Fabricins’ Bibliotheca
Graeca (Hamburg, 1809), vol. 12, pp. 360-421.

8Sinaiticus Graecus, No. 418 (1117), fols. 357a-365a. Cf. F.

Dvornik, The Patriarch Photius in the Light of Recent
Research (Munich, 1958), pp. 35ff.

9A new edition of the Synodicon and its versions on the

basis of all available manuscripts is being prepared by
John Parker.

Cf. Dvornik, The Photian Schism, pp. 452ff. Only one

10
such treatise has been published by Ch. Justellus in his
Nomocanon Photii . . . Accessere ejusdem Photii, Nili
metropolitae Rhodi et Anonymi tractatus de synodis
oecumenicis (Paris, 1615). This treatise and that of Neilos
are reprinted by G. A. Rhallis in his Syntagma (Athens
1885-1889), p. 370-374, 389-395.

11 Studi et Testi, No. 232 (1964), vol. 2, pp. 93-101.

Cf. H. Alivisatos, “Les Conciles Oecuménique V, VI, VII et

12
VIII,” Le Concile et les conciles, edition de Chevetogne
(1960), p. 120.

13It was published in the official review of the

Patriarchate, Orthodoxia (1950), No.2, p. 39-41. A French
translation appeared in the Istina (1954), No. 1, pp. 46,
47.

14 Ibid., pp. 314ff.

15 Cf. Ibid., pp. 318ff., 435ff.

16At the beginning of the fifth session Photius asked that Rome and all other
Patriarchs should regard the council of 787 as ecumenical and should add this
council to the six others. All representatives of the patriarchs did so solemnly
when signing the decisions of the Photian Council. Mansi, Concilia 17, col.
493, 508ff.