Are the Ecumenical Councils valid?

[GodsGrace]

I agree on teaching church history...christian history but it is not going to happen.
In the Protestants defense...most learn their religion sitting in a pew. You are not going to get a history lesson in most Protestant churches. That is what defines fundamentalism. For good or for bad. It is a philosophy for being focused and true to the scriptures. That approach has saved millions and millions. History usually bores people to death and they put bibles in hotels to put people to sleep. So they learn what they are told, as they say; keep it simple Sam. The history of the protest churches shows they were fed up with the Catholic Church for some very good reasons, but still hate does not make a good teacher. So they rejected the Church, all its sacraments and all of Christian history. Which is their loss, but still their beliefs lead to salvation and that is what matters. When we get to heaven, St. Peter is probably not going to hand us a quiz on Christian history.

Those that study history seem to know more.
And they don't argue about which church was the first church....they know.
And I find less dislike for the CC in them....
Maybe because they discover that the wrong was done by man and not by the church...
except for the selling of indulgences...this was sanctioned by the church.

 

[GodsGrace]

I go to the Bible to learn...as some here might lead astray.

I come here as a watchman (Ezekiel 3:17).

So what give YOU the right to be a watchman?
And what does the bible teach you?

And please explain why the Holy Spirit tells everyone something different...

 

[Grailhunter]

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.)

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.

I started reading about the Roman Empire when I was young....lol....because of the game of Risk. Anyway, That period is nearly an alien world to us. Power and brutality ruled. Even within the power structure of Rome...dog eat dog. Death and more death. Few could read...so symbols and pictures were used to convey messages to the public. We have speed limit signs...they had a few bodies crucified at the gate to get the point acrossed. Force, not negotiations. Roman...absolute rule....comply or die....the norm. It was not for just religious doctrine. Which is one the reasons I have no problem believing that Constantine saw something that change his direction in life. He was no Boy Scout...ends up killing his wife and son, if I remember correctly. But he chose to incorporate Christ into his life and beliefs. You mentioned those getting baptized before being assigned a position. Not something we would think about, but there was a thought back then about not getting baptized until you were close to death, so you would enter into heaven with a clean soul. According to history this is exactly what Constantine did. So anyway, enforcing doctrine was not done because they thought it was so holy or important....it was mostly about how they handled things.

 

[justbyfaith]

The Law of Moses is not binding on Gentiles.

On the contrary, it is written,

Gal 3:23, But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

This scripture indicates that those who do not have faith in Christ are under the law, whether Jew or Gentile.

So what give YOU the right to be a watchman?

It is not a right; it is a responsibility.

 

[Giuliano]

I started reading about the Roman Empire when I was young....lol....because of the game of Risk. Anyway, That period is nearly an alien world to us. Power and brutality ruled. Even within the power structure of Rome...dog eat dog. Death and more death. Few could read...so symbols and pictures were used to convey messages to the public. We have speed limit signs...they had a few bodies crucified at the gate to get the point acrossed. Force, not negotiations. Roman...absolute rule....comply or die....the norm. It was not for just religious doctrine. Which is one the reasons I have no problem believing that Constantine saw something that change his direction in life. He was no Boy Scout...ends up killing his wife and son, if I remember correctly. But he chose to incorporate Christ into his life and beliefs. You mentioned those getting baptized before being assigned a position. Not something we would think about, but there was a thought back then about not getting baptized until you were close to death, so you would enter into heaven with a clean soul. According to history this is exactly what Constantine did. So anyway, enforcing doctrine was not done because they thought it was so holy or important....it was mostly about how they handled things.

YOu are probably familiar with much of I write here.

We get the story about Constantine's vision from Eusebius who always wrote glowingly of him. If my memory is right, that is said to have occurred shortly before he entered Rome. There was a big Christian constituency in Rome. I view his "conversion" at that time with cynicism as I look at many politicians today and how they use religion to promote themselves (like one candidate who was one thing when running as a Senator only to leave that church when running for President -- and another one who changed his religion depending where he lived). I think he jumped at the idea at convening an ecumenical council since he wanted Christians as a unified group behind him.

I think he was cynical about the Edict of Milan. Some write about him today as establishing religion freedom. Christianity was permitted, and the Christians loved him for that. That religious freedom did not last long. Verbal attacks started almost at once on pagans; and stronger measures came later.

