The Saint Euphrosynos Cafe

Also, it is worthy of note, that many GOC/TOC groups would consider the Photian and Palamite councils to be Ecumenical, thus holding that there are nine, not seven, Ecumenical Councils.

Master bless! I listed all of the councils that I know of after the Seventh Ecumenical Council that teach doctrine that all the Orthodox accept. I know that the Photian and Palamite synods are sometimes referred to as the Eighth and Ninth Ecumenical Councils as you brought up. On that topic there is something I do not know that I would be grateful if you could teach me. I generally understood a synod is an Ecumenical Council only if it has all three of these traits.

1. Called by the Roman emperor, thus "Imperial" or "Ecumenical" or "Oikoumenē" the whole inhabited Christian world under the Emperor
2. Taught something specific in the true orthodoxy faith, that is what was believed by everyone, always, and everywhere. But defining it in new more precise terms against a new heresy that perverted the faith as taught by the apostles and their disciples and so on
3. The definitions and anathemas of this council is accepted by the entire Orthodox world, that is every autocephalous and autonomous synod of bishops and their flocks

By that definition why is it only the Photian and Palamite synods are also considered Ecumenical? Why are these synods not considered Ecumenical?

861 Synod of Constantinople (First Second Council)
1082 Synod of Constantinople
1157 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ)
1166 Synod of Constantinople
1285 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ)

Their definitions and anathemas are in the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, what am I missing Master?

An Ecumenical council generally is marked by resolution of a Christological/Trinitarian controversy dividing the Church. This is true of the Photian councils with rejected the Filioque, and the Palamite councils which resolved the Balaamite attacks on energies/essence of God.

You could contrast this with the 1082 Council you mentioned which condemned a philosopher for heretical philosophies that touched on matters of Christian belief.

Thank you for your instruction! I dug into the question further based on what you said and I found some new things, there are nine possible synods in question. Two of them (861 and 1082) are not explicitly dealing with Trinitarian or Christological heresies but all the others do. So why don't we count the others as Ecumenical Councils?

For some more context

843 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ)
Called by Empress: Theodora
Heretic in question: N/A
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy: (reconfirming Second Council of Nicaea)

861 Synod of Constantinople (First Second Council)(Photian)(mainly about establishing canons)
Called by Emperor: Michael III
Heretic in question: N/A
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy: N/A

1082 Synod of Constantinople
Called by Emperor: Alexios I Komnenos
Heretic in question: John Italus
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy: N/A (Did address various heresies of synchronizing platonism with Christianity like Origenism did in the past)

1094 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ) 
Called by Emperor: Alexios I Komnenos
Heretic in question: Eustratios and Leo of Chalcedon
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy: whether holy images can or cannot be repurposed for common use without blasphemy such as melting down gold and silver liturgical vessels and temple ornaments in times of extreme need to feed the starving, if the icons of Christ must be given the same worship as Christ, and if the human nature of Christ worships the divine nature

1110 Synod? (Probably in Constantinople)
Called by Emperor: Alexios I Komnenos
Heretic in question: Basil the Physician
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy: various heresies related to Bogomilism against the Trinity in general and Christ in specific

1166 Synod of Constantinople
Called by Emperor: Manuel I Komnenos
Heretic in question: Constantine the Bulgarian, Demetrius of Lampe
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy: whether the saying of Christ, "My Father is greater than I", referred to his divine nature, to his human nature, or to the union of the two.

1157 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ)
Called by Emperor: Manuel I Komnenos
Heretic in question: Basilakes Soterichus
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy: whether Christ had offered Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world to the Father and to the Holy Spirit only, or also to the Logos (i.e., to Himself)

1176 Synod (Probably in Stari Ras)
Called by Emperor: N/A (was called by Grand Prince of Raska (Serbia) Stefan Nemanja)
Heretic in question: N/A
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy: various heresies related to Bogomilism against the Trinity in general and Christ in specific

1285 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ)
Called by Emperor: Andronikos II Palaiologos
Heretic in question: John Beccus XI of Constantinople
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy: Filioque, Double procession in general, double procession as a single principle in particular (and the union with the Pope at the Second Council of Lyons)

Further studying into this question led me to find a few synods I missed. Here is the update version and brief notes for context

27(25) Universally Accepted Doctrinal Synods after the Seventh Ecumenical Council

843 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ)
861 Synod of Constantinople (First Second Council/Photian)
867 Synod of Constantinople (Photian)
879 Synod of Constantinople (Photian)
1082 Synod of Constantinople
1094 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ)
(1110 Synod? of Constantinople)
1157 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ)
1166 Synod of Constantinople
1176 Synod (Probably in Stari Ras)
1285 Synod of Constantinople (Blachernæ)
1341 Synod of Constantinople (Palamite)
1351 Synod of Constantinople (Palamite)
1484 Synod of Constantinople
(1583 Synod? of Jerusalem Sigillion?)
1593 Synod of Constantinople
1638 Synod of Constantinople
1642 Synod of Jasi
1672 Synod of Jerusalem
1722 Synod of Constantinople
1727 Synod of Constantinople
1819 Synod of Constantinople
1838 Synod of Constantinople
1848 Synod of Constantinople
1872 Synod of Constantinople
1895 Synod of Constantinople
1937 Synod of Ust-Kut (Catacomb Church)

✓843 Synod of Blachernæ in Constantinople establishing the first edition of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy
✓861 Synod of Constantinople (First Second Council)(Photian) about confirming Second Council of Nicaea, monastic, and clerical reform
✓950's (estimate) Sermon Against the Heretics (Bogomils) by Cosmas the Presbyter probably under the patronage of Tzar Peter I of Bulgaria
✓1094 Synod of Blachernæ in Constantinople against Leo the Chalcedonian
✓1110 Synod? of Constantinople against Basil the Physician
✓1176 Synod (Probably in Stari Ras) against the Bogomils
✓1583 Synod? of Jerusalem Sigillion against the calendar (possibly not a real single document but a confused compilation) and  establishing the second edition of the Synodikon of Orthodoxy

Benjamin,

The Lord bless you. Look at your list.

How many of those were roiling the church versus being peculiar local disputes? I didn't say just a christological/trinitarian controversy/heresy, but one that was dividing the Church. I believe there is a world of difference between "“The whole world groaned and marveled to find itself Arian" and some pesky Slavic gnostics confusing the local peasants. Local councils resolve local disputes.

How many of them were rehashes of previous decisions (i.e. double procession)? How many simply affirmed or compiled that which was done before?

How many were addressing issues from outside the Church (gnostics/Bogomilism)? Every one of the 7/9 Ecumenical councils dealt with issues coming from inside the Church -- heretics (those in the church who departed the faith) purporting to teach heresy as orthodoxy.

How many consisted of bishops of a single synod, versus a broad representation of the Church?

A local council can still be right and authoritative and not be ecumenical. They can be very important, like the Council of Jerusalem in 1672. They don't have to be ecumenical to have import and meaning.

I appreciate your responses and I ask your patience Master as I ask a further clarifying question. I seek as much clarity and consistency of thought as we can have in our station in this life. I accept all Ecumenical and local councils accepted by the whole church as vital in the doctrines they teach and the way of life they show through the canons. My goal in understanding what is an Ecumenical Council is to have a better appreciation of the prayers of the church that make this distinction, not to devalue the local synods. If at the end of the day the answer is "Because the church says so" I would accept that convention. I do want to better understand the distinction of an Ecumenical Council if that is not the case as best as I can with your knowledge. The criteria laid out in this discussion so far is this.

Called by the Emperor for the Christian Empire
Accepted by everyone not on trial
Christological/Trinitarian Heresy
Major controversy that rocked the Church
Heretics from within not parasynagogues from without
Effected a major part of the empire not just locally
Bishops involved from many synods not just one
Not rehashed

This list does make all of the synods local between the Seventh, Eighth, and Ninth. However I have a question about the criteria of "Not Rehashed", does this not disqualify the Second and Fifth Ecumenical Councils? As they were primarily rehashing Arianism and Nestorianism respectfully? If we remove this criteria then all but two of the other synods would be local, but Synod of 843 and the Synod of 1285 would meet these criteria except being rehashed Iconoclasm and the Filioque respectfully. What quality does Second and Fifth that 843 and 1285 does not have? I appreciate your time and the effort you have put into answering my questions, I do feel this is helping me reach a deeper understanding.

Your blessings Master