Universalism Was Condemned and Defeated In 553 A.D. At The The Fifth Ecumenical Council

[Saint Steven]

Who decided that the Holy Spirit guided them?

How about:

Synod of the Oak in 403
Second Council of Ephesus in 449
Third Council of Ephesus in 475
Council of Devin in 506

Did the Holy Spirit guide the bishops from Apostolic Succession in these Councils?

Did the Holy Spirit guide the bishops from Apostolic Succession in the 14 Catholic Councils that followed the great Schism?

You shouldn't say that Councils are infallible when you reject all these Councils.

Or is it that your infallible Fathers decided the Holy Spirit was not in the Councils you reject?

Tell us more. What happened?

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

Who decided that the Holy Spirit guided them?

The Lord.


.

 

[Andrewn]

The Lord.

The Lord told you that He guided the bishops in certain Councils but did not guide the bishops in other Councils?

You probably don't mean that He spoke to you personally but rather told your infallible fathers and they told you, right?

 

[Andrewn]

Tell us more. What happened?

EO consider themselves people of the Councils. They need to realize they're not. There are other valid points of view that were approved in "other" Councils.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

EO consider themselves people of the Councils. They need to realize they're not. There are other valid points of view that were approved in "other" Councils.

So I guess you reject every council then? Does that include the council in Jerusalem aswell and how about the council of Niccea, is that valid in your eyes? If so, why?
I mean Constantine, a secular emperor summoned the council in 325 so why do you care to give it your assent? There were mortal men who met in the council of Jerusalem too. Do you hold that council to be authoritative?

If you only trust scripture my question for you to answer is, why? Scripture was written by men and passed down through the churches until it was gathered into one finalcanon at the synod of Hippo in 393.
If you disregard the councils then by doing so you continue to disregard the bible itself. Your reasoning is flawed and illogical. What else than pride gain from this position?

How do you know that the gospels telles the truth? Dont you place your trust in the church and her councils by simply adhering to the bible?
Again if you trust niccea why dont you trust the rest of the seven Ecumenical councils? Did the holy Spirit guide the church under the summon of the secular emperor in 325, but left us to ourselves shortly after that?

Besides, what contributes to validate some councils while it continues to reject other is the continued support and approval from the church over time. The council of Niccea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon has been and continues to be widely accepted among the apostolic churches.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

So I guess you reject every council then?

The post directly above yours demonstrates otherwise:

There are other valid points of view that were approved in "other" Councils.

 

[Stabat Mater dolorosa]

The post directly above yours demonstrates otherwise:

Nope, because it fails the requirement of continued approval by the apostolic churches.
Straw councils doesn't count anywhere regardless of their theological reasoning.

 

[Andrewn]

So I guess you reject every council then?

Oh, no. Of course not and there is no need to include the Biblical Council of Jerusalem in this discussion. It has a special status.

Councils made wonderful contributions. Anglicans definitely believe in 4 Councils. This by no means should imply that other Councils had no value. Catholics count 21 Councils.

 

[Andrewn]

Nope, because it fails the requirement of continued approval by the apostolic churches. Straw councils doesn't count anywhere regardless of their theological reasoning.

So, to you councils are 2 kinds: "Ecumenical Councils" and "Straw Councils" depending on what the Lord told your infallible Fathers to tell you.

I didn't know what to call the Councils that are rejected. You taught me a new expression "Straw Councils."

 

[Andrewn]

The post directly above yours demonstrates otherwise:

You're absolutely right. The points I've been trying to make are:

1) Councils are almost innumerable.
2) No Trinitarian denomination accepts or rejects all Councils.
3) The decision to accept or reject a certain Council is made by a group of people in each denomination that are considered infallible Fathers in that particular group but not in other groups.
4) Even people who declare acceptance of certain Councils frequently rejects some canons in the Councils they accept.
5) The Roman Catholic Church holds that solemn definitions of ecumenical councils meet the conditions of infallibility only when approved by the Pope. This is honest as they do define their method of selection. EO do not define their method of selection, attributing infallibility to some Councils but not others.

