Are the Ecumenical Councils valid?

[Grailhunter]

Would you care to refute what I have written with an articulate defense using Scripture?

Or do you prefer only to interject in other's conversations with sniping?

Not sniping. If you have a question ask it in your own words.

 

[Marymog]

Not sniping. If you have a question ask it in your own words.

You interjected yourself with a snipe on me into a conversation I was having with someone else sooooooo I am not sure what you mean by if I have a question.

 

[Grailhunter]

You interjected yourself with a snipe on me into a conversation I was having with someone else sooooooo I am not sure what you mean by if I have a question.

Oh sorry for the interruption....count me out

 

[Marymog]

I don't know about the plural, but he did fund the first one. I include the link here in case you want to read the whole article -- CCEL says:

Hither, in the year 325, the twentieth of his reign (therefore the festive vicennalia), the emperor summoned the bishops of the empire by a letter of invitation, putting at their service the public conveyances, and liberally defraying from the public treasury the expenses of their residence in Nicaea and of their return. Each bishop was to bring with him two presbyters and three servants.1318 They travelled partly in the public post carriages, partly on horses, mules, or asses, partly on foot. Many came to bring their private disputes before the emperor, who caused all their papers, without reading them, to be burned, and exhorted the parties to reconciliation and harmony.

Then to the time before the council ended, and we how religion and the government got mixed with there being civil penalties for disagreeing with the Church -- the government was taking on the power to impose its idea of order on the Church as if the authority of Bishops needed help:

Almost all the bishops subscribed the creed, Hosius at the head, and next him the two Roman presbyters in the name of their bishop. This is the first instance of such signing of a document in the Christian church. Eusebius of Caesarea also signed his name after a day’s deliberation, and vindicated this act in a letter to his diocese. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea subscribed the creed without the condemnatory formula, and for this they were deposed and for a time banished, but finally consented to all the decrees of the council. The Arian historian Philostorgius, who however deserves little credit,1331 accuses them of insincerity in having substituted, by the advice of the emperor, for ὁμο-ούσιος(of the same essence) the semi-Arian word ὁμοι-ούσιος(of like essence). Only two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, persistently refused to sign, and were banished with Arius to Illyria. The books of Arius were burned and his followers branded as enemies of Christianity.

This is the first example of the civil punishment of heresy; and it is the beginning of a long succession of civil persecutions for all departures from the Catholic faith. Before the union of church and state ecclesiastical excommunication was the extreme penalty. Now banishment and afterwards even death were added, because all offences against the church were regarded as at the same time crimes against the state and civil society.

The two other points on which the council of Nicaea decided, the Easter question and the Meletian schism, have been already spoken of in their place. The council issued twenty canons in reference to discipline. The creed and the canons were written in a book, and again signed by the bishops. The council issued a letter to the Egyptian and Libyan bishops as to the decision of the three main points; the emperor also sent several edicts to the churches, in which he ascribed the decrees to divine inspiration, and set them forth as laws of the realm. On the twenty-ninth of July, the twentieth anniversary of his accession, he gave the members of the council a splendid banquet in his palace, which Eusebius (quite too susceptible to worldly splendor) describes as a figure of the reign of Christ on earth; he remunerated the bishops lavishly, and dismissed them with a suitable valedictory, and with letters of commendation to the authorities of all the provinces on their homeward way.

Thank you for the clarification.

I agree with you that Constantine was the catalyst for the Council at Nicaea when he invited the Catholic bishops of the world to assemble. I will just assume you miss-spoke when you said he set up and funded Ecumenical Councils (plural).

He invited the Bishops of the world to decide the questions raised by the Alexandrian priest Arius and his followers. Constantine was urging the restoration of peace in the Church. Constantine took no part in the deliberations of the Council; it was entirely an affair of the Church’s bishops.

Historical Mary

 

[Philip James]

I would hope the people here have all been invited to the wedding feast. If they don't attend, then we may have to go find others, "both good and bad."

Perhaps, perhaps also, some here do not know or have not heard that when we celebrate Eucharist, we participate in that eternal feast.

But thank you brother, for reminding me that we must always be open to the prompting of the Holy Spirit, ready to go where and when HE wills..
Something for me to reflect on today..

