The protestant perspective of the various ecumenical councils of the early Catholic Church...

[joe370]

The Catholic Church in the face of heresy, convoked via council, when necessary, under the authority of a body of catholic bishops. These catholic bishops convened via ecumenical council to authoritatively arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes such as, Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatistism and Miaphysitism - which had arisen within the Catholic Church from time to time.

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ?

 

[JonNC]

The Catholic Church in the face of heresy, convoked via council, when necessary, under the authority of a body of catholic bishops. These catholic bishops convened via ecumenical council to authoritatively arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes such as, Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatistism and Miaphysitism - which had arisen within the Catholic Church from time to time.

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ?

Lutherans wouldn’t question the authority of the undivided Church to convene ecumenical councils to resolve issues facing the Church. To that end, Lutherans generally accept the first 6 councils as authoritative, and since the reformers opposed iconoclasm in the 16th century, most probably have no trouble with the declaration against iconoclam of the 7th.

The issue today is whether or not councils convened that are not truely ecumenical are authoritative. I believe the EOC has the same concerns.

Jon

 

[Brian_Culliton]

The Catholic Church in the face of heresy, convoked via council, when necessary, under the authority of a body of catholic bishops. These catholic bishops convened via ecumenical council to authoritatively arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes such as, Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatistism and Miaphysitism - which had arisen within the Catholic Church from time to time.

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ?

Nicea was not convoked by the authority of any bishops; it was convoked by Constantine.

 

[RyanBlack]

Also, Donatism was not addressed by an Ecumenical Council, and what is being referred to as Miaphysitism would perhaps be better called Monophysitism or Eutychianism. Today, those groups who consider themselves to be Miaphysites (the Oriental Orthodox) do not hold the heresy of Eutyches (and probably never did) and have reached a level of understanding with Rome on questions of christology such that they are not considered to be heretics.

 

[joe370]

Nicea was not convoked by the authority of any bishops; it was convoked by Constantine.

Ok, called by Constantine for the catholic bishops to convoke and resolve doctrinal disputes. These catholic bishops convened via ecumenical council to authoritatively arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes such as, Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatistism and Miaphysitism - which had arisen within the Catholic Church from time to time.

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, **by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ? **

 

[Dave_Noonan]

Ok, called by Constantine for the catholic bishops to convoke and resolve doctrinal disputes. These catholic bishops convened via ecumenical council to authoritatively arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes such as, Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatistism and Miaphysitism - which had arisen within the Catholic Church from time to time.

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, **by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ? **

If you’re asking by whose authority the councils were called, you’re going to end up with a lot of very confusing political mishmash. If you’re asking what makes the decisions of the councils authoritative, I would say that it’s due to their ecumenical nature; or in a classical definition, the pope teaching in union with all the bishops.

After Constantinople I, however, the definition of “ecumenical” kept shrinking until finally the so-called “ecumenical” councils included only the Roman church and excluded everyone else. As ever smaller portions of the universal church were included in the deliberations, their authority is significantly diminished because so much of Christianity was purposefully excluded–it’s no longer anything approaching the pope teaching in union with all the bishops. Decisions reached by the Roman Church would of course be binding on the Roman Church, but not on anyone else.

 

[joe370]

Also, Donatism was not addressed by an Ecumenical Council, and what is being referred to as Miaphysitism would perhaps be better called Monophysitism or Eutychianism. Today, those groups who consider themselves to be Miaphysites (the Oriental Orthodox) do not hold the heresy of Eutyches (and probably never did) and have reached a level of understanding with Rome on questions of christology such that they are not considered to be heretics.

Okay Ryan, so I will word it this way:

The Catholic Church in the face of heresy, convoked via council, when necessary, under the authority of a body of catholic bishops. These catholic bishops convened via council to authoritatively arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes which had arisen within the Catholic Church from time to time.

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements in the early Catholic Church, that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ?

 

[joe370]

Dave Noonan;7529704]If you’re asking by whose authority the councils were called, you’re going to end up with a lot of very confusing political mishmash.

Nope.

If you’re asking what makes the decisions of the councils authoritative, I would say that it’s due to their ecumenical nature; or in a classical definition, the pope teaching in union with all the bishops.

