Anathema to Sabbath-keepers - Council of Laodicea

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Wasn't it later declared/accepted as ecumenical?

Something is an Ecumenical Council because the council is ecumenical. A local council is by definition, local. It is like having an ecumenical meetings with only Baptists.

 

[Standing Up]

Something is an Ecumenical Council because the council is ecumenical. A local council is by definition, local. It is like having an ecumenical meetings with only Baptists.

Gonna have to pull out the notes again.

Is this the one?

363 Synod of Laodicea
In the period between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils there was a Local Council in Laodicea (c. 363) that decreed, by its 7th Canon: "Persons converted from heresies, that is, of the Novatians, Photinians, and Quartodecimans: . . . shall be received by way of renouncing the heresy and through chrismation." Thus, we see here as well that the more tolerant view prevailed over the more rigid. However, St. Basil the Great’s canons or the Laodicean canons, as authoritative as they may have been, were not as yet laws for the whole universal Church. A decision of an Ecumenical Council[23] was needed. Later, the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed (in Canon 2) to accept the canons of St. Basil the Great and the canons of Laodicea as laws for the whole Church. This took place more than three centuries later.[24]
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html

That was the Synod declared Ecumenical that postumously declared the apostles and very early church heretics for observiing the date of the Lord's death on the 14th.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Gonna have to pull out the notes again.

Is this the one?

363 Synod of Laodicea
In the period between the First and Second Ecumenical Councils there was a Local Council in Laodicea (c. 363) that decreed, by its 7th Canon: "Persons converted from heresies, that is, of the Novatians, Photinians, and Quartodecimans: . . . shall be received by way of renouncing the heresy and through chrismation." Thus, we see here as well that the more tolerant view prevailed over the more rigid. However, St. Basil the Great’s canons or the Laodicean canons, as authoritative as they may have been, were not as yet laws for the whole universal Church. A decision of an Ecumenical Council[23] was needed. Later, the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed (in Canon 2) to accept the canons of St. Basil the Great and the canons of Laodicea as laws for the whole Church. This took place more than three centuries later.[24]
http://www.holy-trinity.org/ecclesiology/pogodin-reception/reception-ch1.html

That was the Synod declared Ecumenical that postumously declared the apostles and very early church heretics for observiing the date of the Lord's death on the 14th.

Christianity declares seven ecumenical councils of the early Church. The Catholic Church holds that there were 14 other Ecumenical Councils that came after the seventh, Nicea II. Laodicea was not one of them.

 

[Standing Up]

Christianity declares seven ecumenical councils of the early Church. The Catholic Church holds that there were 14 other Ecumenical Councils that came after the seventh, Nicea II. Laodicea was not one of them.

Don't know what to tell you again, except the same thing.

" , the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed (in Canon 2) to accept the canons of St. Basil the Great and the canons of Laodicea as laws for the whole Church. "

Another link--

The Canons of the Councils of Ancyra, Gangra, Neocæsarea, Antioch and Laodicea, which Canons were Accepted and Received by the Ecumenical Synods.

 

[Deut 5:29]

Don't know what to tell you again, except the same thing.

" , the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed (in Canon 2) to accept the canons of St. Basil the Great and the canons of Laodicea as laws for the whole Church. "

But not God's Church.
These were just men makeing it up as they went along, i.e. traditions of men.
And we know what Jesus thought of traditions of men; don't we?

 

[ThomasDa]

Not true and not true.
Where do you get this stuff. Thats more like a SpiritualCarcinogen.

Boy, ain't that the truth. LOL!

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Don't know what to tell you again, except the same thing.

" , the Sixth Ecumenical Council decreed (in Canon 2) to accept the canons of St. Basil the Great and the canons of Laodicea as laws for the whole Church. "

Another link--

The Canons of the Councils of Ancyra, Gangra, Neocæsarea, Antioch and Laodicea, which Canons were Accepted and Received by the Ecumenical Synods.

For one, that does not declare Laodicea to be an ecumenical council.
Two, the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not have any canons.

 

[Standing Up]

For one, that does not declare Laodicea to be an ecumenical council.
Two, the Sixth Ecumenical Council did not have any canons.

Gotta dig a bit further. Either I'm an idiot or the other guy's an idiot.

