Council Conflicting, Take One

[Standing Up]

The reason you don't understand these councils is because they were not in your Church training... your catechumenate.

You may as well go back to the very first council and figure out why they decided to not to ask the adult gentiles to circumcise themselves?

Councils are run by concensus.

The results are sent out to all the Churches not present at council.

The result are rejected or ratified by each individual Church which is also led by concensus.

Each member has the opportunity to pronounce something (or someone) AXIOS!... likewise they can with-hold their statement of agreement.

When All of The Churches agree upon something then it is called an ECUMENICAL council. According to The Orthodox Churches, this is validation that The Holy Spirit is in agreement.

Any other council is only a local council, and it's declarations are only local. No council can be forced upon The Church. It must be accepted or rejected.

THERE HAVE BEEN LOTS OF REJECTS.

Of all the councils, the Orthodox Churches of the world only recognize seven as having been Ecumenical.

One does not call an Ecumenical council. A council becomes Ecumenical.

There is never a point, at any time, when there is only one Bishop in charge. And nobody can just "CALL" an Ecumenical council, such as Rome would have us to believe. That in itself changes the definition of what is meant by Ecumenical... It is a lie, an untruth and anti-Gospel.

Your earlier example (another thead) of what Victor, Bishop of Rome, did in attempting to excommunicate whole Churces is a prime example. There is no Bishop who has such an authority.

I am certain that member of The Church of Rome see it differently. But for what it's worth... that the Orthodox position.

BTW ~ We have always, and will continue to always, stand for worship. We bow before the Eucharist on days other than Sunday... and especially during the great fast...

Forgive me...

Thank you for the explanation.

Perhaps you can explain why James said, it seems good to the Holy Spirit and this Council said it seems good to the Council.

 

[tulc]

Tulc!

Been a while, how have you been?

Hey bro!

I think another question just as good is also does the canon deal with inside the church and during Liturgy, or during one's private prayers at the home?

An even greater question is is the OP discussing kneeling during Liturgy which is worshiping as a community and a collective whole Church or private worshiping at home?

Ahh! Good point! Personally I'd be more interested in how we treat each other once we leave the Church but that's just me.
tulc(one of "those" Christians)

 

[E.C.]

Folks falling out of windows; can't have that.

As I said, though, it says "there are" folks kneeling and folks standing. Why did the Council decide against Scripture example? They could have agreed with Scripture and with those folks who knelt.

(Why it matters anyway, or is this a face east or west question?)

As ebia noted here:

It's not "against scripture" because (among other reasons) the scripture you quote is an example of informal "private prayer" and the council is talking about formal public worship. They are apples and oranges. The council is not talking about informal, impromptu, sessions of prayer.

What must be clarified is if were talking about worship at Liturgy or at home. Yes, worship is worship is worship however one worships differently at church than at home.

Forasmuch as there are certain persons who kneel on the Lord’s Day and in the days of Pentecost, therefore, to the intent that all things may be uniformly observed everywhere (in every parish), it seems good to the holy Synod that prayer be made to God standing.

Whatever happend to it seems good to the Holy Spirit and to us ...

Whenever/wherever there is a Divine Liturgy not on a Sunday, we kneel during the Lord's Prayer in the Orthodox Church. In your given Liturgy I would say we say the Lord's Prayer three or four times.

However, we do not kneel on Sundays. Why is this?
Because Sunday is like a mini-Pascha.

Whether one kneels while praying when one is doing one's private prayers at home is between them and God.

Do you think the canon is talking about kneeling while at church or at home?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Thank you for the explanation.

Perhaps you can explain why James said, it seems good to the Holy Spirit and this Council said it seems good to the Council.

Because the Church was much larger, and this councils decisions had not yet been passed before those who were not present... therefore one could not yet say that it seemed good to The Holy Spirit.

Look back at the council of ACTS and we see that there was concensus from everyone.

Forgive me...

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Because the Church was much larger, and this councils decisions had not yet been passed before those who were not present... therefore one could not yet say that it seemed good to The Holy Spirit.

Look back at the council of ACTS and we see that there was concensus from everyone.

Forgive me...

Tis a shame it isn't that way today in the Church/s of God.
But the prophecies must be fulfilled

1 Corinthians 14:33 for not is of tulmuts/akatastasiaV <181> the God but of Peace as in all the Outcalleds of the Saints.

Luke 21:9 Whenever yet ye should be hearing battles and tumults/akatastasiaV <181> no may be being dismayed, for is binding these to be becoming but not immediately the End

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

The Church has three cycles.

The daily cycle.

The weekly cycle.

The yearly cycle.

The Church calendar year begins on Sept 1.

