Are the Ecumenical Councils valid?
- Thread starter Grailhunter
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I go to the Bible to learn...as some here might lead astray.
I come here as a watchman (Ezekiel 3:17).
Hebrews 8:8-10, Hebrews 10:6, Romans 5:5 w/ Romans 13:8-10, Galatians 5:14, 1 John 5:3, 2 John 1:6, Romans 8:4, Romans 8:7, might tell you otherwise.
Romans 7:6 and Galatians 3:24-25 are also of importance.
We are not any longer under the law...but this does not mean that the law isn't in us.
Last edited:
Maybe from your perspective, who do not understand the scriptures.
From my perspective I am defending the truth and making sure that lies do not prevail.
I have studied my Bible extensively for over thirty years. And while this does not make me infallible, it does give me understanding that will help to refute some of the things that are propagated on these boards, that, while some of it may not be false doctrine per se (though some of it is); nevertheless it is not fully accurate to the truth (as I know it). And of course I come here with the understanding that as iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. So if anyone has anything to say that will convince me of what they believe, know that I have changed my pov before and may indeed do so again. But I am here, not to fight over doctrine; but to hash it out with others so that we all might come to the proper conclusion.
If we all put our heads together with the word of God, I don't believe that anyone will succeed at or get away with twisting the scriptures publicly and having anyone believe it. For are we not all called to be watchmen as the Lord spoke to Ezekiel (Ezekiel 3:17)?
Many people have not heard of the Jewish idea of "righteous Gentiles." They said some things were binding on all descendants of Noah; and they give a list. Actually different rabbis have slightly different lists; but their lists are very similar to the list given by the Apostles. The laws of Moses were not binding on Gentiles unless they converted to Judaism -- never were. If you read the Old Testament, you can see how Israel was told the laws were binding on them, and they took a vow at Sinai to keep them making them binding.
They may say they do, but they have often changed things on their own. Ecumenical Councils didn't settle many things.
I've already mention the consuming of blood. There's more. Should Christians stand or sit when praying? This got discussed at Nicea, and their verdict was that people should stand. I think their reasoning was probably right. Most of the time when we read about people praying in the Bible, they are standing. I also imagine standing was more common in the early Church. Then too, standing shows respect.
The fact that they debated it also tells me that people had been disagreeing about it. The Council of Nicea wanted to solve the problem to end the fruitless debates. The Catholic Church agreed to this provision. Then later on its own, the Catholic Church introduced pews and started to have people sitting. Naturally this annoyed the Orthodox Church which had thought the subject had been put to rest. Of course, Catholics will say the Pope has the right to bind and loose things on his own -- and then I ask, why bother having councils? So one Pope can agree with them, and another one disagree? Or to prove to the Orthodox Church that they have the right to break rules worked out to promote Church unity?
There was one Ecumenical Council -- I forget which one now -- where an important Bishop was embarrassed when people objected because he had disobeyed one of the canons of Nicea. Maybe someone else will remember the details.
If you read what the Council of Nicea agreed on in order to standardize practices and end conflicts, you find much of it got changed later. If I have time, I'll post details of a major altering of the decisions reached at Nicea -- correctly opposed too by the Bishop of Rome for a long time. How the two Patriarchies of Constantinople and Jerusalem were created is a shameful violation of what was decided at Nicea. Those two Patriarchies now claim the special Apostolic succession of Rome, Antioch and Alexandria when it's clear from the Council of Nicea they didn't have it.
Their solution? Hold another Ecumenical Council to see if you could the votes to change things. Hey, the Emperor wanted it -- eventually he got what he wanted.
It seems to me not very many people back then took these councils seriously.
Last edited:
If they concluded that standing is the default position of prayer, they were not looking to the Bible for their answers.
See Matthew 6:5 (standing and praying on street corners was said to be hypocrisy);
also Acts 20:36, 21:5 (kneeling to pray appears to be the way to go).
See Matthew 6:5 (standing and praying on street corners was said to be hypocrisy);
also Acts 20:36, 21:5 (kneeling to pray appears to be the way to go).
I researched it, and I found what I had forgotten. The man was Gregory of Nazianzus, Archbishop of Constantinople. The canon broken was:
Canon 15
On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, elder, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if anyone, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or elder.