Serviam!

 

[Grailhunter]

I don't know about the plural, but he did fund the first one. I include the link here in case you want to read the whole article -- CCEL says:

Hither, in the year 325, the twentieth of his reign (therefore the festive vicennalia), the emperor summoned the bishops of the empire by a letter of invitation, putting at their service the public conveyances, and liberally defraying from the public treasury the expenses of their residence in Nicaea and of their return. Each bishop was to bring with him two presbyters and three servants.1318 They travelled partly in the public post carriages, partly on horses, mules, or asses, partly on foot. Many came to bring their private disputes before the emperor, who caused all their papers, without reading them, to be burned, and exhorted the parties to reconciliation and harmony.

Then to the time before the council ended, and we how religion and the government got mixed with there being civil penalties for disagreeing with the Church -- the government was taking on the power to impose its idea of order on the Church as if the authority of Bishops needed help:

Almost all the bishops subscribed the creed, Hosius at the head, and next him the two Roman presbyters in the name of their bishop. This is the first instance of such signing of a document in the Christian church. Eusebius of Caesarea also signed his name after a day’s deliberation, and vindicated this act in a letter to his diocese. Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea subscribed the creed without the condemnatory formula, and for this they were deposed and for a time banished, but finally consented to all the decrees of the council. The Arian historian Philostorgius, who however deserves little credit,1331 accuses them of insincerity in having substituted, by the advice of the emperor, for ὁμο-ούσιος(of the same essence) the semi-Arian word ὁμοι-ούσιος(of like essence). Only two Egyptian bishops, Theonas and Secundus, persistently refused to sign, and were banished with Arius to Illyria. The books of Arius were burned and his followers branded as enemies of Christianity.

This is the first example of the civil punishment of heresy; and it is the beginning of a long succession of civil persecutions for all departures from the Catholic faith. Before the union of church and state ecclesiastical excommunication was the extreme penalty. Now banishment and afterwards even death were added, because all offences against the church were regarded as at the same time crimes against the state and civil society.

The two other points on which the council of Nicaea decided, the Easter question and the Meletian schism, have been already spoken of in their place. The council issued twenty canons in reference to discipline. The creed and the canons were written in a book, and again signed by the bishops. The council issued a letter to the Egyptian and Libyan bishops as to the decision of the three main points; the emperor also sent several edicts to the churches, in which he ascribed the decrees to divine inspiration, and set them forth as laws of the realm. On the twenty-ninth of July, the twentieth anniversary of his accession, he gave the members of the council a splendid banquet in his palace, which Eusebius (quite too susceptible to worldly splendor) describes as a figure of the reign of Christ on earth; he remunerated the bishops lavishly, and dismissed them with a suitable valedictory, and with letters of commendation to the authorities of all the provinces on their homeward way.

Hey Morning!
Do me a favor and look this up and see if it is a true statement.
The first seven ecumenical councils, recognized by both the eastern and western denominations comprising, were convoked and financed by Roman Emperors, who also enforced the decisions of those councils. Rome is a prime example of Church and State as one. A heresy was seen as a crime against the Church and the Roman Empire and could be punishable by excommunication or death. I cannot say that the Church never killed anyone, but during the era of Rome that sentence was usually carried out by the Romans, not the Church.

This seems to be a reoccurring statement. The details seem to indicate that the Bishops were treated as dignitaries.

 

[justbyfaith]

Thank you justbyfaith.

There are several billion "who truly believe in Him" (Christians). That means, according to your theory, there are several billion churches.

Which one of these several billion churches is the pillar and foundation of truth? (1 Timothy 3:15)

Which one of these several billion churches do we go to that fulfills "the church" in Matthew 18:17?

Which one of these several billion churches is the rock that Jesus built his Church on? (Matthew 16:18)

Mary

Would you care to refute what I have written with an articulate defense using Scripture?

Or do you prefer only to interject in other's conversations with sniping?

1Co 12:20, But now are they many members, yet but one body.

The one body, composed of many members, is the pillar and ground of the truth.

It is one body composed of many members; each member being a member through faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and what He did for us on the Cross.

We have access by faith into this grace in which we stand (Romans 5:2).

So it is not a singular denomination (such as Catholicism) that is the way and the truth and the life. Rather, Jesus said, I am the way and the truth and the life: no one cometh to the Father except by me.

Therefore, we become members of the body of Christ through simple faith in Him and in the gospel that is related to us in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

I would add that if anyone is trusting in their works to save them, they are not putting their full trust in what He did for them on the Cross; and therefore they have not entered in to salvation in Jesus Christ.

 

[Marymog]

1Co 12:20, But now are they many members, yet but one body.

The one body, composed of many members, is the pillar and ground of the truth.

It is one body composed of many members; each member being a member through faith in Jesus Christ of Nazareth and what He did for us on the Cross.

We have access by faith into this grace in which we stand (Romans 5:2).

So it is not a singular denomination (such as Catholicism) that is the way and the truth and the life. Rather, Jesus said, I am the way and the truth and the life: no one cometh to the Father except by me.

Therefore, we become members of the body of Christ through simple faith in Him and in the gospel that is related to us in 1 Corinthians 15:1-4.

I would add that if anyone is trusting in their works to save them, they are not putting their full trust in what He did for them on the Cross; and therefore they have not entered in to salvation in Jesus Christ.

Thank you. Your saying the same thing with different words HOWEVER you never answered the question.

Jesus also said "Upon this rock I will build my church"....not Churches!! When we have differences we take it to the church....not Churches. The Apostles where "The Church" and anyone that disagreed with The Church were not teaching sound doctrine. Your theory is that we are all the church. That is a flawed theory. Soooooo when you take one passage from scripture to support your theory several other passages destroy your theory.

Scripture says God's household is the church and the pillar and foundation of the truth. Catholic truth is different than Baptist truth and Pentecostal truth and your truth and the person who sits in their basement reading scripture on Sunday with 5 other people truth etc etc. Which one of those "many members" that YOU spoke of is the pillar and foundation of truth? Scripture says we should take our differences to The Church. Which Church is that?

It can't be ALL of us since we all have our own truths......

Patient Mary

 

[justbyfaith]

As I said before, the church is the body of Christ, composed of everyone who truly believes in Him (not mere theory, but scriptural truth).

If that is not a good enough answer for you then I'm sorry.

But I think if you will think more on the implications of what I am saying, you might have your answer.

 

[Marymog]

As I said before, the church is the body of Christ, composed of everyone who truly believes in Him (not mere theory, but scriptural truth).

If that is not a good enough answer for you then I'm sorry.

But I think if you will think more on the implications of what I am saying, you might have your answer.

Got it....You can't back up your theory soooooo you keep repeating what you said before!!!

Work on that theory a little bit more and get back with me when you have perfected it.

Would you make a deal with me:

Since I believe I am the Church (using your theory) the next time you have a disagreement with your brother and he refuses to listen to you would you please bring your difference to me (The Church) and I will let you know which one of you should be treated as a pagan or tax collector???....Just like scripture says YOU should do

Thank you for your time.....Bible Study Mary

 

[justbyfaith]

@Marymog, you are not the whole church...

Therefore any member of the body of Christ will suffice for the thing that you are speaking about.

I do believe that it is also speaking of those church elders who are over you, specifically, that would serve as judges in such a situation.

 

[GodsGrace]

In principle, i think yes.

But, i believe this applies to everyone who follows a validly ordainded bishop, and so i would include Orthodox, copts etc...

Further, while the bishops will indeed be called to a higher account (they are responsible for every sheep placed under their care) that does not absolve the individual of the responsibilty to learn and live their faith, according to the Grace and gifts God has given them.
The more that God gives us, the more HE expects of us...

But yes, one must have Faith in Jesus' words 'the gates of hell will not prevail..' And in the Holy Spirit to guide, correct, and sustain HIS Church.

You too! Are welcome to come to the wedding feast of the Lamb of God!

Peace be with you!

Hi PJ,,,
as per Catholic teaching, you are right that the individual should independently learn their faith.

The question is,,,where?
The CC, here, is not the best in giving instruction.
I agree with the rest of what you've said.

The church should be more responsible in offering teaching.

 

[justbyfaith]

Got it....You can't back up your theory soooooo you keep repeating what you said before!!!

Eph 5:23, For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

If He is your Saviour, then you are in the body.