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by whose authority did the the pope, in union with all the bishop - bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements in the early Catholic Church, that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ?

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Lutherans wouldn’t question the authority of the undivided Church to convene ecumenical councils to resolve issues facing the Church. To that end, Lutherans generally accept the first 6 councils as authoritative, and since the reformers opposed iconoclasm in the 16th century, most probably have no trouble with the declaration against iconoclam of the 7th.

The issue today is whether or not councils convened that are not truely ecumenical are authoritative. I believe the EOC has the same concerns.

Jon

I agree with what you said but that is not the issue of the thread, which is:

The Catholic Church in the face of heresy, convoked via council, when necessary, under the authority of a body of catholic bishops. These catholic bishops convened via council to authoritatively arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes which had arisen within the Catholic Church from time to time.

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, **by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements in the early Catholic Church, that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ? **

 

[Dokimas]

The Catholic Church in the face of heresy, convoked via council, when necessary, under the authority of a body of catholic bishops. These catholic bishops convened via ecumenical council to authoritatively arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes such as, Arianism, Nestorianism, Donatistism and Miaphysitism - which had arisen within the Catholic Church from time to time.

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ?

The governments of the countries they lived in. Weren’t men (and probably women) executed after some of these trials? Who would have given them the authority but the country they were in (ex. Spain).

Another example:

"In November 1414, the Council of Constance assembled, and Huss was urged by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund to come and give an account of his doctrine. Because he was promised safe conduct, and because of the importance of the council (which promised significant church reforms), Huss went. When he arrived, however, he was immediately arrested, and he remained imprisoned for months. Instead of a hearing, Huss was eventually hauled before authorities in chains and asked merely to recant his views.

When he saw he wasn’t to be given a forum for explaining his ideas, let alone a fair hearing, he finally said, “I appeal to Jesus Christ, the only judge who is almighty and completely just. In his hands I plead my cause, not on the basis of false witnesses and erring councils, but on truth and justice.” He was taken to his cell, where many pleaded with him to recant. On July 6, 1415, he was taken to the cathedral, dressed in his priestly garments, then stripped of them one by one. He refused one last chance to recant at the stake, where he prayed, “Lord Jesus, it is for thee that I patiently endure this cruel death. I pray thee to have mercy on my enemies.” He was heard reciting the Psalms as the flames engulfed him."

Taken from a website on Christian History.

 

[JonNC]

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, **by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements in the early Catholic Church, that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ? **

It depends, Joe, on what you men by “Catholic Church”. If by Catholic Church, you mean exclusively and singularly, as we know it today, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I do not see said authority in Matthew for the Bishop of Rome to act without the rest of the bishops. If by Catholic Church you mean the undivided Church of that time, which is now divided - effectively, the Church Militant - then I do, and I recognize that authority in the early councils.

Jon

 

[GaryTaylor]

If by Catholic Church you mean the undivided Church of that time, which is now divided - effectively, the Church Militant - then I do, and I recognize that authority in the early councils.

Jon

Was it not the Holy Spirit guiding these early councils?

So if you recognize the authority of the early councils, then at what point did these councils then become unathoritive for you and why? What changed? Certainly the Holy Spirit didn’t?

 

[joe370]

It depends, Joe, on what you men by “Catholic Church”. If by Catholic Church, you mean exclusively and singularly, as we know it today, those in communion with the Bishop of Rome, I do not see said authority in Matthew for the Bishop of Rome to act without the rest of the bishops. If by Catholic Church you mean the undivided Church of that time, which is now divided - effectively, the Church Militant - then I do, and I recognize that authority in the early councils.

Jon

The second choice. I know you don’t believe that the holy spirit continues to guide the CC to all truth as the holy spirit did then. Jon, regarding the CC and the bishops of the CC that assembled at the various early councils, would you say it was by Jesus’ authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, that the CC was able to arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes?

 

[joe370]

Thanks for the info, but irrelavent to the OP I’m afraid. I am referring to the early councils such as Council of Nicaea (325), Council of Constantinople (381), Council of Ephesus (431), Second Council of Ephesus, Council of Chalcedon etc…

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements in the early Catholic Church, (3rd, 4th and 5th century) - that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ?