He had been moved from the rather obscure see of Sasima to become Bishop of Constantinople. He replaced an Arian. Lots of drama was involved in it. When the man who had been expected to preside at the First Council of Constantinople died, Gregory was expected to take over; but people opposed him because of how he became Bishop. He was sick and decided to resign.
Then things got even stranger.
Nectarius of Constantinople - Wikipedia
When the Emperor Theodosius I wanted the Bishops at the Council to suggest new candidates and reserving to himself the right of making the choice, the Bishop of Antioch put at the bottom of his list, Nectarius' name. The Emperor having read the lists, declared Nectarius to be his choice. This caused some amazement amongst the Fathers who wanted to know - who and what was this Nectarius? He was still only a catechumen. There was much astonishment at the emperor's unexpected choice, but the people of Constantinople were delighted at the news as was the whole council.
Nectarius was duly baptized and his clothes were changed for the robes of a Bishop of the Imperial city and became at once president of the Second Ecumenical Council.
Someone who hadn't been baptized one day became Bishop the next and presided over this Ecumenical Council. Strange that no one objected to Nectarius since his promotion was also a violation of the canons of Nicea.
Canon 2
Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the spiritual laver, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate [office of bishop] or the presbyterate [office of elder], it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, "Not a novice; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil." But if, as time goes on, any sensual [lit., "soulish"] sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod.
It also violated the canon about how a bishop was to be chosen. The Emperor isn't supposed to be making decisions like that.
Canon 4
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place.† But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
We can see how so few people then took the Council of Nicea seriously. If people didn't like Gregory, they'd object to how he was promoted saying correctly how it was uncanonical; but if the Emperor wanted Nectarius, they could overlook how he was made a Bishop.
The Emperor got what he wanted. I must ask then, why should I take these councils seriously when the people at them didn't? If it suited them, they'd cite them. If it didn't suit them, they'd ignore them.
Canon 15
On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the Canon, must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, elder, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if anyone, after this decree of the holy and great Synod, shall attempt any such thing, or continue in any such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the Church for which he was ordained bishop or elder.
He had been moved from the rather obscure see of Sasima to become Bishop of Constantinople. He replaced an Arian. Lots of drama was involved in it. When the man who had been expected to preside at the First Council of Constantinople died, Gregory was expected to take over; but people opposed him because of how he became Bishop. He was sick and decided to resign.
Then things got even stranger.
Nectarius of Constantinople - Wikipedia
When the Emperor Theodosius I wanted the Bishops at the Council to suggest new candidates and reserving to himself the right of making the choice, the Bishop of Antioch put at the bottom of his list, Nectarius' name. The Emperor having read the lists, declared Nectarius to be his choice. This caused some amazement amongst the Fathers who wanted to know - who and what was this Nectarius? He was still only a catechumen. There was much astonishment at the emperor's unexpected choice, but the people of Constantinople were delighted at the news as was the whole council.
Nectarius was duly baptized and his clothes were changed for the robes of a Bishop of the Imperial city and became at once president of the Second Ecumenical Council.
Someone who hadn't been baptized one day became Bishop the next and presided over this Ecumenical Council. Strange that no one objected to Nectarius since his promotion was also a violation of the canons of Nicea.
Canon 2
Forasmuch as, either from necessity, or through the urgency of individuals, many things have been done contrary to the Ecclesiastical canon, so that men just converted from heathenism to the faith, and who have been instructed but a little while, are straightway brought to the spiritual laver, and as soon as they have been baptized, are advanced to the episcopate [office of bishop] or the presbyterate [office of elder], it has seemed right to us that for the time to come no such thing shall be done. For to the catechumen himself there is need of time and of a longer trial after baptism. For the apostolical saying is clear, "Not a novice; lest, being lifted up with pride, he fall into condemnation and the snare of the devil." But if, as time goes on, any sensual [lit., "soulish"] sin should be found out about the person, and he should be convicted by two or three witnesses, let him cease from the clerical office. And whoso shall transgress these [enactments] will imperil his own clerical position, as a person who presumes to disobey the great Synod.
It also violated the canon about how a bishop was to be chosen. The Emperor isn't supposed to be making decisions like that.
Canon 4
It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place.† But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.
We can see how so few people then took the Council of Nicea seriously. If people didn't like Gregory, they'd object to how he was promoted saying correctly how it was uncanonical; but if the Emperor wanted Nectarius, they could overlook how he was made a Bishop.
