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

[GaryTaylor]

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

Jon

The split comes after the 7th.
But I don’t know that the 8th is a major issue from what I gather from reading on the Pope and Patriarchs. Though to date Benedict hasn’t sat down with the Patriarch of Russia.
They are friends and have socialized but haven’t talked communion.

You definately get a different impression from this forum I give you that, but the gap from reading Benedicts Interviews in “Light of the World” doesn’t seem a hugh as many would think.

Council of Basel 1439 was the final nail in the coffin for the schism and the Immaculate Conception was approved their ironically. Do to the schism Rome refused to acknowledge the council as valid and also refused to accept the immaculate conception at this point. So it wouldn’t be till 1854 that the Immaculate Conception is finally approved by Rome anyway. And of course Rome chose a differnt path than the rest of Christianity in the 100-years from the Immaculate Conception to the Assumption. Which was ex-cathedra and they are not budging on that one. So Rome is defiantely going with Holy Spirit on the Assumption. No doubt on that one.

 

[JonNC]

Hey Jon…

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?

Something like that. Except I’m not saying that the truth is no longer available. It is.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

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?

Perhaps. Or perhaps, they need each other - and western non-catholics - to be the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

JOn

 

[JonNC]

=GaryTaylor;7532459]The split comes after the 7th.

And this, Gary, is essentially where Lutherans leave off. That’s not to say that there aren’t things in other councils that we agree with. There are.

But I don’t know that the 8th is a major issue from what I gather from reading on the Pope and Patriarchs. Though to date Benedict hasn’t sat down with the Patriarch of Russia.
They are friends and have socialized but haven’t talked communion.

You definately get a different impression from this forum I give you that, but the gap from reading Benedicts Interviews in “Light of the World” doesn’t seem a hugh as many would think.

Council of Basel 1439 was the final nail in the coffin for the schism and the Immaculate Conception was approved their ironically. Do to the schism Rome refused to acknowledge the council as valid and also refused to accept the immaculate conception at this point. So it wouldn’t be till 1854 that the Immaculate Conception is finally approved by Rome anyway. And of course Rome chose a differnt path than the rest of Christianity in the 100-years from the Immaculate Conception to the Assumption. Which was ex-cathedra and they are not budging on that one. So Rome is defiantely going with Holy Spirit on the Assumption. No doubt on that one.

And I’ve said before: get the Orthodox to go along with infallibility ex cathedra, and I’ll see a priest the next day.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Perhaps. Or perhaps, they need each other - and western non-catholics - to be the one holy catholic and apostolic Church.

Jon does it seem at all plausible that either the EOC OR the CC, continues to be the church of Matthew 16, forever guided by the spirit of truth into all truth, meaning that either the EOC or the CC continues to be a schismatic church?

I understand that all churches today, comprise the Mystical Body of Christ, (even those churches that don’t exist yet) - however, if either the EOC or the CC is in fact the one church founded by Jesus, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth, then why would either the CC OR the EOC, (depending on which one, one believes is the schismatic church) - need the western non-catholic churches (each founded by a man as opposed to Jesus) - to be considered the one holy catholic and apostolic Church, founded by Jesus, forever guided by the holy spirit, into all truth?

I’m sorry but I don’t understand.

 

[Dokimas]

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?

The Body of Christ.

Your opinion I refered to was that the original church was and is the CC.

 

[Little_Mary]

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

He may have had a hand in making it happen, but it would not have happened without the approval of the Pope.

 

[Little_Mary]

The Body of Christ.

Your opinion I refered to was that the original church was and is the CC.

The Body of Christ = The Catholic Church.

 

[joe370]

The Body of Christ.

Your opinion I refered to was that the original church was and is the CC.

Dok, I ask again, in reference to the early CC 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 is 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?**

What is your answer?

 

[RyanBlack]

He may have had a hand in making it happen, but it would not have happened without the approval of the Pope.

That’s a very naive, if not downright false, view of how the earliest Ecumenical Councils worked. The First Council of Nicea most certainly would have occurred with or without the Pope’s approval (the Pope wasn’t even present, as was the case with all of the first seven Ecumenical Councils). Constantine brought bishops into council because he was concerned about how the divisions among Christians over the Arian heresy was a threat to cohesiveness in society.

 

[joe370]

That’s a very naive, if not downright false, view of how the earliest Ecumenical Councils worked. The First Council of Nicea most certainly would have occurred with or without the Pope’s approval (the Pope wasn’t even present, as was the case with all of the first seven Ecumenical Councils). Constantine brought bishops into council because he was concerned about how the divisions among Christians over the Arian heresy was a threat to cohesiveness in society.

Ryan, regarding those early catholic councils, by whose authority did those catholic bishops, as a governing body, 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?

 

[Contarini]

Ryan, regarding those early catholic councils, by whose authority did those catholic bishops, as a governing body, 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?

The authority of Christ. However, there is no way of knowing beforehand, by some purely juridical means, that a Council will speak with the authority of Christ.

