Why are Roman Catholics afraid to admit to being the first Protestants?

[icxc_nika]

My understanding is that these councils, other than Nicea, were not invoked by the emperors, but rather by the Popes, and the emperors merely allowed them to take place within the empire. The minimal (name removed by moderator)ut from the emperor had nothing to do with the doctrines that came out of them.

Jim

Your understanding is just wrong. This is a historical fact, not just an opinion regarding these councils. If you have any evidense to the contrary please produce it; however I can assure you that you will not be able to find anything to support your understanding.

Popes had very little to do with the counsils as well, so your understanding that the pope called the councils is wholly without merit.

Regarding the emperors: they naturally had little to do with the councils themselves, they simply called them. Now one is arguing that the emperors did much of anything besides convoke them.

Lastly: this unfortunately serves my point when I mention that many of the catholics somehow either beleive that it was the Pope who called or ran the council meetings, or had some kind of special authorization in regards to them.
The orthodox continue to have these councils and continue to govern themselves as we all did in the ancient church.

 

[icxc_nika]

The only council I know of that was invoked by an emperor, was Nicea, invoked by Constantine. However, Constantine had nothing to do with the doctrines that came out of that council, he was not qualified to address the issues of doctrine.

Also, perhaps the reason the Orthodox don’t have councils as the RCC, is because the Orthodox religions are centered around the cultures they are in. Hence, Greek Orthodox, Armenian Orthodox, Russian Orthodox, etc. They don’t all agree with each other. The RCC on the other hand, has to deal with her members from all around the world, from differing cultures. Hence the need for (name removed by moderator)ut from all of her members.

Jim

Again the orthodox conitinue to have councils. They’ve been doing so for over 2000 years.
As far as the orthodox “not agreeing” with each other. Please list a specific example of this.
I have heard many people attempt to put down the Holy Orthodox Church with this argument of nationalism and it doesn’t hold water with anything that is important.

 

[Mickey]

The orthodox continue to have these councils and continue to govern themselves as we all did in the ancient church.

Would this be what is known as a “Holy Synod”?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

From The Catholic Encyclopedia, at newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm

The site also has the definitions for the different types of councils, i.e. ecuminical, synod, general.

I don’t see where any of the councils were invoked by the Emperors.

Jim

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm,

has the definitions and history on the councils.

Jim

 

[icxc_nika]

Would this be what is known as a “Holy Synod”?

I don’t have an extensive knowledge base on what the labeling is for the various councils. Some are local councils, others like the SCOBA council meets for all of North and South America, yet other Pan Orthodox Councils can be summoned by the ecumenical patriarch.

 

[icxc_nika]

The Catholic Encyclopedia at newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm,

has the definitions and history on the councils.

Jim

Please take from your link any relevant information that you wish to discuss and highlight your points and present that information, not the enitre 50 paragraphs from this page.

 

[Mickey]

I don’t have an extensive knowledge base on what the labeling is for the various councils. Some are local councils, others like the SCOBA council meets for all of North and South America, yet other Pan Orthodox Councils can be summoned by the ecumenical patriarch.

So one council may not speak for all jurisdictions?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Please take from your link any relevant information that you wish to discuss and highlight your points and present that information, not the enitre 50 paragraphs from this page.

I merely provided a link on the subject of councils as an FYI for all.

BTW, from this link I did find that some of the early councils were invoked by emperors.

Jim

 

[icxc_nika]

So one council may not speak for all jurisdictions?

Not necessarily.

There are times in the past were a local council met, and deemed certain parties as heretics, or certain theologies as heretical. I beleive it was the case with the Arian controversy.

Began from a local council, and later the ecumenical councils proclamied it as well.

 

[LeahInancsi]

The first Protestants were originally Roman Catholic.

 

[Hesychios]

The OCA just had it’s Metropolitan Council. It also has an All-American Council/Sobor every few years (lately about every three or four).

Local Councils were common in the early church, even before the Edict of Milan. This was how everyone kept in touch and coordinated their efforts and teaching in a specific region.

Many people are unaware that before Constantine conquered in the East, he called a council to meet at Arles. It was this Council that first addressed the Donatist crises. This was a general council in the sense that the participants came from a wider ranging area, but was not an ecumenical council because it was not an empire-wide affair.

The very same year Nicea met, there was a Council in Antioch. This was a local eastern council, not all bishops throughout the empire were involved.

So a council can be almost any size, from a few dioceses to a region, to several regions, to the whole church.

A council can be a grand affair, or a small gathering. I suspect that today some of the mundane things that are addressed at minor councils could be handled as a conference call.

What makes a council so significant is the collegiality of the participants. All bishops are equal, there is an emphasis on reaching a consensus. The primate is not above the Council, but a participant. If the final decision rests with one individual only, it is not a proper Council. The gathering is advisory only.

 

[Hesychios]

The first Protestants were originally Roman Catholic.

Yes, Protestantism could not have come out of the east.

 

[Sixtus]

The ecumincal councils were convoked by the emperors so that the church may declare what matters should be written into law.( this is not meant to be a dissertation on this subject )

I have a particular issue with the RCC continuing to use the term “ecumenical”. This term referrs to the Roman Empire not the Roman church.

I used the term ‘Roman’ in a rhetorical sense. It is of course a nonsense. There is no such thing as a Roman Church, unless of course you mean the Church in Rome

The Western Rite is of course the ‘Catholic’ Church, which is no more Roman than it is any other nationality from which it it composed.

