The RCC born in 313 AD? (2)

[Hentenza]

For a council to be ecumenical, it doesn't require heretical sects to be involved, nor does it require all bishops to be involved either. I do not think there has ever been a council were all bishops were present.

There are no heretical sects in the mainstream churches. Your church chose who they considered heretical so it is your church's opinion which does not apply to any other churches. Vatican II was not ecumenical since it only involved your church and only applies to your church. It has no bearing on any other church.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Standing Up

The earliest issue is precisely the same situation as all of the subsequent divisions, however.
​

Death, burial, resurrection (Passover) (115-195)
Filioque (1054)
Leo (451) saying/doing?
Mariology (4 dogmas, latest 1952?)
Roman bishop vs counciliar (Nicholas I c850)
Heretical baptism (225)
Unam sanctum (1302)

The papacy, (aka Rome's lordship), has been present in each of these historical situations as Rome attempts to wrest control over salvific issues for believers. In each instance, Rome distanced itself from the historical church.

As you know, since Vat II, Rome is now attempting to reverse course and to woo various churches back under its arms. But the same lordship (non-apostolic, scriptural) situation is intact.
​

I wonder which of these 2 Denominations can do the best wooing..........


http://www.christianforums.com/t7700825-8/
Roman Catholic seeks understanding of Greek Orthodoxy

Greetings and Blessings to my Orthodox brothers and sisters. I have come here seeking a greater understanding of the Eastern Orthodox faith, specifically Greek Orthodox. I am not considering converting and lack the knowledge to engage in debate, but I have a very favorable opinion of the Orthodox faith and simply want to understand it better.
I believe that better understanding the Orthodox faith will help me understand my own faith better, and also understand why it is so mind-bogglingly difficult to improve relations between our two churchs.

I understand that the defining moment for the Orthodox/Catholic split was the addition of the filioque to the creed. I'm told that the pope basically put it in there without consulting anyone. But, it also sounds like the differences were already growing, and this might have been a long time coming anyway.

Is rejection of the filioque considered pivotal for the Eastern Orthodox, or was it more so the issue that the pope did this without consulting anyone else? I am trying to understand whether the filioque was, in and of itself, a major theological tenet that drove the Orthodox and Catholic Churches apart, or if the differing theologies regarding the filioque arose from the historical significance of that moment? I have gotten a very wide range of responses as to whether the filioque is really of paramount importance to the Eastern Orthodox.

What other factors lead up to the split, aside from the filioque?

.

 

[Erose]

There are no heretical sects in the mainstream churches. Your church chose who they considered heretical so it is your church's opinion which does not apply to any other churches. Vatican II was not ecumenical since it only involved your church and only applies to your church. It has no bearing on any other church.

But did having bearing on other Churches, such as the 20 plus Eastern Catholic Churches as well. Concerning what is and is not heretical, the Church has been determining that for 2000 years. Again, your statement shows a lack of what an Ecumenical Council truly is.

 

[Albion]

But did having bearing on other Churches, such as the 20 plus Eastern Catholic Churches as well.

\

Those are different RITES within the same church--yours. Your statement shows a lack of knowledge of how your own church is structured.

Hentenza was correct that an ecumenical council cannot be ecumenical if only one denomination is represented, quite unlike (most of ) the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There are no heretical sects in the mainstream churches. Your church chose who they considered heretical so it is your church's opinion which does not apply to any other churches. Vatican II was not ecumenical since it only involved your church and only applies to your church. It has no bearing on any other church.

Our church chose because our Church had authority to choose who to bring to the table. Vatican II did not only involve the Catholic Church. Every other Church was invited to observe, and to provide input, though not to participate in the final outcome.

The fact that it only applies to the Universal Church means that it does have bearing on the entire Church. However, Vatican II didn't change anything. There was no development of doctrine at Vatican II.

 

[Albion]

Our church chose because our Church had authority to choose who to bring to the table.

That still wouldn't make it an ecumenical council even if "Our church" had that power. And if it's not ecumenical, it's not infallible.

 

[Root of Jesse]

That still wouldn't make it an ecumenical council even if "Our church" had that power. And if it's not ecumenical, it's not infallible.

Who decided that? Ecumenical means "the inhabited world." All 21 councils had people from the "inhabited world"...and why is ecumenical required for it to be infallible?

The power came from Christ, fyi. It's not something wrested from others, or usurped, or anything.

 

[Hentenza]

But did having bearing on other Churches, such as the 20 plus Eastern Catholic Churches as well. Concerning what is and is not heretical, the Church has been determining that for 2000 years. Again, your statement shows a lack of what an Ecumenical Council truly is.

The East Catholic Churches are in communion with your church so they are part of your church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches and a plethora of others are not. One church does not an ecumenical council make. Secondly, your church has not been viable for 2000 years but was established in the 5th century. Thirdly, the early councils were called by the emperor not the church.

 

[Hentenza]

Our church chose because our Church had authority to choose who to bring to the table.

Only on those that agree with it. Your church has no authority on anyone else.

Vatican II did not only involve the Catholic Church. Every other Church was invited to observe, and to provide input, though not to participate in the final outcome.

lol How magnanimous of your church.

The fact that it only applies to the Universal Church means that it does have bearing on the entire Church. However, Vatican II didn't change anything. There was no development of doctrine at Vatican II.

Your church is not universal since it only includes its congregants. Your church has no bearing on any other church.

 

[Erose]

\

Those are different RITES within the same church--yours. Your statement shows a lack of knowledge of how your own church is structured.

You really have no concept of the Eastern Catholic Churches do you? They are more than rites as you assume. Each are autonomous particular Churches. Maybe you would benefit from familiarizing yourself with them, as just referring to them as just rites is an insult to them.

Hentenza was correct that an ecumenical council cannot be ecumenical if only one denomination is represented, quite unlike (most of ) the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

No Hentenza is just as wrong as you are. The 1st seven ecumenical councils were composed of just, as you call it, one denomination. By your very definition you would have to deny the first seven as well, which of course you probably do.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Only on those that agree with it. Your church has no authority on anyone else.



lol How magnanimous of your church.



Your church is not universal since it only includes its congregants. Your church has no bearing on any other church.

The authority is Christ's, who left it up to you to follow Him or not, and in what way.

Why would the Church accept the recommendations of those who aren't part of the Church?

Christ's Church is universal because he says so in Scripture. There is no other Church, than Christ's. If you're baptized in the Trinitarian formula, you're part of it, whether you think so or not. There is only one Baptism...

 

[Rhamiel]

\

Those are different RITES within the same church--yours. Your statement shows a lack of knowledge of how your own church is structured.

Hentenza was correct that an ecumenical council cannot be ecumenical if only one denomination is represented, quite unlike (most of ) the Seven Ecumenical Councils.

slight correction
the Rite is a reference to the liturgical structure that is used
the Eastern Catholic Churches are churches in a proper sense
they have their own Bishops and their own Patriarchs

 

[Hentenza]

The authority is Christ's, who left it up to you to follow Him or not, and in what way.

The authority is indeed Christ and all mainstream churches have that authority.

Why would the Church accept the recommendations of those who aren't part of the Church?

lol Correction: not part of your church.

Christ's Church is universal because he says so in Scripture.

Your church is NOT Christ's church but it is part of Christ's church just like the rest of the mainline churches. Your church is not depicted in scripture and is not universal since it only contains its own congregation. There are many Christians that are not part of your church.

There is no other Church, than Christ's.

Right.

If you're baptized in the Trinitarian formula, you're part of it, whether you think so or not. There is only one Baptism...

I am part of His church but I am not part of your church.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The East Catholic Churches are in communion with your church so they are part of your church. The Eastern Orthodox Churches and a plethora of others are not. One church does not an ecumenical council make. Secondly, your church has not been viable for 2000 years but was established in the 5th century. Thirdly, the early councils were called by the emperor not the church.

On your second point, so what? Even if we accept your statement on the face of it, we're older by a thousand years than yours. Regarding your third statement, why does it matter who asked for it? The well-being of the Church was also the well-being of the empire. But otherwise, the first Council (at Jerusalem) was not called by Caesar, it was called by Peter.

 

[MoreCoffee]

... One church does not an ecumenical council make. ...

The creed says 'one holy, catholic, and apostolic church' so it is precisely one church that makes a council.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The authority is indeed Christ and all mainstream churches have that authority.

Where's that, in the Bible???

lol Correction: not part of your church.

There is only one Church

Your church is NOT Christ's church but it is part of Christ's church just like the rest of the mainline churches. Your church is not depicted in scripture and is not universal since it only contains its own congregation. There are many Christians that are not part of your church.

There is only one Church. The parts of which are the people. There are no Christian churches which aren't part of the Universal Church Christ instituted. Need to read John 17. Christ prayed to His Father that His disciples would remain unified. He wasn't speaking just of those present with him that moment.

Right.



I am part of His church but I am not part of your church.

If you're part of His church, and I believe that, then you are, indeed, part of my Church. There is only one Church.

 

[Hentenza]

On your second point, so what? Even if we accept your statement on the face of it, we're older by a thousand years than yours.

And? Older does not mean better. It just means older.

Regarding your third statement, why does it matter who asked for it? The well-being of the Church was also the well-being of the empire. But otherwise, the first Council (at Jerusalem) was not called by Caesar, it was called by Peter.

No. The "council" of Jerusalem was not even called. Paul and Barnabas brought the issue to the church of Jerusalem and the apostles and the elders met to resolve the issue. Peter was merely one of the apostles that deliberated and one, along with James, that delivered the decision.

 

[Erose]

The East Catholic Churches are in communion with your church so they are part of your church.

And guess what during the 1st seven councils the Christian church was one Church.

The Eastern Orthodox Churches and a plethora of others are not.

and?

One church does not an ecumenical council make.

It has in the past. Ecumenical councils have been called to handle internal matters within the one Church, including some, if not most, of the 1st seven.

Secondly, your church has not been viable for 2000 years but was established in the 5th century.

I guess you believe in little green men as well. We have already went over this. You, nor anyone else of this forum have provided any evidence to make one doubt the existing historical record. Until then, we will catalog your made up assertion, in the "far fetched" folder. Ok?

Thirdly, the early councils were called by the emperor not the church.

Not all of them, and the dictates of the emperor did not make a council or any of its canons valid. That was not his/her place. He just used his secular authority to insure a meeting at the table between the orthodox and heretical bishops. His authority did not make the council ecumenical. Only the pope had that authority as the council at Trullo displayed.

 

[Hentenza]

Where's that, in the Bible???

The church is founded on the apostles and the prophets with Christ as the cornerstone. Christ is the head of the church and all mainstream churches maintain this truth. This IS in scripture.

There is only one Church

Is not your church. Yours is one among many.

There is only one Church. The parts of which are the people.

Not just the people but all Christians. All Christians are not part of your church.

There are no Christian churches which aren't part of the Universal Church Christ instituted.

Right.

Need to read John 17.

Nothing here about your church.

Christ prayed to His Father that His disciples would remain unified. He wasn't speaking just of those present with him that moment.

lol Your church is one of the first denominations.

If you're part of His church, and I believe that, then you are, indeed, part of my Church.

Nope. I'm not part of your church but I am part of the universal church that Christ instituted.

There is only one Church.

Is not your church.

 

[Tzaousios]

Nope. I'm not part of your church but I am part of the universal church that Christ instituted.

Is not your church.

So which Baptist church is this?