His baptism is very interesting. "I may want to sin; but since I want to die with a clean soul, I'll put off baptism." Also interesting is who baptized him. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian. When Arianism was condemned at Nicea, he signed the document out of convenience --"with hand only, not heart" some said. He was exiled for a while, but managed to convince Constantine that Arius and his views didn't really conflict with the Nicene Creed. I'd love to know if Eusebius used the Trinitarian formula when he baptized Constantine. Once he was left back into the good graces of Constantine and later Emperors, he went after people who had opposed him at the Council of Nicea. He also got himself made Bishop of Constantinople, replacing Paul I. Poor Paul, three times made Bishop of Constantinople, three times sent into exile -- and finally starved, and when that didn't kill him, strangled. If the Emperor was an Arian, your post as bishop wasn't safe. The Arians were also no angels.

 

[GodsGrace]

On the contrary, it is written,

Gal 3:23, But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

This scripture indicates that those who do not have faith in Christ are under the law, whether Jew or Gentile.



It is not a right; it is a responsibility.

Yeah, well, I'm SURE God is happy to have you around.
The Holy Spirit can always use a little help.

 

[Giuliano]

On the contrary, it is written,

Gal 3:23, But before faith came, we were kept under the law, shut up unto the faith which should afterwards be revealed.

This scripture indicates that those who do not have faith in Christ are under the law, whether Jew or Gentile.

It is not a right; it is a responsibility.

Paul does not always write in a way that people can understand at once. He's referring to the Jews. The Torah itself says it's for Israel. Indeed, Gentiles were forbidden from celebrating the Passover unless they were circumcised. Compare to:

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. . .

In other words, they keep the spiritual law which Israel had rejected. The hearts of Israel were hard and they did not want to hear the Voice of God. Then the Law of Moses was given to them. They received human words, the written Torah, because they did not want to hear the Voice of God.

Ask a Rabbi if you don't believe me. Gentiles are not expected to keep the Law. Never were. Tell me how someone in Australia three thousand years ago could keep all the laws of Moses. They'd never heard of Moses or the Temple, let alone be able to offer sacrifices there or be expected to know when to observe the Jewish Feasts. They could however have the "work of the law written in the hearts."

 

[Grailhunter]

YOu are probably familiar with much of I write here.

We get the story about Constantine's vision from Eusebius who always wrote glowingly of him. If my memory is right, that is said to have occurred shortly before he entered Rome. There was a big Christian constituency in Rome. I view his "conversion" at that time with cynicism as I look at many politicians today and how they use religion to promote themselves (like one candidate who was one thing when running as a Senator only to leave that church when running for President -- and another one who changed his religion depending where he lived). I think he jumped at the idea at convening an ecumenical council since he wanted Christians as a unified group behind him.

I think he was cynical about the Edict of Milan. Some write about him today as establishing religion freedom. Christianity was permitted, and the Christians loved him for that. That religious freedom did not last long. Verbal attacks started almost at once on pagans; and stronger measures came later.

His baptism is very interesting. "I may want to sin; but since I want to die with a clean soul, I'll put off baptism." Also interesting is who baptized him. Eusebius of Nicomedia was an Arian. When Arianism was condemned at Nicea, he signed the document out of convenience --"with hand only, not heart" some said. He was exiled for a while, but managed to convince Constantine that Arius and his views didn't really conflict with the Nicene Creed. I'd love to know if Eusebius used the Trinitarian formula when he baptized Constantine. Once he was left back into the good graces of Constantine and later Emperors, he went after people who had opposed him at the Council of Nicea. He also got himself made Bishop of Constantinople, replacing Paul I. Poor Paul, three times made Bishop of Constantinople, three times sent into exile -- and finally starved, and when that didn't kill him, strangled. If the Emperor was an Arian, your post as bishop wasn't safe. The Arians were also no angels.

That is what I was trying to explain. This is all political chaos. Eusebius was what I called a double agent. The fellow that wrote Jesus Freak called him Constantine's spin doctor. But people get critical and cynical.....but that is what I was trying to explain....before you get too critical and cynical...it would make you look good, to get a good feel for the time period. The thinking was different, the emphasis was different, in a very harsh culture. But even in that, Constantine promoted Christianity. He more or less built them a new city, Constantinople. This became the center of Christendom. Whatever happened to him, it changed his path. If he would not have issued the Edict of Milan, if he would not have friended Christianity, it is hard to say what would have happened to Christianity. Christians were being killed off for entertainment. Gnosticism was on the rise. The churches of Alexandria were positioned in the center of intellectual thinking. It is really hard to say what would have happened.

The baptism thing, don't count on them having the same theological views that you have. You can be sure that Constantine was well instructed by the resident bishops on his choices. There is so much to learn about that culture.

 

[justbyfaith]

Yeah, well, I'm SURE God is happy to have you around.
The Holy Spirit can always use a little help.

Really...the Holy Spirit works through people.

 

[farouk]

Really...the Holy Spirit works through people.

We do need to make the Word our yardstick.

 

[justbyfaith]

Paul does not always write in a way that people can understand at once. He's referring to the Jews. The Torah itself says it's for Israel. Indeed, Gentiles were forbidden from celebrating the Passover unless they were circumcised. Compare to:

Romans 2:14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another. . .

In other words, they keep the spiritual law which Israel had rejected. The hearts of Israel were hard and they did not want to hear the Voice of God. Then the Law of Moses was given to them. They received human words, the written Torah, because they did not want to hear the Voice of God.

Ask a Rabbi if you don't believe me. Gentiles are not expected to keep the Law. Never were. Tell me how someone in Australia three thousand years ago could keep all the laws of Moses. They'd never heard of Moses or the Temple, let alone be able to offer sacrifices there or be expected to know when to observe the Jewish Feasts. They could however have the "work of the law written in the hearts."

The law of the Lord is something that is eternally set in the heavens; and it exists as a standard even when it is not known to the person violating it...sin is not imputed where there is no law...however, sin is still a reality where there is no law, and the wages of sin is death...so death reigned from Adam to Moses.

Galatians 3:23 is clear, that those who do not have faith are kept under the law; and even if they are not aware of what the law says, they are subject to the law written in their conscience (as well as the law of Moses); and when they violate it, they will be held accountable and judged according to the law written in their conscience.

And also, if anyone today desires to earn their salvation, attaining to it or maintaining it through their works...then they are subject to the law of God and must keep every precept in perfect order from the moment of conception even into eternity (see Galatians 3:10, James 2:10, Matthew 5:48). But if anyone receives Christ as Lord and Saviour, they are not under the law, are delivered from the law, and are dead to the law (Romans 6:14, Romans 7:4, Romans 7:6, Galatians 2:19): the law no longer has the power to condemn them from the outside; for they are forgiven of all their sin(s). However, it still governs us from the inside.

For the unbeliever, the law condemns them from the outside, as the standard that declares the righteousness of the Lord; because they are not governed by it from the inside: and are therefore violators of its holy standard.

The law is the standard that reveals sin. And therefore if Gentiles are not under the law, they cannot sin...for they are not violating any standard set before them. However, because they are under the law, the law serves as a standard that is in contrast to their unholy way of living: and in violating the law they sin (in sinning they also violate the law): because sin is the transgressing of the law.

Therefore if Gentiles are not under the law, there is no standard for them to violate and they do not sin.

This is why I believe that Gentiles are under the law; because they do sin: and this sin is the transgression of the law of the Lord (1 John 3:4).

 

[GodsGrace]

Really...the Holy Spirit works through people.

I'm beginning to doubt it.
I think the Holy Spirit only works through SOME people....
Others don't even know who He is.

 

[historyb]

The ecumenical councils were a series of conferences (major and minor) which include ecclesiastical dignitaries (Bishops) who convened to discuss and settle matters of Church doctrine and practices in which those entitled to vote represented a whole range of Christian beliefs and churches.

Of course the Catholic Church is going to affirm all of these. But the point of interest is that within the concept of fundamentalism the councils represent one of the unique scenario where Protestants will sometimes recognize significant Christian events outside the Holy Bible. Some Protestant denominations have official statements on this. My interests are the opinions of individuals. Then on the other hand, what category does the first council of Jerusalem fall in? (Acts chapter 15) Do you recognize any of the Ecumenical Councils?

Out of these councils came the official Catholic definitions of heresy. But again my interests are; what are the opinions of individuals, and that includes Catholics? The rulings of these councils were taken so seriously that excommunications and murders occurred. So there are some questions that arise for the individuals; Do you base heresy on some of the rulings of the councils? Or is heresy a disagreement between denominations? Is heresy a disagreement of one’s own beliefs? Then how serious are these heresies? How should an individual respond to what they consider a heresy? Or even if there is such a thing as heretical beliefs anymore?

I have provided a list of councils for reference.

1. First Council of Nicaea (325) repudiated Arianism, declared that Christ is "homoousios with the Father" (of the same substance as the Father), and adopted the original Nicene Creed, fixed Easter date; recognized primacy of the sees of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch and granted the See of Jerusalem a position of honor.
2. First Council of Constantinople (381) repudiated Arianism and Macedonianism, declared that Christ is "born of the Father before all time", revised the Nicene Creed in regard to the Holy Spirit
3. Council of Ephesus (431) repudiated Nestorianism, proclaimed the Virgin Mary as the Theotokos ("Birth-giver to God", "God-bearer", "Mother of God"), repudiated Pelagianism, and reaffirmed the Nicene Creed. This and all the following councils in this list are not recognized by the Assyrian Church of the East.
   • Second Council of Ephesus (449) declared Eutyches orthodox and attacked his opponents. Though originally convened as an ecumenical council, this council is not recognized as ecumenical and denounced as a Robber Council by the Chalcedonians (Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Protestants).
4. Council of Chalcedon (451) repudiated the Eutychian doctrine of monophysitism, adopted the Chalcedonian Creed, which described the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, human and divine. Reinstated those deposed in 449 and deposed Dioscorus of Alexandria. Elevation of the bishoprics of Constantinople and Jerusalem to the status of patriarchates. This is also the last council explicitly recognized by the Anglican Communion. This and all the following councils in this list are rejected by the Oriental Orthodoxy.
5. Second Council of Constantinople (553) repudiated the Three Chapters as Nestorian, condemned Origen of Alexandria, decreed the Theopaschite Formula.
6. Third Council of Constantinople (680-681) repudiated Monothelitism and Monoenergism.
   • Quinisext Council, also called Council in Trullo (692) addressed matters of discipline (in amendment to the 5th and 6th councils). The Ecumenical status of this council was repudiated by the western churches.
7. Second Council of Nicaea (787) restored the veneration of icons (condemned at the Council of Hieria (754) repudiated iconoclasm. This council is rejected by some Protestant denominations, which condemn the veneration of icons.
8. Fourth Council of Constantinople (869-870) deposed Patriarch Photios I of Constantinople as an usurper and reinstated his predecessor Saint Ignatius. Photius had already been declared deposed by the Pope, an act which the Church of Constantinople accepted at this council.
9. First Council of the Lateran (1123) addressed investment of bishops and the Holy Roman Emperor's role therein.
10. Second Council of the Lateran (1139) reaffirmed Lateran I and addressed clerical discipline (dress, marriages).
11. Third Council of the Lateran (1179) restricted papal election to the cardinals, condemned simony, and introduced minimum ages for ordination (thirty for bishops).
12. Fourth Council of the Lateran (1215) defined transubstantiation, addressed papal primacy and clerical discipline.
13. First Council of Lyon (1245) deposed Emperor Frederick II and instituted a levy to support the Holy Land.
14. Second Council of Lyon (1274) attempted reunion with the Eastern churches, approved Franciscan and Dominican orders, a tithe to support crusades, and conclave procedures.
15. Council of Vienne (1311-1312) disbanded the Knights Templar.
    • Council of Pisa (1409) attempted to solve the Great Western Schism. The council is not numbered because it was not convened by a pope and its outcome was repudiated at Constance.
16. Council of Constance (1414-1418) resolved the Great Western Schism and condemned John Hus. Also began conciliarism.
    • Council of Siena (1423-1424) addressed church reform. Not numbered as it was swiftly disbanded.
17. Council of Basel, Ferrara and Florence (1431-1445) addressed church reform and reunion with the Eastern Churches, but split into two parties. The fathers remaining at Basel became the apogee of conciliarism. The fathers at Florence achieved union with various Eastern Churches and temporarily with the Eastern Orthodox Church.
18. Fifth Council of the Lateran (1512-1514) addressed church reform.
19. Council of Trent (1545-1563, with interruptions) addressed church reform and repudiated Protestantism, defined the role and canon of Scripture and the seven sacraments, and strengthened clerical discipline and education. Temporarily attended by Lutheran delegates.
20. First Council of the Vatican (1870; officially, 1870-1960) defined pope's primacy in church governance and his infallibility, repudiated rationalism, materialism and atheism, addressed revelation, interpretation of scripture and the relationship of faith and reason.
21. Second Council of the Vatican (1962-1965) addressed pastoral and disciplinary issues dealing with the Church and its relation to the modern world, including liturgy and ecumenism.

My Church affirms the Church councils because we are a Traditional Church. At least the first seven councils you have named

 

[Philip James]

. I must ask then, why should I take these councils seriously when the people at them didn't?

Hello Giuliano,

The disobedience of others, be tgey layman, priest, bishop or pope, does not excuse our disobedience.

