Question for non-Catholics regarding the council of Chalcedon?

[joe370]

Is it true that the council of Chalcedon is considered infallible in its dogmatic definitions, by various Protestant Christian groups?

 

[WetCatechumen]

Is it true that the council of Chalcedon is considered infallible in its dogmatic definitions, by various Protestant Christian groups?

Eh . . .

Depends on what you mean by “various Protestant Christian groups”.

 

[Cat_Herder]

Is it true that the council of Chalcedon is considered infallible in its dogmatic definitions, by various Protestant Christian groups?

Mainline Protestants generally accept the first seven ecumenical councils. (That would include Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and the Disciples of Christ among others.)

All other Protestants generally reject all of the councils.

 

[WetCatechumen]

Mainline Protestants generally accept the first seven ecumenical councils. (That would include Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and the Disciples of Christ among others.)

All other Protestants generally reject all of the councils.

The Disciples of Christ venerate icons?!

 

[Cat_Herder]

The Disciples of Christ venerate icons?!

No. Nor do they venetate Our Lady. That’s why I qualified it with “generally.”

Those Protestants who do accept the first seven councils do so only selectively, going with their own tradition whenever there is a conflict. So I think that answers the OP’s question.

 

[BrianGular]

Is it true that the council of Chalcedon is considered infallible in its dogmatic definitions, by various Protestant Christian groups?

Most Protestant groups would support the work of councils as true, but they would stop short of declaring infallibility. Chalcedon’s declaration about the essence and nature of Christ, for example, would be considered orthodox theology, not infallible teaching.

 

[Izdaari]

Is it true that the council of Chalcedon is considered infallible in its dogmatic definitions, by various Protestant Christian groups?

I doubt that very many of my fellow Protestants, if they have not been to seminary, have ever even heard of the council of Chalcedon. I, being something of a theology nerd, am an exception. Personally, I would not call Chalcedon infallible, though I would call it orthodox.

 

[Contarini]

Is it true that the council of Chalcedon is considered infallible in its dogmatic definitions, by various Protestant Christian groups?

It is not considered infallible in the sense that Protestants don’t think it was guaranteed to come to the right conclusion simply by virtue of the kind of gathering it was. But then, the Orthodox generally don’t seem to think this either, and arguably not all Catholics would see it that way.

Traditional Protestants believe that its conclusions were correct and in harmony with Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Publisher]

It is not considered infallible in the sense that Protestants don’t think it was guaranteed to come to the right conclusion simply by virtue of the kind of gathering it was. But then, the Orthodox generally don’t seem to think this either, and arguably not all Catholics would see it that way.

Traditional Protestants believe that its conclusions were correct and in harmony with Scripture.

Edwin

Those Friends I know who are very much into the history of early Christianity would agree with you with one digression…while the council reflected what became “common belief” in the larger institutional church…their declarations are not infallible.

 

[ndismyhome]

Mainline Protestants generally accept the first seven ecumenical councils. (That would include Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and the Disciples of Christ among others.)

All other Protestants generally reject all of the councils.

I would amend your statement slightly; many Prots are good with EC 1-4, 5-7 are very selectively held to.

 

[joe370]

I would amend your statement slightly; many Prots are good with EC 1-4, 5-7 are very selectively held to.

They would consider 1-4 infallible in their dogmatic definitions?

 

[joe370]

It is not considered infallible in the sense that Protestants don’t think it was guaranteed to come to the right conclusion simply by virtue of the kind of gathering it was. But then, the Orthodox generally don’t seem to think this either, and arguably not all Catholics would see it that way.

Traditional Protestants believe that its conclusions were correct and in harmony with Scripture.

Edwin

So, the conclusions of the council of Chalcedon were correct but at the same time, perhaps quite fallible because there was no guarantee that the members of said council would come to the right conclusion simply by virtue of it being a council?

Do you believe that ecumenical council of Chalcedon was guided by the spirit of truth in some way, or do you trust that they were correct (but possible fallible) - based on human discernment alone?

 

[Nicea325]

I doubt that very many of my fellow Protestants, if they have not been to seminary, have ever even heard of the council of Chalcedon. I, being something of a theology nerd, am an exception. Personally, I would not call Chalcedon infallible, though I would call it orthodox.

Then is Nicaea 325 fallible?

