Hello,
My question relates to details about the validity of the ecumenical councils. The past seven years i have been studying religion in my free-time, especially Eastern religions. This ultimately inspired me to study Christianity and became very impressed by it's depth and consistency. However, there remain some problems which keep me from taking a clear theological position.
Most Christians do not consider priests, bishops or saints to be infallible. This means that they can't (solely) be appealed to in order to justify the validity of developments within Christian doctrine. The ecumenical councils, though, are considered by most Catholics and Orthodox Christians to be error-free, at least when speaking on a specific subject. My questions is as follows; if priests, bishops, saints (and even the apostles) aren't considered to be without fault, then on what grounds is infallibility ascribed to the ecumenical councils? I am aware that Christ promised Peter that His Church wouldn't be overcome by the gates of Hades, but when many Christian branches don't recognise each other - this implies that there is a specific criteria outside of the consensus of the clergy, by which the validity of developments relating to doctrine are confirmed or rejected. The ecumenical councils weren't discussed by Jesus and his disciples and aren't advocated for in Scripture either. If the ecumenical councils can't be reasoned to be infallible i see no reason to ascribe validity to any Christian teaching past the teachings of the apostolic fathers, as these were the last people to be taught by the actual witnesses of Christ's ministry. This would leave us with no basis upon which to accept, for instance, the Trinity, at least not as we know it today, being an invention by Tertullian that self-admittedly came with a majority opposition from his contemporary Christians.
It would be appreciated if somebody can answer this question in detail or forward me to literature that deals with these inquiries.
With kind regards,
Kameaux
My question relates to details about the validity of the ecumenical councils. The past seven years i have been studying religion in my free-time, especially Eastern religions. This ultimately inspired me to study Christianity and became very impressed by it's depth and consistency. However, there remain some problems which keep me from taking a clear theological position.
Most Christians do not consider priests, bishops or saints to be infallible. This means that they can't (solely) be appealed to in order to justify the validity of developments within Christian doctrine. The ecumenical councils, though, are considered by most Catholics and Orthodox Christians to be error-free, at least when speaking on a specific subject. My questions is as follows; if priests, bishops, saints (and even the apostles) aren't considered to be without fault, then on what grounds is infallibility ascribed to the ecumenical councils? I am aware that Christ promised Peter that His Church wouldn't be overcome by the gates of Hades, but when many Christian branches don't recognise each other - this implies that there is a specific criteria outside of the consensus of the clergy, by which the validity of developments relating to doctrine are confirmed or rejected. The ecumenical councils weren't discussed by Jesus and his disciples and aren't advocated for in Scripture either. If the ecumenical councils can't be reasoned to be infallible i see no reason to ascribe validity to any Christian teaching past the teachings of the apostolic fathers, as these were the last people to be taught by the actual witnesses of Christ's ministry. This would leave us with no basis upon which to accept, for instance, the Trinity, at least not as we know it today, being an invention by Tertullian that self-admittedly came with a majority opposition from his contemporary Christians.
It would be appreciated if somebody can answer this question in detail or forward me to literature that deals with these inquiries.
With kind regards,
Kameaux