 

[HatGuy]

Here is a list of historical heresies that have been condemned by the church:

• The Circumcisers (1st Century)
  
  
• Gnosticism (1st and 2nd Centuries)
• Montanism (Late 2nd Century)
• Sabellianism (Early 3rd Century)
• Arianism (4th Century)
• Pelagianism (5th Century)
• Semi-Pelagianism (5th Century)
• Nestorianism (5th Century)
• Monophysitism (5th Century)
• Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries)
• Catharism (11th Century)

The Great Heresies

Category:Heresies - OrthodoxWiki

This is interesting, aren't the EO openly semi-pelagian?

 

[mkgal1]

This is interesting, aren't the EO openly semi-pelagian?

The list I quoted was from the Catholic Answers page (that's the one that cites that semi-palagianism was deemed a heresy).

The link for OrthodoxWiki (EO theology) doesn't cite semi-pelagianism as a heresy, but I'm not EO, so I can't confidently answer your question. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

Nope, because it fails the requirement of continued approval by the apostolic churches.

Continued? This would imply that they once had approval, would it not?

I'd have to say that the people doing the accepting and rejecting are necessarily proving their own fallibility in choosing the infallible sources.

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

The Bishops from Apostolic Succession were present and were guided by The Holy Spirit.

You state obvious truths. They make no case for or against the post that you responded to, but because the truths are irrefutable, the strength of the argument makes one forget its utter irrelevance.

 

[ViaCrucis]

"

Prove it otherwise with direct evidence quotes. Thanks.

"And now we have to ascertain whether those beings which in the course of the discussion we have discovered to possess life and reason, were endowed with a soul along with their bodies at the time mentioned in Scripture, when "God made two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night, and the stars also," or whether their spirit was implanted in them, not at the creation of their bodies, but from without, after they had been already made. I, for my part, suspect that the spirit was implanted in them from without; but it will be worth while to prove this from Scripture: for it will seem an easy matter to make the assertion on conjectural grounds, while it is more difficult to establish it by the testimony of Scripture. Now it may be established conjecturally as follows. If the soul of a man, which is certainly inferior while it remains the soul of a man, was not formed along with his body, but is proved to have been implanted strictly from without, much more must this be the case with those living beings which are called heavenly. For, as regards man, how could the soul of him, viz., Jacob, who supplanted his brother in the womb, appear to be formed along with his body? Or how could his soul, or its images, be formed along with his body, who, while lying in his mother's womb, was filled with the Holy Ghost? I refer to John leaping in his mother's womb, and exulting because the voice of the salutation of Mary had come to the ears of his mother Elisabeth. How could his soul and its images be formed along with his body, who, before he was created in the womb, is said to be known to God, and was sanctified by Him before his birth? Some, perhaps, may think that God fills individuals with His Holy Spirit, and bestows upon them sanctification, not on grounds of justice and according to their deserts; but undeservedly. And how shall we escape that declaration: "Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid!" or this: "Is there respect of persons with God?" For such is the defense of those who maintain that souls come into existence with bodies. So far, then, as we can form an opinion from a comparison with the condition of man, I think it follows that we must hold the same to hold good with heavenly beings, which reason itself and scriptural authority show us to be the case with men." - De Principiis, Book I, Chapter VII, 4

Origen opines that the soul was given to the body at the body's creation, but that the soul was already created; and seeks to make an argument from Scripture.

Origen is engaging in conjecture, not dogma.

Origen gets things wrong here because, at least in my estimation, he is seeking too hard to marry Christian theology with Platonic philosophy. Note the language Origen uses, "Or how could his oul, or its images, be formed along with his body", this is a very Platonic question to ask. Plato wanting to understand how a person can know what they know (e.g. how can I see a tree and know it is a tree?) and thus the postulation of Ideas and the primordial existence. Again, I disagree with these things, but it is relevant in understanding Origen's line of thinking (wrong or flawed as it is).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

The Lord told you that He guided the bishops in certain Councils but did not guide the bishops in other Councils?

You probably don't mean that He spoke to you personally but rather told your infallible fathers and they told you, right?

Ok, now you are starting to move into directing things at me personally.



Here's the answer:

• Jesus Built The Church

• The Holy Spirit moved through and directed The Bishops of His Church at The Ecumenical Councils of His Church to Finalize and Affirm Orthodox Christian Doctrine and Defeat Heresy.