I think you will find that even in the days of Roman Emporers, the Church always existed outside from the jurisdiction of the State in that it was administered by religious not Roman Policitians

 

[Hesychios]

I think you will find that even in the days of Roman Emporers, the Church always existed outside from the jurisdiction of the State in that it was administered by religious not Roman Policitians

The church canons were often enforced by the state. That is an unfortunate fact. Eventually the church was an organ of the state, priests would get salaries from the government. (This continued into medieval times, the feudal lords would build and financially support churches, the kings would appoint the bishop candidates. Priests and deacons often were used in government, and were deposed when a new conqueror would take control and bring his own pliable churchmen.)

Constantine was the first to use state power of police on behalf of the church, although he was not yet an officially baptized convert and all the pagan cults were still active. The state transferred surplus properties as well.

The original Lateran palace was given to the bishops of Rome. It was named for the Laterani family which built and owned it for generations in the pre-Christian period. Other properties across the empire were given to the churches of various cities.

Once the church started accepting property and money, things began to change in a big way. A flood of new converts, some less than sincere, began to get involved in the church and network for the best jobs and contracts. It was a significant impetus to the rise of monasticism, as many Christians began to retire into remote places away from the urban church and it’s dissappointments.

Some of our liturgical practice derives from state ceremonial. The introduction of incense into the liturgy must have seemed very ironic considering how it was used in public pagan worship and Jewish temple worship before.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, Protestantism could not have come out of the east.

That is interesting. Why is that? Did the Easterns put heretics to death, to prevent apostacy?

 

[Hesychios]

The first Protestants were originally Roman Catholic.

Yes, Protestantism could not have come out of the east.

That is interesting. Why is that? Did the Easterns put heretics to death, to prevent apostacy?

No. You should be aware that doesn’t work…it certainly didn’t prevent Protestantism in the west!

No, it is simply the case that Protestantism arose as a reaction to conditions and practices that did not even exist in the east.

• The sale of church offices? Not a problem.
• The sale of indulgences? The east does not even have a theology that support the use of indulgences.
• Communion under one kind only? Never in the east.
• Holding multiple benefices against the canons? nope.
  Plus a host of unseemly things I will not list.

Also, the east does not have a concept of developing new theological constructs just because they make ‘logical sense’ to us. When Luther read Romans and Galatians and saw something new there, he was only following in a longstanding western tradition.

He was not the first to ever read those books, but putting a new spin on them, and applying his logical skills to the interpretation of scripture was right out of the Scholastic tradition of theologians from the west. Luther is truly a child of the Roman Catholic church.

He was applying the same sort of creative genius to theology that Giovanni d’ Medici applied when he dreamt up his famous money raising scheme. Those two were cut from the same cloth! (even if they despised each other.)

 

[guanophore]

No. You should be aware that doesn’t work…it certainly didn’t prevent Protestantism in the west!

No, it is simply the case that Protestantism arose as a reaction to conditions and practices that did not even exist in the east.

That was my assumption, but I thought I should check.
Hesychios;1999954:

*]Holding multiple benefices against the canons? nope.

Plus a host of unseemly things I will not list.

I have never heard of this before, and am not sure what it means. And for the second part, can you tell me where I can find a list?

Also, the east does not have a concept of developing new theological constructs just because they make ‘logical sense’ to us. When Luther read Romans and Galatians and saw something new there, he was only following in a longstanding western tradition.

Do you mean that there is not a style of scholarly inquiry, or that it is done differently? I am still puzzling why there are not as many Orthodox schools, colleges, and things like RCIA.

He was not the first to ever read those books, but putting a new spin on them, and applying his logical skills to the interpretation of scripture was right out of the Scholastic tradition of theologians from the west. Luther is truly a child of the Roman Catholic church.

How is the learning tradition of the East different? How are priests prepared for their orders?

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Perhaps the reason why protestanism didn’t come out of the East is because after the 8th century, they were too busy trying to fight off the Muslims.

Jim

 

[Hesychios]

I have never heard of this before, and am not sure what it means.

Many bishops in the west held more than one diocese, this is a violation of the canons. It was possible because the Popes were willing to grant exceptions for a fee. Cardinal positions were also available for a fee. These appointments were desirable because every church office had it’s own sources of revenue.

This problem extended down to the priests as well. Large numbers of priests held more than one parish, and sometimes were absent altogether doing something totally unrelated to their calling. They hired low-paid ‘vicars’ to fill in for them.

And for the second part, can you tell me where I can find a list?

I was referring to the common scandals, I don’t want to go into that except to say that a lot had to do with the widespread violation of the mandatory celibacy policy.

Do you mean that there is not a style of scholarly inquiry, or that it is done differently?

Scholarly inquiry is fine in science and history, not good for studying the revealed Truths of our faith. Patristic studies are preeminent in Orthodox Catholic theology.

I am still puzzling why there are not as many Orthodox schools, colleges, and things like RCIA.

I presume you are referring to the USA (or even western Europe). That has much more to do with conditions in the USA when the Irish immigration was in full swing. There was an anti-Irish and anti-Catholic backlash in the USA, with local school boards and trustees being Protestant businessmen and landowners for the most part. As a result, the bishops gathered at Baltimore pushed the formation of Catholic schools to counter the influence of anti-Catholic educators on the young. This requirement (to build schools) also encouraged the bishops to consolidate the population into the largest possible parishes in order to support the schools. Some even had high schools. Loyola University in Chicago started out as a high school attached to a parish.

The era of violence and discrimination against foreigners and non-Protestant religions was winding down as the Orthodox immigration began to rise. Typically, however, many Orthodox parishes in the USA are still too small to support a school (although the one down the street from me has a grade school).

How is the learning tradition of the East different? How are priests prepared for their orders?

In a seminary.

The learning tradition is very much typical of any modern school system. But theology is based upon the Patristic tradition.