The following pages demonstrate the Quinisext Council, known more commonly as “Trullo,” was accepted by the Western Church as part of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils and its canons carried the same weight and authority as those from other ecumenical councils in both the East and the West.
The source is Nicolae Dura, “The Ecumenicity of the Council of Trullo, Witness of the Canonical Tradition in East and West,” in George Nedungatt and Michael Featherstone, eds. The Council of Trullo Revisited (Rome 1995). pgs. 229-262
8 thoughts on “The Council of Trullo was Ecumenical in the West”
Sorry, the problem must come from my computer, I can read the scans fine from my phone. Don’t bother replying!
Please forgive me, but I find the scans of Dura’s article quite illegible : they seem to be small scans that blur quickly when enlarged. Is there any link to the article? Many thanks!
Pingback: Did Rome Accept the Canons of Trullo? – Orthodox Christian Theology
Pingback: A Note On Ecumenical Councils And Modern Orthodoxy – Ancient Insights
Hi Craig, “accepted” is a vague term because it lacks the precision of what it was *accepted as.* As far as I know, it was only accepted as a local council of the East by the West until the 6th century with the notable exception Chalcedon. In other words, they were not using the Creed supposedly written at said council as an official Creed of the Church and they did not rank Constsntinople on par woth Nicea or Ephesus. If you can provide primary source evidence from official statements out of Rome, I would be interested to see them.
I disagree with the citation to Met. Kallistos Ware that it took to 517 AD for Constantinople I to be accepted by the West as we have abundant primary source proof predating the completion of Chalcedon that its canons were accepted by the Pope and Western Bishops.
Usually, citing Ware is a bad idea. His tale is indeed a cautionary one.
Acceptance of canon does not necessarily entail acceptance of the dogmatic decrees of a council as binding upon the faithful (i.e. the Council of Antioch and several of the councils of Carthage are prime examples).
But this would be seat from the pants guessing from historians. Are we seriously going to assert that the doctrines of Constantinople I were not accepted? The synodical letter makes clear that these were the consensus western doctrines.
So, I don’t quite get your point here and without actually defending Ware’s argument, whatever it even is, we have enough evidence that Rome accepted Constan I pre Chalcedon and in Chalcedon itself had no objection to its creed and etcetera.