Further, a distinction should be made between proclomations of dogmatic and/or doctrinal Truth, which cannot be overturned, and those of discipline and practice which can and do change.

Peace be with you!

 

[Philip James]

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

Beloved bbyrd,

I appreciate your concern.

Who are Francis and Richard that they should rule over me?
Have I not also been annointed prophet, priest and king?

No, i reject the rebellion of Korah,
and so I will submit to those whom my Lord and King, Jesus Christ has given authority over HIS household...

I must decrease and HE increase.

Peace be with you!

 

[Giuliano]

Hello Giuliano,

The disobedience of others, be tgey layman, priest, bishop or pope, does not excuse our disobedience.

This is true; but how seriously can we take what these men said when they didn't follow their own rules? Are these people who should be trusted to make new rules or to revise the old ones? Yet that is what happened. At the first Council of Constantinople, the Emperor decided who should be the next Bishop of Constantinople (contrary to a canon of Nicea) and he chose an unbaptized man who was then baptized, given holy orders and made Bishop of Constantinople (in violation of another canon of Nicea) and presided over the council. I can't trust a council like that.

Further, a distinction should be made between proclomations of dogmatic and/or doctrinal Truth, which cannot be overturned, and those of discipline and practice which can and do change.

Peace be with you!

I believe good doctrine produces good practices. (Faith without works is dead.) Also, doctrine can often be determined by practices. We know for certain that early Christians prayed for the dead because there are ancient paintings showing it in Catholic burial places. I have no need then to question whether praying for the deed is ok. I know what the early Church did, and that tells me what they believed.

I believe in the Real Presence for several reasons. One is scripture. Another is the respect shown in the practices. If priests were reckless and let the consecrated bread and wine fall to the floor, that would tell me they don't believe in the Real Presence.

 

[Giuliano]

That is what I was trying to explain. This is all political chaos. Eusebius was what I called a double agent. The fellow that wrote Jesus Freak called him Constantine's spin doctor. But people get critical and cynical.....but that is what I was trying to explain....before you get too critical and cynical...it would make you look good, to get a good feel for the time period. The thinking was different, the emphasis was different, in a very harsh culture. But even in that, Constantine promoted Christianity. He more or less built them a new city, Constantinople. This became the center of Christendom. Whatever happened to him, it changed his path. If he would not have issued the Edict of Milan, if he would not have friended Christianity, it is hard to say what would have happened to Christianity. Christians were being killed off for entertainment. Gnosticism was on the rise. The churches of Alexandria were positioned in the center of intellectual thinking. It is really hard to say what would have happened.

The baptism thing, don't count on them having the same theological views that you have. You can be sure that Constantine was well instructed by the resident bishops on his choices. There is so much to learn about that culture.

It might have been worse then -- but we see something similar today when we see how religion is still getting mixed up with politics, with the politicians try to use the religious leaders who are trying to use the politicians. There is nothing new under the sun.

What about Constantinople? The West remained mostly quiet and stable under the authority of the Pope. Things were wilder in the East with all kinds of ideas springing up. Bishops competed for the Emperor's attention and favor. One way to power was to accuse someone you didn't like of heresy, then hold a council and get him condemned. Then Constantinople was promoted to a "Patriarchy" and put in competition with Rome. That schism has still not healed.

 

[Philip James]

This is true; but how seriously can we take what these men said when they didn't follow their own rules?

Some perhaps didnt follow their own rules, but many faithful, humble presbyters and bishops did and do...

As for those who act hypocriticallly ( is that a word? Lol), like Peter did before Paul called him on it...

do all that they tell you to do, but not as they do, for they sit in the apostles' seat...
would be my suggestion...

Peace!

 

[Grailhunter]

It might have been worse then -- but we see something similar today when we see how religion is still getting mixed up with politics, with the politicians try to use the religious leaders who are trying to use the politicians. There is nothing new under the sun.

What about Constantinople? The West remained mostly quiet and stable under the authority of the Pope. Things were wilder in the East with all kinds of ideas springing up. Bishops competed for the Emperor's attention and favor. One way to power was to accuse someone you didn't like of heresy, then hold a council and get him condemned. Then Constantinople was promoted to a "Patriarchy" and put in competition with Rome. That schism has still not healed.

There is the rub. The leaven of man in the history of Christianity. Control is power, captivate the mind and you can control people. It took them quite a while to determine that religion and power did not mix. So came the concept of separation of church and state.

 

[Grailhunter]

My Church affirms the Church councils because we are a Traditional Church. At least the first seven councils you have named

Thanks for your post. Interesting church.