Col 1:18, And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

 

[Marymog]

Eph 5:23, For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.

If He is your Saviour, then you are in the body.

Col 1:18, And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.

At no time have I ever denied that Christ is the head of the church sooooooo your quotes are a mute point.

I am trying to get you to back up your theory that we are all The Church. Using your theory I, Marymog, am The Church.

Since I believe I am the Church (using your theory) the next time you have a disagreement with your brother and he refuses to listen to you would you please bring your difference to me (The Church) and I will let you know which one of you should be treated as a pagan or tax collector???....Just like scripture says YOU should do!!!

Patient Mary

 

[Marymog]

@Marymog, you are not the whole church...

Therefore any member of the body of Christ will suffice for the thing that you are speaking about.

I do believe that it is also speaking of those church elders who are over you, specifically, that would serve as judges in such a situation.

I never suggested I was the "whole" church. Fact is I agreed with you that I am part of the church along with 2 billion other Christians.

You are changing the discussion by adding the word "whole"......

Sooooo which elder's do YOU choose to settle our difference? Which elders has the authority (given to them by Scripture) to call someone a pagen or tax collector?

Patient Mary

 

[justbyfaith]

Using your theory I, Marymog, am The Church.

No; according to my belief, which is not theory, you, @Marymog, are a member of the church; which is His body.

At no time have I ever denied that Christ is the head of the church sooooooo your quotes are a mute point.

The quotes do not only say that Christ is the head of the church; but that the church is defined as the body of Christ (not just a building, the pillar and ground of the truth; but as a congregation of people composed of everyone who believes in Jesus and what He did for them on the Cross).

Sooooo which elder's do YOU choose to settle our difference?

Normally it would be the elders that preside in the local church that is attended by both parties. It is not anyone that we choose. Rather it is dictated by circumstance of what local church we are going to.

 

[Giuliano]

Hey Morning!
Do me a favor and look this up and see if it is a true statement.
The first seven ecumenical councils, recognized by both the eastern and western denominations comprising, were convoked and financed by Roman Emperors, who also enforced the decisions of those councils. Rome is a prime example of Church and State as one. A heresy was seen as a crime against the Church and the Roman Empire and could be punishable by excommunication or death. I cannot say that the Church never killed anyone, but during the era of Rome that sentence was usually carried out by the Romans, not the Church.

This seems to be a reoccurring statement. The details seem to indicate that the Bishops were treated as dignitaries.

The death of Arius surely raises the question about whether he died by being poisoned. It sounds like poison to me. His enemies said it was divine retribution, but the description of his death sounds like he had been given a caustic poison that ate away at his intestines and other organs. I found this at taylormarshal.com.

The Byzantine emperor then directed Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius and give him Holy Communion in the city’s cathedral. Patriarch Alexander objected and was put between a rock and hard place. So Alexander prayed that Arius might die before the appointed day on which Arius would present himself for Holy Communion and thereby commit sacrilege with the Body of Christ.

The historian Socrates Scholasticus then tells us how on that weekend Arius experienced loose bowels and had to run to a nearby bathroom. There, there heretic’s bowels came loose and he died in a most dishonorable way. Here’s the account:

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient bathroom nearby, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.
​

The Emperor in question was Constantine, of course; and Alexander didn't want to defy Constantine since that could be dangerous. He could get his way by getting someone to poison him. Saying he prayed for Arius to die made it look as if God had answered his prayer. Why defy the Emperor if you could arrange a "miracle"? Alexander did live too long himself after that, and that makes me wonder too.

Is a heresy a secular crime or an ecclesiastical one? I think Constantine wanted it to be both since he saw it as a way of establishing order. If the church wasn't allowed to kill heretics, then let the state do it.

The same pattern is seen in Spain where the Inquisition never put anyone to death; but the Spanish monarchs, fearing the influence of Muslims and Jews, were afraid of too much dissent. Thus any heresy was seen as a threat to the king, and the state burned the heretics that the Inquisition said were incorrigible. If you study that history, you find out that many of the people were condemned -- and the government could seize their estates. I think the Inquisition was more about political power and money than religion; and the Catholic Church allowed itself to be used. Today almost no one suggests the evils of the kings of Spain but put all the blame on the Catholic Church. It damaged their reputation.