The governments of the countries they lived in. Weren’t men (and probably women) executed after some of these trials? Who would have given them the authority but the country they were in (ex. Spain).

Another example:

"In November 1414, the Council of Constance assembled, and Huss was urged by Holy Roman Emperor Sigismund to come and give an account of his doctrine. Because he was promised safe conduct, and because of the importance of the council (which promised significant church reforms), Huss went. When he arrived, however, he was immediately arrested, and he remained imprisoned for months. Instead of a hearing, Huss was eventually hauled before authorities in chains and asked merely to recant his views.

When he saw he wasn’t to be given a forum for explaining his ideas, let alone a fair hearing, he finally said, “I appeal to Jesus Christ, the only judge who is almighty and completely just. In his hands I plead my cause, not on the basis of false witnesses and erring councils, but on truth and justice.” He was taken to his cell, where many pleaded with him to recant. On July 6, 1415, he was taken to the cathedral, dressed in his priestly garments, then stripped of them one by one. He refused one last chance to recant at the stake, where he prayed, “Lord Jesus, it is for thee that I patiently endure this cruel death. I pray thee to have mercy on my enemies.” He was heard reciting the Psalms as the flames engulfed him."

Taken from a website on Christian History.

 

[Dokimas]

Thanks for the info, but irrelavent to the OP I’m afraid. I am referring to the early councils such as Council of Nicaea (325), Council of Constantinople (381), Council of Ephesus (431), Second Council of Ephesus, Council of Chalcedon etc…

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost, by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements in the early Catholic Church, (3rd, 4th and 5th century) - that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ?

Thanks for your opinion. I did my best.

 

[JonNC]

Was it not the Holy Spirit guiding these early councils?

So if you recognize the authority of the early councils, then at what point did these councils then become unathoritive for you and why? What changed? Certainly the Holy Spirit didn’t?

Certainly not the Holy Spirit! The unity of the Church changed. Let me, ask, Gary, what councils do the Orthodox accept?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=joe370;7531826]The second choice. I know you don’t believe that the holy spirit continues to guide the CC to all truth as the holy spirit did then.

Actually Joe, that’s not true. I do believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church, and the entire Church Militant into all truth. The ecumenical movement is evidence of this.

Jon, regarding the CC and the bishops of the CC that assembled at the various early councils, would you say it was by Jesus’ authority, via the guidance of the holy spirit, that the CC was able to arbitrate and resolve doctrinal disputes?

Without getting into the issue of succession, I believe that the bishops assembled were definitely guided bythe Holy Spirit.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon…

Actually Joe, that’s not true. I do believe the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church, and the entire Church Militant into all truth.

I think I’ve got it, maybe: All truth was available to the Catholic church via the guidance of the holy spirit, prior to the east west schism, but now, all truth is no longer available via the guidance of the holy spirit, due to both the east west schism and the catholic protestant schism, and now, what we are witnessing today is the holy spirit working to unite the church militant by guiding the church militant (which is comprised of all churches regardless of denomination, be it catholic or non-Catholic or eastern orthodox) - into all truth once again, but the fact still remains, all truth continues to be out of reach for the church militant, but the church militant, thanks to the ecumenical movement, is making progress and getting closer to accessing all truth, once again, just as all truth was available prior to the great east west schism, via the guidance of the holy spirit?

Is that correct?

 

[joe370]

Certainly not the Holy Spirit! The unity of the Church changed. Let me, ask, Gary, what councils do the Orthodox accept?

Jon

Jon, is there any chance, in your mind, that either the EOC or the CC continues to be the one church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the spirit of truth into all truth, while either the EOC or the CC continues to be a schismatic church?

 

[joe370]

Thanks for your opinion. I did my best.

Dok, I didn’t offer an opinion. I asked you a question in reference to the early councils such as the Council of Nicaea (325), Council of Constantinople (381), Council of Ephesus (431), Second Council of Ephesus, Council of Chalcedon etc…

If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost,** by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18, regarding the various heretical movements in the early Catholic Church, (3rd, 4th and 5th century) - that surfaced from time to time, if not Jesus Christ?**

What is your answer?