 

[Marie_Gregg]

That’s a great question. I had to look up the word “infallible” as a refresher. “Incapable of making mistakes or of being wrong.” Now, if a doctrine is considered “orthodox,” does it also need to be infallible? I’m thinking about, say, the doctrine regarding the Virgin Birth. We would certainly want that doctrine to be without mistake or error!

I need to do more study on this.

 

[Nicea325]

That’s a great question. I had to look up the word “infallible” as a refresher. “Incapable of making mistakes or of being wrong.” Now, if a doctrine is considered “orthodox,” does it also need to be infallible? I’m thinking about, say, the doctrine regarding the Virgin Birth. We would certainly want that doctrine to be without mistake or error!

I need to do more study on this.

That precisely is my point. If the doctrine of the Trinity was ratified in 325 A.D. and always taught as an orthodox doctrine,then wouldn’t infallibility play a part? The men who wrote the NT,were they fallible? And yet at the same wrote orthodox teachings and writings?

 

[AmateurPianist]

That’s a great question. I had to look up the word “infallible” as a refresher. “Incapable of making mistakes or of being wrong.” Now, if a doctrine is considered “orthodox,” does it also need to be infallible? I’m thinking about, say, the doctrine regarding the Virgin Birth. We would certainly want that doctrine to be without mistake or error!

I need to do more study on this.

The word “infallible” seems confusing to me. Of course the meaning is “incapable of being incorrect”.

This is not the same as “being correct” (as I have pointed out before).

In my mind being correct is taking 100 consecutive math tests and getting a score of 100. Does this means one is “infallible in match”. Not unless it is a certainty that all remaining math tests in the future will also be 100%.

So back to this question. Do we accept the council of Chalcedon as “correct”. Certainly. But in my mind for it to be infallible, there has to be some underlying process that if followed will always be guaranteed to be error free.

Do I think that such process exists. I have seen no evidence of that myself.

But aqain in my mind this concept of infallability is kind of confusing.

 

[joe370]

That’s a great question. I had to look up the word “infallible” as a refresher. “Incapable of making mistakes or of being wrong.” Now, if a doctrine is considered “orthodox,” does it also need to be infallible? I’m thinking about, say, the doctrine regarding the Virgin Birth. We would certainly want that doctrine to be without mistake or error!

I need to do more study on this.

Well, sacred scripture was certainly considered “orthodox” long before the council of Trent finally defined it as infallible. It seems that certain things, such as sacred scripture, are not officially defined as infallible until said things are first challenged by dissenters.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

I doubt that very many of my fellow Protestants, if they have not been to seminary, have ever even heard of the council of Chalcedon. I, being something of a theology nerd, am an exception. Personally, I would not call Chalcedon infallible, though I would call it orthodox.

So, you worship statues too?

Just kidding.

 

[Jack_Bauer]

That’s a great question. I had to look up the word “infallible” as a refresher. “Incapable of making mistakes or of being wrong.” Now, if a doctrine is considered “orthodox,” does it also need to be infallible? I’m thinking about, say, the doctrine regarding the Virgin Birth. We would certainly want that doctrine to be without mistake or error!

I need to do more study on this.

You mentioned “virgin birth”. That’s interesting to me because I assumed all Christians knew/believed that Mary remained a virgin after the birth of Christ. Several decades later, while sitting in a bible class given by our preacher, graduate degree in bible gave the only divergent talk about this and said, “I can’t say one way or the other if Mary had other children after Jesus, but for centuries this was the belief.”

 

[joe370]

In my mind being correct is taking 100 consecutive math tests and getting a score of 100. Does this means one is “infallible in match”. Not unless it is a certainty that all remaining math tests in the future will also be 100%.

So back to this question. Do we accept the council of Chalcedon as “correct”. Certainly. But in my mind for it to be infallible, there has to be some underlying process that if followed will always be guaranteed to be error free.

Do I think that such process exists. I have seen no evidence of that myself.

But aqain in my mind this concept of infallability is kind of confusing.

If no process of infallibility exists for Jesus’ church, via the perpetual ineffable guidance of the holy spirit, then sacred scripture as well as certain dogmatic teachings of the CC, such as Theotokos, Filioque, the Trinity, all embraced as infallible by most Protestants, become liable to being “erroneous or false, not accurate.” In other words, “fallible” - correct?