• The First 7 Ecumincal Councils are the focus and the main Councils I'm specifically referring to in this thread.


.

 

[hedrick]

So let me get this straight. When Theodore states the The Word of God is one person and that the Christ is another person, making two different persons, is that what you confess also? This is clearly contradictory to Scripture over & over again. 'Jesus Christ is the same yesterday & today & forever. He is one Person with two different natures, the Divine & the human. It is all the heretical beliefs that teach contrary to this historical Christian doctrine.

The problem with the condemnation of Theodore is that assumes he was using language standardized at Chalcedon. But he died before Chalcedon. The most recent council was Nicea. Before Chalcedon “hypostasis” and “ousia” were sometimes almost synonyms. In the initial Nicene Creed, we see the following condemnation”

“But those who say: 'There was a time when he was not;' and 'He was not before he was made;' and 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'— they are condemned by the holy catholic and apostolic Church”

In Greek the phrase “substance or essence” is ὑποστάσεως ἢ οὐσίας. Nicea saw them as virtual synonyms. I doubt you'd want to condemn the authors of the Nicene Creed for confusing hypostasis and ousia.

Theodore believed in the unity of the Son, but he didn’t use the term hypostasis for it. He typically used “prosopon,” although his language wasn’t entirely consistent.

He associated the hypostasis with the nature, which was appropriate at the time. What he seems to have meant (and I’m depending upon secondary sources here — I’m not an expert in his work) is that the Son didn’t assume human nature in the abstract, but an actual, specific, body, mind, etc.

Aquinas makes the same point in the Summa: “The Word of God "did not assume human nature in general, but 'in atomo'"—that is, in an individual” Indeed Aquinas, as is common in the West, treated the human nature as almost a pseudo-hypostasis: “Therefore, although this human nature is a kind of individual in the genus of substance, it has not its own personality, because it does not exist separately, but in something more perfect, viz. in the Person of the Word.” As I read it, the human nature was just like a person, except that we don’t call it a person because it’s part of something larger. Indeed I think "individual" is a reasonable translation of hypostasis.

Before Chalcedon, Cyril also used language that after it could easily look heretical. But he accepted Chalcedon, and his intent was understood as being orthodox. Theodore, of course, didn’t have the chance to accept Chalcedon, nor to use its clarified wording. Many people writing before Nicea or Chalcedon said things that on the face of it weren't entirely consistent with those creeds, but we interpret them generously unless there's much better evidence of heretical intent than is present for Theodore.

 

[Andrewn]

• Jesus Built The Church

Amen.

• The Holy Spirit moved through and directed The Bishops of His Church at The Ecumenical Councils of His Church to Finalize and Affirm Orthodox Christian Doctrine and Defeat Heresy.

Why the circular logic? The RCC is able to say that the Pope chooses which Councils to approve. All denominations choose which Councils to believe in. Why can't EO admit their Patriarchs did the same?

I previously asked, "Who decided that the Holy Spirit guided them?" and you answered, "The Lord." Can you see the circularity of this logic? Who did the Lord tell that the Holy Spirit guided bishops in certain Councils and not in others?

The answer has to be that your church Fathers are more infallible than the Fathers of other churches who chose different Councils to believe in or to reject. The answer is really obvious. Why not admit that Councils are not infallible per se, but by decision from your infallible church Fathers.

 

[hedrick]

Why the circular logic? The RCC is able to say that the Pope chooses which Councils to approve. All denominations choose which Councils to believe in. Why can't EO admit their Patriarchs did the same?

Most Orthodox that I've talked to do say this. They believe that councils become authoritative when they are accepted by the Church as a whole. Thus their infallibility is based on the general infallibility of the Church, which is supported by Christ's teaching that the gates of hell will never prevail against it.

 

[Jude1:3Contendforthefaith]

The RCC is able to say that the Pope chooses which Councils to approve. All denominations choose which Councils to believe in. Why can't EO admit their Patriarchs did the same?

The thing is though, Both EO and RCC agree and have The First 7 Ecumenical Councils in common.

I understand what you're saying though


.