The Emperor got what he wanted. I must ask then, why should I take these councils seriously when the people at them didn't? If it suited them, they'd cite them. If it didn't suit them, they'd ignore them.
Last edited:
Some say kneeling is preferred when asking God for forgiveness and acceptable also to show humility. The argument was, I believe, over certain dates of the calendar -- and what was appropriate during those days.
Note that the publican was standing.
I wouldn't want to quarrel with people about it or condemn anyone for how he wants to pray. My point was that the Council of Nicea was supposed to make a decision to establish church harmony and unity. The Catholics agreed to it, and then changed things on their own.
Thanks very much for your post. Very good post. We can discuss the humor of some this later. God Bless.
You may also find some humor in that Catholic Churches did not have pews until after Protestants started having them. Before then the sick and elderly had chairs. Maybe a Bishop would have a chair, and perhaps the choir would have seats; but most people stood. Then along came the Protestants and introduced seating for people and the Catholics imitated them, to the annoyance of the Orthodox. For a long time, the Orthodox lambasted Catholics for it. Now even some Orthodox churches are following the ways of the Protestants.
The things that can be said about the councils that would surprise most that have not studied them closely is the political nature, intrigue, infighting, and hostile behavior. Although not surprising, strong beliefs butting heads...you can see it right here on this forum. Rome was involved in some of the decisions more than most would be comfortable with or know. I study Roman history and I and others can tell you that Romans were pathologically arrogant. If two groups had theological ideas that were different, Rome at times would settle the disagreement by assert a third alternative, and insisting on it. Either way it was Rome's prerogative to physically enforce the doctrine...decision. Then again we have to give them credit for the effort. No denomination has ever put forth this kind of effort in such a grand scale, and it had to happen. Christianity had to come to some sort of standard.... Gnosticism was a threat. The ancient world was chaotic and violent...the persecutions needed to stop...Christianity needed the muscle to protect itself....and they needed a safe place to come together and agree on some form of standardization. The Christian writings needed to be collected and agreed upon, and a Bible produced. Emperor Constantine and those that followed him provided that.
It has been suggested that some practices were made considering the economics of it. I have read that standing is cheaper than sitting because you do not have to provide a seat. And then there is the topic of celibacy, that the Church chose celibacy because it did not want to support the wives and children of the clergy.
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
hmm, we sure gotta lotta Scripture arguing against this i guess huh.
that part i wouldnt argue, but maybe rather Who can read it
Yes, I think money could be a factor. It is still a factor in some Protestant churches where you can buy your own pew. There was a period too when the upper classes had seating in some churches while the average person didn't. I think though that early services were shorter.
A service that has no seating is interesting since people move around. They are more alive. They can move towards the priest or withdraw. They are participating in the service with their movements. If you put people in seats, they become more observers than participators. A parallel can be made to the Body of Christ where all the members are needed. I've seen that explanation given by an Orthodox person in favor of no seating except for the ill and elderly. Pews tend to put the emphasis more on the priest with the congregation passive.
I think music may also have played a part in introducing seating. When the organ was introduced and more lengthy music became possible, churches that had organs had better attendance. I think providing seating for lengthier services was seen as a way of encouraging more people to come hear the music.
(I have another idea about celibacy, but perhaps I should save that for another time.)
bbyrd009
Groper
- Nov 30, 2016
- 33,943
- 12,081
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States Minor Outlying Islands
I know the wolves will rush in as soon as I leave, not sparing the flock
so, since you have declared that, i will say that that is the very worst thing a believer could do, to be listening to wolves who have called for and accepted a king, sorry. That is Catholicism, not Christianity
The so-called *Noahide Laws* were made up by Jewish rabbis, not Christian apostles. There are seven of them and only one repeats what I quoted from the Noahic Covenant -- about the consumption of blood.
Why did they have to enforce doctrine using force? I'd say they panicked. They did not believe the Church would not fail . . . unless they took up arms. History shows they acted as if they believed it would fail unless they behaved violently.
It is often said that which books were inspired and should be included in the Bible was decided at the Council of Nicea. Astonishingly though, the Catholic Church did not make such an official list until the Protestants showed up. (There had been a list earlier, but it was not pronounced official.) Different bishops in the early Church had their lists of which books they thought should be read in church. The matter had not been a problem for centuries since no one argued about it; but when Protestants started questioning things, the Council of Trent finally produced an official list.
