How did the 4th one then become Ecumenical if the Patriarchs of Alexander and Antioch did not ratify it? Yet the Emporer decided this what what he wanted, so he ordered them replaced, did he not?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
How did the 4th one then become Ecumenical if the Patriarchs of Alexander and Antioch did not ratify it? Yet the Emporer decided this what what he wanted, so he ordered them replaced, did he not?The Chuch of Rome accepted all seven of these Ecumenical councils, mostly after the fact, just like the rest of us.
These councils were called, and decisions made. Then these Bishops returned to their Churches and the local Churches ratified their decisions.
A council is not Ecumenical until it has been accepted and ratified. If there is no concensus then they work to understand why not. Nothing is ratified without the whole. MANY councils have gone unratified and never made it to Ecumenical status.
Forgive me...
The Church of Rome never accepted all the canons....The Chuch of Rome accepted all seven of these Ecumenical councils, mostly after the fact, just like the rest of us.
These councils were called, and decisions made. Then these Bishops returned to their Churches and the local Churches ratified their decisions.
A council is not Ecumenical until it has been accepted and ratified. If there is no concensus then they work to understand why not. Nothing is ratified without the whole. MANY councils have gone unratified and never made it to Ecumenical status.
Forgive me...
So now we're up to a belief in the Trinity as well as these other twoThat would be incorporated in the second principle: We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus.
Faith in Jesus would require some understanding of Jesus and his Godhead within the Holy Trinity.
So it is not necessary to have the same belief in the nature of Christ, as in you don't have to believe he is God?
for communion, to say you have the same faith. I do not judge who is saved and who is not, but I can say if a teaching something is christian or orthodox
Yeah, so far, that's been plenty hard enough without trying toFollow the two greatest commandments.
So simple even a child can understandyo.
Keep it simple.
2 commandments.
People that never heard the gospel can do it.
What does it mean for Jesus to be Lord? the Muslims think he is a very important prophet and was born of a virgin, but they do not think Jesus is God. So they are not christianScripture dictates that one must believe on Jesus Christ, that He
is Lord, but to make someone say that Jesus is God, until/unless
they themselves come to that conclusion through Scripture/revelation,
is imo unnecessary.
Well, 2 outta 3 ain't bad and still more than the Jews believeSunlover
What does it mean for Jesus to be Lord? the Muslims think he is a very important prophet and was born of a virgin, but they do not think Jesus is God. So they are not christian
One reason I like the Nicene Creed, it sums up the basic beliefs of christians
Dear Beamishboy,
I take your point about following the word of God, but did you ever come across a Christian who claimed to be doing anything else?
That's where our difficulty can arise. We all read the word of God, but, as this little discussion over the Petrine verses shows, we do not all read it in the same way. The problem arises when someone says not only that his or her intepretation is right, but the only right one; that person arrogates to themselves a power that not even the Pope in Rome claims, namely personal infallibility.
The Orthodox and the Catholics would say that we need someone or something to turn to when individuals differ; historically this has been the elders, as we see as far back as the Acts of the Apostles. The Church, founded by Christ, who wrote no book, is inspired by the Spirit, and it established the canon of Scripture through its reception by the faithful, and the writings of the Fathers; it also expresses the faith of the people through its ancient liturgies. Here we have not simply our own reading, but the reading of the faithful down the ages; we give, if you like, the Church invisible a vote as well as the Church visible.
That, of course, still does not, as we have seen, guarantee unity, but since the Orthodox and the Catholics receive different Councils, that is not, perhaps, altogether surprising.
Of course, in the final resort we all rely upon our conscience, and I should have expressed that a lot better; but relying solely upon our own reading exposes us to the risk that our prideful nature may mislead us.
Peace,
Anglian
being out out communion with the Church founded by Sts. Peter and Paul is always something to be regretted.
I wonder what you mean? The Bible does not 'speak for itself'; if it did there would be agreement between those who read it, and there clearly is not, so I am genuinely puzzled as to what you mean here.I say let the NT speak for itself. We should be untrammelled by personal prejudices (that can be hard) or by habit (that proves even harder - as I have seen in some) and we should just let the NT do the talking in the light of the rest of Scriptures. We may still not agree on the details but at least we won't go so way off if we are so guided.
To be fair, that is strayed from your own reading of what the Apostles' taught. That is one of my points. The crack through which the bitterness enters so many Christian discussions is when they think that they alone adhere to the teachings of the Apostles and refuse to see that even in the NT one can discern many traditions. It is the insistence that there was no diversity of understanding and should be no diversity of understadning which, literayll, bedevils so many discussions. Are we all so insecure that we can't live with the level of diversity that the Apostles lived with?Even if church X was founded by all 12 Apostles together who are martyred at the gateway of the church, I would not have communion in that church if the subsequent leaders strayed from the Apostles' teachings.
There is nothing sacred about a place or a connection. The only thing sacred is its teachings and its practices. If the teachings and practices are apostolic, I would have communion with the church even if it's in Timbucktoo. The place and historical connection do not matter.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?