The Quinisext Council was a church council held in 692 at Constantinople under Justinian II. It is often known as the Council in Trullo, because it was held in the same domed hall where the Sixth Ecumenical Council had met. Both the Fifth and the Sixth Ecumenical Councils had omitted to draw up disciplinary canons, and as this council was intended to complete both in this respect, it took the name of Quinisext (Latin:Concilium Quinisextum, Koine Greek:Penthekte Synodos), i.e. the Fifth-Sixth Council. It was attended by 215 bishops, all from the Eastern Roman Empire. Basil of Gortyna in Illyria, however, belonged to the Roman patriarchate and called himself papal legate, though no evidence is extant of his right to use that title.
Quinisext Council - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Canon II.
It has also seemed good to this holy Council, that the eighty-five canons, received and ratified by the holy and blessed Fathers before us, and also handed down to us in the name of the holy and glorious Apostles should from this time forth remain firm and unshaken for the cure of souls and the healing of disorders. And in these canons we are bidden to receive the Constitutions of the Holy Apostles [written] by Clement. But formerly through the agency of those who erred from the faith certain adulterous matter was introduced, clean contrary to piety, for the polluting of the Church, which obscures the elegance and beauty of the divine decrees in their present form. We therefore reject these Constitutions so as the better to make sure of the edification and security of the most Christian flock; by no means admitting the offspring of heretical error, and cleaving to the pure and perfect doctrine of the Apostles. But we set our seal likewise upon all the other holy canons set forth by our holy and blessed Fathers, that is, by the 318 holy God-bearing Fathers assembled at Nice, and those at Ancyra, further those at Neocæsarea and likewise those at Gangra, and besides, those at Antioch in Syria: those too at Laodicea in Phrygia: and likewise the 150 who assembled in this heaven-protected royal city: and the 200 who assembled the first time in the metropolis of the Ephesians, and the 630 holy and blessed Fathers at Chalcedon. In like manner those of Sardica, and those of Carthage: those also who again assembled in this heaven-protected royal city under its bishop Nectarius and Theophilus Archbishop of Alexandria. Likewise too the Canons [i.e. the decretal letters] of Dionysius, formerly Archbishop of the great city of Alexandria; and of Peter, Archbishop of Alexandria and Martyr; of Gregory the Wonder-worker, Bishop of Neocæsarea; of Athanasius, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia; of Gregory, Bishop of Nyssa; of Gregory Theologus; of Amphilochius of Iconium; of Timothy, Archbishop of Alexandria; of Theophilus, Archbishop of the same great city of Alexandria; of Cyril, Archbishop of the same Alexandria; of Gennadius, Patriarch of this heaven-protected royal city. Moreover the Canon set forth by Cyprian, Archbishop of the country of the Africans and Martyr, and by the Synod under him, which has been kept only in the country of the aforesaid Bishops, according to the custom delivered down to them. And that no one be allowed to transgress or disregard the aforesaid canons, or to receive others beside them, supposititiously set forth by certain who have attempted to make a traffic of the truth. But should any one be convicted of innovating upon, or attempting to overturn, any of the afore-mentioned canons, he shall be subject to receive the penalty which that canon imposes, and to be cured by it of his transgression.
NPNF2-14. The Seven Ecumenical Councils | Christian Classics Ethereal Library

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

You are just a bit confused, no biggie. The Quinisext Council was not the Sixth Ecumenical Council (that was Constantinople III) and it wasn't even one of the ecumenical councils. The reasoning that you are a bit confused is because he is throwing it in with the Sixth, as they book took place in the same location and the other, in the eyes of some Orthodox, acted like a 'supplement', adding canons, etc.

Supposing that the council was valid, it would not make Laodicea an ecumenical council, it would have declared its canons orthodox.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

You are just a bit confused, no biggie. The Quinisext Council was not the Sixth Ecumenical Council (that was Constantinople III) and it wasn't even one of the ecumenical councils. The reasoning that you are a bit confused is because he is throwing it in with the Sixth, as they book took place in the same location and the other, in the eyes of some Orthodox, acted like a 'supplement', adding canons, etc.

Supposing that the council was valid, it would not make Laodicea an ecumenical council, it would have declared its canons orthodox.

To tell the truth, I myself am still confused

 

[Standing Up]

To tell the truth, I myself am still confused

I'd guess, about the council in the OP, that RC rejects it and EO accept it, even though it was once accepted by the whole.
Thus it mightbeormaybenotbutitdependsonwhoyouaskandsemanticaldefinitionofecuemenicaltypeotthingy

Clearer

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

I'd guess, about the council in the OP, that RC rejects it and EO accept it, even though it was once accepted by the whole.
Thus it mightbeormaybenotbutitdependsonwhoyouaskandsemanticaldefinitionofecuemenicaltypeotthingy

Clearer

No, you are still very confused, as everything you said in your post was wrong. In plain language:

Laodicea was a local synod. It always was and always will be, no matter who you are. The Catholic Church does not reject Laodicea. I have no idea where you are getting that from.

For some reason, you concluded that Laodicea was an ecumenical council because its canons were approved by a later council/synod. No one considers Laodicea an Ecumenical Council except yourself. The later synod/council simply approved of the canons written at Laodicea.

That later synod is considered by some Orthodox to be part of an Ecumenical Council. That does not change the status of Laodicea, that only means that they considered its canons to be valid.

In other words, Catholics believe that Laodicea was a local synod.
Orthodox believe that Laodicea was a local synod.
Some believe that Laodicea was a local synod whose canons were approved by an ecumenical council

 

[winslow]

.

 

[Standing Up]

No, you are still very confused, as everything you said in your post was wrong. In plain language:

Laodicea was a local synod. It always was and always will be, no matter who you are. The Catholic Church does not reject Laodicea. I have no idea where you are getting that from.

For some reason, you concluded that Laodicea was an ecumenical council because its canons were approved by a later council/synod. No one considers Laodicea an Ecumenical Council except yourself. The later synod/council simply approved of the canons written at Laodicea.

That later synod is considered by some Orthodox to be part of an Ecumenical Council. That does not change the status of Laodicea, that only means that they considered its canons to be valid.

In other words, Catholics believe that Laodicea was a local synod.
Orthodox believe that Laodicea was a local synod.
Some believe that Laodicea was a local synod whose canons were approved by an ecumenical council

We're coming to the same conclusion, but you have the semantics perfect to your credit.

The synod was local, but the canons Ecumenical.

As such, they are binding as law on the Church. I believe you used the word "orthodox".

So, what were the orthodox canons? Oh yes, the Church excommunicates or declares heretical those who follow the apostolic way of observing Pascha. That'll be news to Peter and Paul and John and the others and Mary the mother of Jesus. Let's see, since some pray to them, yet the Church excommunicates them, how does that work?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

We're coming to the same conclusion, but you have the semantics perfect to your credit.

The synod was local, but the canons Ecumenical.

It has nothing to do with semantics whatsoever. It has to do with the fact that you called something an ecumenical council when it was not. No one except you calls it an ecumenical council.

Now you are arguing that the canons were 'ecumenical', whatever that means. The canons were not ecumenical, they were constructed locally. They were considered valid by a council that some consider ecumenical. That does not make the canons ecumenical anymore than it makes the bible ecumenical because it was approved by an ecumenical council.

As such, they are binding as law on the Church. I believe you used the word "orthodox".

So, what were the orthodox canons? Oh yes, the Church excommunicates or declares heretical those who follow the apostolic way of observing Pascha. That'll be news to Peter and Paul and John and the others and Mary the mother of Jesus. Let's see, since some pray to them, yet the Church excommunicates them, how does that work?

I wish your last paragraph was coherent enough to respond to.

 

[Standing Up]

It has nothing to do with semantics whatsoever. It has to do with the fact that you called something an ecumenical council when it was not. No one except you calls it an ecumenical council.

Now you are arguing that the canons were 'ecumenical', whatever that means. The canons were not ecumenical, they were constructed locally. They were considered valid by a council that some consider ecumenical. That does not make the canons ecumenical anymore than it makes the bible ecumenical because it was approved by an ecumenical council.

As such, they are binding as law on the Church. I believe you used the word "orthodox".

I wish your last paragraph was coherent enough to respond to.

Now that you've established that the canons of the synod of Laodicea are binding as law on the Church, then the question goes back to the OP and to this---

" Canon VII

Persons converted from heresies, that is, of the Novatians, Photinians, and Quartodecimans, whether they were catechumens or communicants among them, shall not be received until they shall have anathematized every heresy, and particularly that in which they were held ... "

Quartodecimans taught that Jesus Christ died on the 14th and this was observed each year on whatever day it fell. Nicea to the contrary fixed the observation to Fri-Sun. This synod enforced that canon. And as you say, this canon is also law for the Church.

Here's the problem. Jesus and the apostles taught faithful men to observe it the same way. Mary the mother of Jesus would have also. Polycarp, Melito, Polycrates, and numerous others did as well. That is, on the 14th each year on whatever day it fell.

Now, how does that anathema and heresy work in our lives? Since Mary and Peter are part of the Church universal, do you think they've anathematized and called a heresy something that Jesus taught them??? Have you? So where does that leave things?

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Now that you've established that the canons of the synod of Laodicea are binding as law on the Church, then the question goes back to the OP and to this---

No, that was a claim you made. I said they were a local council which was bound only to the particular region.

 

[Standing Up]

-snip-


As such, they are binding as law on the Church. I believe you used the word "orthodox".

No, that was a claim you made. I said they were a local council which was bound only to the particular region.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

But not God's Church.
These were just men makeing it up as they went along, i.e. traditions of men.
And we know what Jesus thought of traditions of men; don't we?

Traditions of men, you mean everything that protestantism is based on, but they claim comes from the bible? Tradtions of men are the doctrines that were created and protestants followers taught how to interpret the bible according to.

The Catholic Church is and was God's Church. It is based on the teachings of the Holy Spirit that came from the apostles.

 

[Standing Up]

Originally Posted by SpiritualAntiseptic

-snip-


As such, they are binding as law on the Church. I believe you used the word "orthodox".


​

True or false?