All the Churches everywhere were attempting to formulate how to have every Church repeating all these cycle together, and do it as a united body.

Forgive me...

 

[Christos Anesti]

Standing vs kneeling is a discipline of the Church. They wanted to standardize the practice. It's not a matter of theological dogma and it doesn't imply "not following the Bible". Disciplines can and do change. At least thats my understanding of it for what its worth.

 

[Standing Up]

As ebia noted here:


What must be clarified is if were talking about worship at Liturgy or at home. Yes, worship is worship is worship however one worships differently at church than at home.


Do you think the canon is talking about kneeling while at church or at home?

The canon doesn't say. But the mileau in which it was written was dismantling home/private meetings.

So, probably it is addressed for church building meetings. (Believers are the Church.) The council was trying to 'formalize' what to do. But again, the example is that when Paul and the elders and others were having a meeting during the same period, they knelt.

The question is pretty simple. Why didn't the council simply go by scripture on this? All it says is that it seemed good to the council. That is probably the best answer.

 

[Standing Up]

Because the Church was much larger, and this councils decisions had not yet been passed before those who were not present... therefore one could not yet say that it seemed good to The Holy Spirit.

Look back at the council of ACTS and we see that there was concensus from everyone.

Forgive me...

Concensus yes, but still Acts sent the letter to the other city churches, so that they too would 'fall in line' (correctly).

The council decides and passes that along. It is not passing along a decision for further discussion.

 

[Standing Up]

Standing vs kneeling is a discipline of the Church. They wanted to standardize the practice. It's not a matter of theological dogma and it doesn't imply "not following the Bible". Disciplines can and do change. At least thats my understanding of it for what its worth.

Sure. I'd basically agree, except don't some folks think council decisions really are dogma/doctrine/scripture type stuff?

If so, why would Canon XX change, but not the Creed (or some other Canon)?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Concensus yes, but still Acts sent the letter to the other city churches, so that they too would 'fall in line' (correctly).

The council decides and passes that along. It is not passing along a decision for further discussion.

Fall in line to what?

You have the idea that a Church MUST ACCEPT something from a council.

That just isn't so.

Tell me just one instance of Rome forcing Antioch to do anything...

Antioch has never answered to Rome. Jerusalem either.

Forgive me...

 

[Standing Up]

Fall in line to what?

You have the idea that a Church MUST ACCEPT something from a council.

That just isn't so.

Tell me just one instance of Rome forcing Antioch to do anything...

Antioch has never answered to Rome. Jerusalem either.

Forgive me...

Relax, brother.

"fall in line" = canon, a rule, line. There was a dispute in Acts over following the Law or not. The council decided not. Seemed good to the Spirit and us. Then they sent their decision and expected others to line up, align with dogma/plumbline.

OO accepts the first three. EO 7. RC 15?. P generally 7 (I think).

So, council decisions are just suggestions for the Church?

 

[Standing Up]

&#922;&#945;&#957;&#8061;&#957;, as an ecclesiastical term, has a very interesting history. See Westcott&#8217;s account of it, On the New Testament Canon, p. 498 ff. The original sense, &#8220;a straight rod&#8221; or &#8220;line,&#8221; determines all its religious applications, which begin with St. Paul&#8217;s use of it for a prescribed sphere of apostolic work (2 Cor. x. 13, 15), or a regulative principle of Christian life (Gal. vi. 16). It represents the element of definiteness in Christianity and in the order of the Christian Church. Clement of Rome uses it for the measure of Christian attainment (Ep. Cor. 7). Iren&#230;us calls the baptismal creed &#8220;the canon of truth&#8221; (i. 9, 4): Polycrates (Euseb. v. 24) and probably Hippolytus (ib. v. 28) calls it &#8220;the canon of faith;&#8221; the Council of Antioch in a.d. 269, referring to the same standard of orthodox belief, speaks with significant absoluteness of &#8220;the canon&#8221; (ib. vii. 30). Eusebius himself mentions &#8220;the canon of truth&#8221; in iv. 23, and &#8220;the canon of the preaching&#8221; in iii. 32; and so Basil speaks of &#8220;the transmitted canon of true religion&#8221; (Epist. 204&#8211;6). Such language, like Tertullian&#8217;s &#8220;regula fidei,&#8221; amounted to saying, &#8220;We Christians know what we believe: it is not a vague &#8216;idea&#8217; without substance or outline: it can be put into form, and by it we &#8216;test the spirits whether they be of God.&#8217;&#8221; Thus it was natural for Socrates to call the Nicene Creed itself a &#8220;canon,&#8221; ii. 27.
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.vii.vi.ii.html

(As an aside, from the other conversation---there's how Polycrates was using the term versus the other group's teaching).