Indeed, even though I accept the teachings of all the Seven Councils as *true, *it seems pretty clear these days that Councils 4-6 did a very bad job of “binding and loosing.” While their teachings were correct, the Fathers of these Councils appear to have condemned as heretics people who were not in fact heretics, causing a permanent schism in the Eastern Church which may have led to the rise of Islam and which both Catholics and Chalcedonian Orthodox today are seeking to heal. (In other words, most Catholic and Orthodox bishops and theologians today seem to regard the Oriental Orthodox, and perhaps even the Church of the East, as fundamentally orthodox. If that’s true, then something went wrong very badly with the “binding and loosing” process you invoke so glibly with regard to the early Councils.)

I accept the infallibility of the Councils in the sense that I do not believe Christ allowed them to commit the Church to error. I think it is very likely that either the Roman Communion or the Communion of Constantinople continues to enjoy this protection, but I’m not sure which. And whichever one is the “true Church” in this highly qualified sense, it’s clearly the case that the destructive patterns of the Christological controversy have been repeated (in the East-West Schism and then in the Reformation) with ever more devastating effects.

Edwin

 

[joe370]

Glibly you say? Ouch. Regarding the binding and loosing I was simply referring to the fact that I too do not believe Christ allowed them to commit the Church to error.

Thanks for the feedback.

The authority of Christ. However, there is no way of knowing beforehand, by some purely juridical means, that a Council will speak with the authority of Christ.

Indeed, even though I accept the teachings of all the Seven Councils as *true, *it seems pretty clear these days that Councils 4-6 did a very bad job of “binding and loosing.” While their teachings were correct, the Fathers of these Councils appear to have condemned as heretics people who were not in fact heretics, causing a permanent schism in the Eastern Church which may have led to the rise of Islam and which both Catholics and Chalcedonian Orthodox today are seeking to heal. (In other words, most Catholic and Orthodox bishops and theologians today seem to regard the Oriental Orthodox, and perhaps even the Church of the East, as fundamentally orthodox. If that’s true, then something went wrong very badly with the “binding and loosing” process you invoke so glibly with regard to the early Councils.)

I accept the infallibility of the Councils in the sense that I do not believe Christ allowed them to commit the Church to error. I think it is very likely that either the Roman Communion or the Communion of Constantinople continues to enjoy this protection, but I’m not sure which. And whichever one is the “true Church” in this highly qualified sense, it’s clearly the case that the destructive patterns of the Christological controversy have been repeated (in the East-West Schism and then in the Reformation) with ever more devastating effects.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Glibly you say? Ouch.

It came across that way to me. I understand that you are just trying to hold us accountable, and I appreciate that. But you are repeating a formula that rests on assumptions many of us don’t accept.

I recommend George Florovsky’s “The Authority of the Ancient Councils and the Tradition of the Fathers” for a different way of thinking about this, which regards the Councils as charismatic events through which the Spirit spoke rather than as juridical bodies that spoke with the authority of Christ because of some objective criterion.

Regarding the binding and loosing I was simply referring to the fact that I too do not believe Christ allowed them to commit the Church to error.

Right. And I don’t either–if by “error” we mean “dogmatic error.” Clearly Ephesus, Chalcedon, etc. (I should have said 3-6, not 4-6) committed some procedural errors (again, I’m not speaking juridically–I mean that they did not always act in ways that fostered charity and justice toward the “losers”) and perhaps even did not always formulate things as well as they could have done (that’s pretty obvious in the case of Chalcedon, otherwise 1 Constantinople would not have been necessary).

After II Nicea things get murkier. And I’m afraid that any position that doesn’t acknowledge this murkiness is going to seem rather glib to me. (Catholic theologians who seem to me to recognize murkiness while remaining thoroughly orthodox are Aidan Nichols, the late Avery Dulles, and the present Pope.)

Edwin

 

[Dokimas]

The Body of Christ = The Catholic Church.

We disagree but thank you for your opinion.

 

[Dokimas]

Dok, I ask again, in reference to the early CC 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 is 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?**

What is your answer?

Not being a catholic, I have no opinion.

 

[jblake]

joe370;:

The Catholic Church in the face of heresy, convoked via council, when necessary, under the authority of a body of catholic bishops.

You do realise that the requirement for a council to be accepted by Catholic Christianity is that it be called by the political head of a state to deal with political issues, don’t you.

You do also realise that Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, and Protestant Christianity not only accept and reject different councils, but also number them differently, don’t you.

jonathon

 

[joe370]

You do realise that the requirement for a council to be accepted by Catholic Christianity is that it be called by the political head of a state to deal with political issues, don’t you.

You do also realise that Catholic Christianity, Orthodox Christianity, and Protestant Christianity not only accept and reject different councils, but also number them differently, don’t you.

jonathon

No and yes…What is your answer to the OP?

 

[Richard_Kastner]

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?

Joe your question is contradictory. You cite a premise. “If the Catholic Church was not the church of Matthew 16, founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost” Then you ask a question. “by whose authority did the Catholic Church bind and loose, as per Matthew 16 and 18”

If as you state in your premise that the CC **“was not”**the church of Matt 16, It could not be the church binding and loosing “as per Matthew 16 and 18”

 

[benidict]

:banghead: