Where's the ecumenical council in protestantism?

[Ephfourfive]

Innovative doctrines and interpretations in regard to this passage is not a particularly good place to build a foundation of ecclesiology.

The doctrine of Petrine supremacy is a novel innovation, and not the historic teaching of the Holy Catholic Church which Christ founded.

-CryptoLutheran

There is only one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles and their successors is the new covenant body of Christ! Matt 1:18 & Jn 10:16 one fold

Luther is the novelty 1500 yrs late

 

[bbbbbbb]

It also contains the word "Protestantism," so your answer is a red herring. Even on your own reasoning, the absence of schismatics at a council would not be an impediment to ecumenicity. You've tied yourself up in a knot of contradictions to try to uphold a strained conclusion. Supposing that Catholics and Orthodox understand understand each other to be in schism (which they apparently do), this would not prevent either group from holding an ecumenical council, and Catholics have certainly done so.

Nobody will disagree that the Roman church has held innumerable councils over the centuries. However, as Albion has correctly pointed out, none of them can be considered as Ecumenical Councils on par with the original seven Ecumenical Councils.

 

[bbbbbbb]

How?
Matt 16:18 is the foundation scripture!
You got peter?

Strangely enough, Peter is not the Church. He did not even officiate over the Ecumenical Council in Jerusalem as recorded by Luke in Acts 15. James officiated. Based on that tidbit of information one could conclude that James was the first Pope and Primate of the Church Universal.

 

[ViaCrucis]

When do you suppose this "novelty" was introduced?

Considering that our patristic witness expresses no clear consensus on the meaning of Matthew 16:18, and that the Eastern Churches never had any knowledge of such a doctrine in the first thousand years in which East and West were in communion together (and continue to regard it as foreign and errant). Indeed, the fathers and councils of the undivided Church are not only oblivious of such a notion; but even the ancient and holy faithful successors to St. Peter's seat in Rome quite actively argued against the notion of an episcopal monarchy.

Canon 2 of Constantinople I says,

"The bishops are not to go beyond their dioceses to churches lying outside of their bounds, nor bring confusion on the churches; but let the Bishop of Alexandria, according to the canons, alone administer the affairs of Egypt; and let the bishops of the East manage the East alone, the privileges of the Church in Antioch, which are mentioned in the canons of Nice, being preserved; and let the bishops of the Asian Diocese administer the Asian affairs only; and the Pontic bishops only Pontic matters; and the Thracian bishops only Thracian affairs. And let not bishops go beyond their dioceses for ordination or any other ecclesiastical ministrations, unless they be invited. And the aforesaid canon concerning dioceses being observed, it is evident that the synod of every province will administer the affairs of that particular province as was decreed at Nice. But the Churches of God in heathen nations must be governed according to the custom which has prevailed from the times of the Fathers."

The 28th Canon of the Council of Chalcedon acknowledges the place of special honor the see of Rome enjoys, as stated in the 3rd Canon of Constantinople ("The Bishop of Constantinople, however, shall have the prerogative of honour after the Bishop of Rome; because Constantinople is New Rome."), but recognizes Constantinople as equally as important as Rome,

"Following in all things the decisions of the holy Fathers, and acknowledging the canon, which has been just read, of the One Hundred and Fifty Bishops beloved-of-God (who assembled in the imperial city of Constantinople, which is New Rome, in the time of the Emperor Theodosius of happy memory), we also do enact and decree the same things concerning the privileges of the most holy Church of Constantinople, which is New Rome. For the Fathers rightly granted privileges to the throne of old Rome, because it was the royal city. And the One Hundred and Fifty most religious Bishops, actuated by the same consideration, gave equal privileges to the most holy throne of New Rome, justly judging that the city which is honoured with the Sovereignty and the Senate, and enjoys equal privileges with the old imperial Rome, should in ecclesiastical matters also be magnified as she is, and rank next after her; so that, in the Pontic, the Asian, and the Thracian dioceses, the metropolitans only and such bishops also of the Dioceses aforesaid as are among the barbarians, should be ordained by the aforesaid most holy throne of the most holy Church of Constantinople; every metropolitan of the aforesaid dioceses, together with the bishops of his province, ordaining his own provincial bishops, as has been declared by the divine canons; but that, as has been above said, the metropolitans of the aforesaid Dioceses should be ordained by the archbishop of Constantinople, after the proper elections have been held according to custom and have been reported to him."

St. Gregory the Great finds the very notion of a universal cleric to be contemptable, writing in his letter to Mauricius Augustus.,

"I have however taken care to admonish earnestly the same my brother and fellow-bishop that, if he desires to have peace and concord with all, he must refrain from the appellation of a foolish title. As to this, the piety of my lords has charged me in their orders, saying that offence ought not to be engendered among us for the appellation of a frivolous name. But I beseech your imperial Piety to consider that some frivolous things are very harmless, and others exceedingly harmful. Is it not the case that, when Antichrist comes and calls himself God, it will be very frivolous, and yet exceedingly pernicious? If we regard the quantity of the language used, there are but a few syllables; but if the weight of the wrong, there is universal disaster. Now I confidently say that whosoever calls himself, or desires to be called, Universal Priest, is in his elation the precursor of Antichrist, because he proudly puts himself above all others. Nor is it by dissimilar pride that he is led into error; for, as that perverse one wishes to appear as above all men, so whosoever this one is who covets being called sole priest, he extols himself above all other priests. But, since the Truth says, Every one that exalteth himself shall be humbled, I know that every kind of elation is the sooner burst as it is the more inflated. Let then your Piety charge those who have fallen into an example of pride not to generate any offence by the appellation of a frivolous name."