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

When a person (or a Church) gives his AXIOS! to a councils declarations, they are acknowledging the declaration is in line with the Churches Apostolic teachings. They are not voting on weather they like it or not... or do they think this is a good idea.

They are saying that the council has correctly understood the Apostolic teachings and that the decisions fit within that framework if it is something that the Apostles never had to deal with.

Such was the case of the council of ACTS 15, and also was the case in figuring out what day of the week we should break the fast of Passover and begin the Paschal feast.

From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium
A.D. 434
[ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts] *

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.

The point is that Christ wanted us to "work it out", and we did.

He also wanted to be of one mind... in agreement, on everything possible.

The only councils that are binding are those that we have all agreed to (Ecumenical). This is not by force, it's by choice.

Forgive me...

 

[E.C.]

Remember that up until Nicaea the Church had been in a constant state of persecution by the civil authorities except for Ethiopia and Armenia; both of whom became Christian about a century earlier than the Roman Empire.

What happens when persecutions occur? Communication between parts of the body becomes a risky business.


But that is beside the point.

At Nicaea with this canon the Church was discussing when at Liturgy, not at home. St. Paul was in private prayer at home.

There is a big difference between the two and trying to say that the two are the same is like trying to say that pay raises and Fascism are the same.

St. Paul can pray kneeling at home if he so wishes since that is a matter between him and God. I highly doubt that any organization much less the Church as lead by the Holy Spirit will take the Hitler route and force all to conform to the private practices of one person especially when considering how long Liturgies were and how high a level of asceticism St. Paul must of have been.

Did the Fathers and Nicaea discuss this? Well, there's a canon about it, but sadly the minutes were either never taken, lost or destroyed, so we can not know for sure.

Either way, I'm going to go on record and state that I think your making mountains out of molehills on this, but that's just my opinion.



It takes a whole lot of "Axios" for even a bishop to be elected. Since Nicaea and its canons have withstood the test of time from 325 to 2009 and spoken Truth, one must surmise that the Holy Spirit did indeed lead those who were present and therefore the canon gets my Axios.

 

[simonthezealot]

Will one follow Scripture or the Council here? If one follows Scripture here, it does not mean necessarily that one rejects the remainder of the Council.

What is your plumbline?

Good question...
The good answer is...
SCRIPTURE

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Good question...
The good answer is...
SCRIPTURE

And what is the plumbline for who decides what is scripture?

Forgive me...

 

[Standing Up]

Either way, I'm going to go on record and state that I think your making mountains out of molehills on this, but that's just my opinion.



It takes a whole lot of "Axios" for even a bishop to be elected. Since Nicaea and its canons have withstood the test of time from 325 to 2009 and spoken Truth, one must surmise that the Holy Spirit did indeed lead those who were present and therefore the canon gets my Axios.

It is nice to hope that, but that's not what they say. They say, it seemed good to the council. If they wanted us to think otherwise, they should have wrote as you say.

Obviously (at least to me), we can see what's happening. Other's in history (Tertullian?) said, paraphrasing very loosely, no more Spirit, He is in the Book/Bible. But it's not just that, there were folks at that time 325ad doing both and had they looked in scripture they'd see what the practice was. Instead they decided against that. And maybe it was still just those folks at home following scripture. We don't know. But they decided against it.

They set up the dichotomy, the schism. Before you reply too quickly, keep in mind they did not say, it seemed good to the Spirit and us.

 

[Standing Up]

When a person (or a Church) gives his AXIOS! to a councils declarations, they are acknowledging the declaration is in line with the Churches Apostolic teachings. They are not voting on weather they like it or not... or do they think this is a good idea.

They are saying that the council has correctly understood the Apostolic teachings and that the decisions fit within that framework if it is something that the Apostles never had to deal with.

Such was the case of the council of ACTS 15, and also was the case in figuring out what day of the week we should break the fast of Passover and begin the Paschal feast.

So, if for example, as Hefele says, not all went along with Canon 20, what does that mean for that Church within the Body of Christ?

The point is that Christ wanted us to "work it out", and we did.

He also wanted to be of one mind... in agreement, on everything possible.

The only councils that are binding are those that we have all agreed to (Ecumenical). This is not by force, it's by choice.

Forgive me...

Yes. They worked it out in Acts 15. But note my comment above. What happens then?

 

[Standing Up]

And what is the plumbline for who decides what is scripture?

Forgive me...

Sons of Thunder. What was written by eyewitnesses from the first through the death, burial, and resurrection to ascension; that is, between the first and last apostles to die.