It is highly ironic that the Jews and Pilate also show the interplay of religion and politics. The Jews convinced Pilate that Jesus posed a threat to Roman rule. Pilate couldn't see how and thought Jesus innocent, but he condemned Jesus anyway to keep the Jewish leaders happy.

I think Constantine leaned to the Arian view; but it didn't matter to him as much as trying to keep things under control, so he would have accepted either view if he thought it served his earthly goals.

The burning of Joan of Arc is another example of how politics and religion produce horrendous results when mixed.

 

[epostle]

The death of Arius surely raises the question about whether he died by being poisoned. It sounds like poison to me. His enemies said it was divine retribution, but the description of his death sounds like he had been given a caustic poison that ate away at his intestines and other organs. I found this at taylormarshal.com.

The Byzantine emperor then directed Patriarch Alexander of Constantinople to receive Arius and give him Holy Communion in the city’s cathedral. Patriarch Alexander objected and was put between a rock and hard place. So Alexander prayed that Arius might die before the appointed day on which Arius would present himself for Holy Communion and thereby commit sacrilege with the Body of Christ.

The historian Socrates Scholasticus then tells us how on that weekend Arius experienced loose bowels and had to run to a nearby bathroom. There, there heretic’s bowels came loose and he died in a most dishonorable way. Here’s the account:

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine’s Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient bathroom nearby, and being directed to the back of Constantine’s Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.
​

The Emperor in question was Constantine, of course; and Alexander didn't want to defy Constantine since that could be dangerous. He could get his way by getting someone to poison him. Saying he prayed for Arius to die made it look as if God had answered his prayer. Why defy the Emperor if you could arrange a "miracle"? Alexander did live too long himself after that, and that makes me wonder too.

Is a heresy a secular crime or an ecclesiastical one? I think Constantine wanted it to be both since he saw it as a way of establishing order. If the church wasn't allowed to kill heretics, then let the state do it.

The same pattern is seen in Spain where the Inquisition never put anyone to death; but the Spanish monarchs, fearing the influence of Muslims and Jews, were afraid of too much dissent. Thus any heresy was seen as a threat to the king, and the state burned the heretics that the Inquisition said were incorrigible. If you study that history, you find out that many of the people were condemned -- and the government could seize their estates. I think the Inquisition was more about political power and money than religion; and the Catholic Church allowed itself to be used. Today almost no one suggests the evils of the kings of Spain but put all the blame on the Catholic Church. It damaged their reputation.

It is highly ironic that the Jews and Pilate also show the interplay of religion and politics. The Jews convinced Pilate that Jesus posed a threat to Roman rule. Pilate couldn't see how and thought Jesus innocent, but he condemned Jesus anyway to keep the Jewish leaders happy.

I think Constantine leaned to the Arian view; but it didn't matter to him as much as trying to keep things under control, so he would have accepted either view if he thought it served his earthly goals.

The burning of Joan of Arc is another example of how politics and religion produce horrendous results when mixed.

It's funny that Constantine leaned to the Arian view, but allegedly "presided" over the council that condemned it.

 

[GodsGrace]

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!

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.

I didn't like the idea of separation of church and state.
For instance...I was sorry prayer was taken out of school.

But then does theocracy take over?
Why or Why not?
How does one draw the line?

It's a complicated subject matter....
I'm not sure anymore.

 

[Giuliano]

I didn't like the idea of separation of church and state.
For instance...I was sorry prayer was taken out of school.

At first, it seems like a good thing to have children praying in public schools -- but why would that be needed if our churches were doing their job? It is an indictment of our churches that they are not doing their job if public schools need to do it.

Should Catholic children be taught the Protestant version of the Lord's Prayer, or should Protestant children be taught the Catholic version?

What version of the Bible should be used? Catholics and Jews often opened their own schools so they wouldn't have to send their children to schools where a Protestant version was being read.

Who would you want to teach your children (if you have any) to pray? You, clergy from your church, or a school teacher who might not even be a Christian just doing what the school says is part of the job?

I remember praying in school and how I did it. Vain repetition. I didn't mean it, I had it memorized and just recited it. I don't think it did me a bit of good.