The Ecumenical Thread

Now onto my thoughts concerning Cacciaguida's post here.

First off, the nationalism latent in the Orthodox Church is an interesting topic; I'm under the impression that it was a result of the Ottoman Empire (religious nationalism being a sort of proto-liberation theology).  This excessive nationalism, which in many congregations seems more important than Christ and His Church, troubles me.  It's a relatively recent phenomenon, though, and of course I hope it dies off, though I won't go into too much detail on the subject right now.

As to the question of what makes a council an Ecumenical Counci, C. quotes the catechism in his post.  In a nutshell, it seems that if a council receives papal ratification it gets EC status.  This answer is very unsatisfying. 

First of all, why does the council need to be convened "under the presidency of the pope or his legates?"  The First EC was convened under Emperor Constantine the Great; in fact a great many of the first councils were under the presidency of the emperors.  But they're not illegitimate. 

Also, why have councils anyway if a council's only good because of papal approval?  It seems that there is nothing special about the collection of clergy in itself since, if their findings don't receive the Pope's thumbs up, it isn't an EC.  I don't think a practical explanation will do; Infallibility, wherever it lies, is informed and guided by the Holy Spirit.  If a council doesn't become Ecumenical and Infallible (because, quite frankly, it can't be the former without being the latter) until the Pope says so, then in reality the Holy Spirit doesn't act through the episcopate as a college.  We might as well cut out the middle man.  Emperor Constantine should have never called a Council; he should have just sent a letter to the Pope asking him to denounce the heresies of the day.  Peter should have never bothered to hold a council with his fellow Apostles (because, as far as I can tell, the really First Ecumenical Council occurred when the Apostles met to decide if Gentile converts to the Faith needed to be circumcised first).  If Christ unambiguously gave Peter the Keys to the Kingdom then all the Apostles should have been well aware of that fact, and a simple pronouncement should have been fine and dandy.  However (and I need to take a look at my Bible to refresh my remember) I recall more of a council than a monologue and pronouncement.

Anyway, to take things a step further, why Rome?  After all, Peter founded the See of Antioch way before he founded the See of Rome.  In answer to that question, I'd say that the Church has long had a practical way of distributing authority.  From the earliest days bishops were based in big cities, not tiny towns.  This is an obviously practical consideration, since a bishop will do a bettr job of leading his flock when he's with more of them, and therefore at least has some contact with them. 

As to the question of the legitimacy of the Council of Florence, I raise this hypothetical (it's a metaphor, so naturally it won't map on precisely): suppose the Pope dies and the Cardinals get together to elect his successor.  Suppose they don't gather in good faith, and violenc awaits if they choose one candidate over another.  Is their election valid?  In the case of the Council, the Emperor purposefully sent a hand-picked delegation that, he knew, would assent to any Western demands for the sake of gathering military support.  Quite a few bishops, priests, etc. who were more interested in debating the issues didn't go, so plenty of folk back home were upset when the delegation returned. 

As for the Third Council, here's a bit to think about:

When these documents had been read out, the holy synod decreed the following.
1. It is not permitted to produce or write or compose any other creed except the one which was defined by the holy fathers who were gathered together in the holy Spirit at Nicaea.
2.Any who dare to compose or bring forth or produce another creed for the benefit of those who wish to turn from Hellenism or Judaism or some other heresy to the knowledge of the truth, if they are bishops or clerics they should be deprived of their respective charges and if they are laymen they are to be anathematised.

This seems pretty straightforward: read my lips, no new creeds.  Athanasius's creed came before the Council so, and perhaps the Father had his Fil-fanatic creed in mind when they made the above pronouncements.  As far as I can tell, adding the Filioque is in direct violation of EC3.

Also, I think it's very odd to think that the results of the Third Council (which are Infallible) somehow failed to take this or that truth into account, that somehow the Holy Spirit didn't look far enough ahead and left bits of Truth out.  It's one thing, for instance, to chart the development of the Creed from Constantinople to Nicea (since the last half of the Creed wasn't written at Constantinople).  It's quite another to say, "oops, when we last spoke about the Holy Spirit we left this crucial bit out."

My apologies if this post was a bit rushed; it's late in the day and I have to run.  I'd like to write a little more about the Filioque itself when I get a chance.

I pray that I am being honest, fair, and straightforward as I consider these questions.