Canon of Trent - Wikipedia
The Canon of Trent is the list of books officially considered canonical at the Council of Trent. A decree, the De Canonicis Scripturis, from the Council's fourth session (of 4 April 1546), issued an anathema on dissenters of the books affirmed in Trent.[1][2] The Council confirmed an identical list already locally approved in 1442 by the Council of Florence (Session 11, 4 February 1442),[3] which had existed in the earliest canonical lists from the synods of Carthage[4] and Rome in the fourth century.
The list confirmed that the deuterocanonical books were on a par with the other books of the canon (while Luther placed these books in the Apocrypha of his canon) and ended debate on the Antilegomena and coordinated church tradition with the Scriptures as a rule of faith. It also affirmed Jerome's Latin translation, the Vulgate, to be authoritative for the text of Scripture, contrary to Protestant views that the Greek and Hebrew texts were more authoritative. Later, on 3 September 1943, Pope Pius XII issued the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu, which allowed Catholic translations to be based on texts other than the Latin Vulgate.
Martin Luther surely raised questions when he wanted to reject a few books. Luther didn't like some of the things in some books and attempted to persuade people they weren't inspired. He failed to persuade people about it. His views on the Epistle of James changed over time; but it's easy to see why he would object to James.
Luther's canon - Wikipedia
Luther made an attempt to remove the books of Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation from the canon (notably, he perceived them to go against certain Protestant doctrines such as sola gratia and sola fide)[citation needed] but his followers did not generally accept Luther's personal judgment in this matter. However, these books are ordered last in the German-languageLuther Bible to this day.[5]
Luther said, "The true rule is this: God's Word shall establish articles of faith, and no one else, not even an angel can do so." And if you think you already know the truth, you know which books you want to omit if you can get away with it since they disagree with you. (If I had to pick a book to reject, I think it would be Acts or at least parts of it.)
Do you think the Jews must be wrong about everything they say? I remind you that the New Testament sometimes quotes the Talmud or Oral Torah; and Paul said the Jews have an advantage -- the "oracles" meaning something oral.
While different rabbis may disagree at times about what belongs on the list, there is a consensus of sorts given at Jewish Encyclopedia:
Laws which were supposed by the Rabbis to have been binding upon mankind at large even before the revelation at Sinai, and which are still binding upon non-Jews. The term Noachian indicates the universality of these ordinances, since the whole human race was supposed to be descended from the three sons of Noah, who alone survived the Flood. Although only those laws which are found in the earlier chapters of the Pentateuch, before the record of the revelation at Sinai, should, it would seem, be binding upon all mankind, yet the Rabbis discarded some and, by hermeneutic rules or in accordance with some tradition (see Judah ha-Levi, "Cuzari," iii. 73), introduced others which are not found there. Basing their views on the passage in Gen. ii. 16, they declared that the following six commandments were enjoined upon Adam: (1) not to worship idols; (2) not to blaspheme the name of God; (3) to establish courts of justice; (4) not to kill; (5) not to commit adultery; and (6) not to rob (Gen. R. xvi. 9, xxiv. 5; Cant. R. i. 16; comp. Seder 'Olam Rabbah, ed. Ratner, ch. v. and notes, Wilna, 1897; Maimonides, "Yad," Melakim, ix. 1). A seventh commandment was added after the Flood—not to eat flesh that had been cut from a living animal (Gen. ix. 4). Thus,the Talmud frequently speaks of "the seven laws of the sons of Noah," which were regarded as obligatory upon all mankind, in contradistinction to those that were binding upon Israelites only (Tosef., 'Ab. Zarah, ix. 4; Sanh. 56a et seq.).
Compare the lists. You may not like it, but what the Apostles said is very similar to what the Jews said. For sure, the Apostles did not need to tell people to establish a government with courts of law since they already had a government.
The Law of Moses is not binding on Gentiles. Some other things are binding on all people. The foolish people called Judaizers today were not even good Jews if they were teaching that Gentiles had to be circumcised and keep the laws of Moses. There are, however, certain things all men must do. Paul warns about fornication. That is forbidden for Christians not because it is found in the Law of Moses. It predates the Law of Moses.