I don't believe the innovation of Petrine supremacy/papal authority showed up in full one day as-is; it seems to have been a gradual development of error. In particular without the tempering and accountability of the Eastern bishops, the only real challenges came from the Conciliarists, and also ecclesiastical reformers.

It is true enough that the bishop of Rome enjoys the honor of his apostolic see, but the papacy as it is is outside the faith of the Holy Catholic Church. And so it is necessary for Rome to return to faithful communion with the Catholic Church.

I hope this doesn't come off as offensive (I certainly have no intent to offend anyone); but if it does, understand that I'm not saying anything more serious than those charges frequently levied against the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans. And as such, should not be seen as any more offensive.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is only one true church founded by Christ on Peter and the apostles and their successors is the new covenant body of Christ! Matt 1:18 & Jn 10:16 one fold

Luther is the novelty 1500 yrs late

Luther was a human being. I'm not sure how a human being can be an innovation. I assume you mean that what Luther taught was innovation. To that, obviously, I disagree. I'm not going to pretend that the doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith was somehow a clear doctrine in the fathers; the reality is that there was not a clear doctrine at the time of Luther (hence, why he desired the convening of a council to truly discuss the matter).

If I believed Rome were truly in agreement with the ancient, historic, apostolic and Catholic faith of the Church, then I would be in communion with Rome. And my position isn't based upon some kind of anti-Catholicism, but simply the testimony of history. As such, I hold no ill will toward your church--I simply do not, and cannot, accept that it is the Catholic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bbbbbbb]

Luther was a human being. I'm not sure how a human being can be an innovation. I assume you mean that what Luther taught was innovation. To that, obviously, I disagree. I'm not going to pretend that the doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith was somehow a clear doctrine in the fathers; the reality is that there was not a clear doctrine at the time of Luther (hence, why he desired the convening of a council to truly discuss the matter).

If I believed Rome were truly in agreement with the ancient, historic, apostolic and Catholic faith of the Church, then I would be in communion with Rome. And my position isn't based upon some kind of anti-Catholicism, but simply the testimony of history. As such, I hold no ill will toward your church--I simply do not, and cannot, accept that it is the Catholic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

Nor, would I add, should any Christian conflate his particular branch of Christianity with the ONE, TRUE CHURCH.

 

[zippy2006]

I hope this doesn't come off as offensive (I certainly have no intent to offend anyone); but if it does, understand that I'm not saying anything more serious than those charges frequently levied against the Orthodox, Anglicans, and Lutherans. And as such, should not be seen as any more offensive.

Fair enough. They are surely interesting excerpts you quote. I have been reading on the history of the First Vatican Council and I find that much of the opposition to the papal dogmas came from those now called "inopportunists," such that they believed the definition to be correct but thought it was an inopportune time to define it. This included, for example, Cardinal John Henry Newman. The heart of the true anti-infallibilists, such as Lord Acton and Ignaz von Dollinger, tended to be opposed more on historical and moral grounds than on theological grounds (and there was also a great deal of political opposition from England, France, Germany, and Austria). The principled theological opposition was thin. This is a bit surprising since, although Orthodox conciliarists and Protestants had no voice, there was a fairly strong tradition of Catholic conciliarism from at least the Council of Constance at which time the Great Schism was ended. Eventually I will have to look at the broader question as treated in things like Schatz' Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present.

 

[bbbbbbb]

Fair enough. They are surely interesting excerpts you quote. I have been reading on the history of the First Vatican Council and I find that much of the opposition to the papal dogmas came from those now called "inopportunists," such that they believed the definition to be correct but thought it was an inopportune time to define it. This included, for example, Cardinal John Henry Newman. The heart of the true anti-infallibilists, such as Lord Acton and Ignaz von Dollinger, tended to be opposed more on historical and moral grounds than on theological grounds (and there was also a great deal of political opposition from England, France, Germany, and Austria). The principled theological opposition was thin. This is a bit surprising since, although Orthodox conciliarists and Protestants had no voice, there was a fairly strong tradition of Catholic conciliarism from at least the Council of Constance at which time the Great Schism was ended. Eventually I will have to look at the broader question as treated in things like Schatz' Papal Primacy: From Its Origins to the Present.

Apparently a sizeable portion of the Polish Catholic Church found papal infallibility to be utter rubbish, to the point where they were willing to suffer excommunication from the Roman Church.

 

[Ephfourfive]

Strangely enough, Peter is not the Church. He did not even officiate over the Ecumenical Council in Jerusalem as recorded by Luke in Acts 15. James officiated. Based on that tidbit of information one could conclude that James was the first Pope and Primate of the Church Universal.

No pope ever officiates at a council they always call the council set the agenda and have legates direct the council because at the conclusion the pope approves the council and promulgates its decrees wielding the two edged sword of declaring the truth and condemning the errors

 

[Ephfourfive]

Luther was a human being. I'm not sure how a human being can be an innovation. I assume you mean that what Luther taught was innovation. To that, obviously, I disagree. I'm not going to pretend that the doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith was somehow a clear doctrine in the fathers; the reality is that there was not a clear doctrine at the time of Luther (hence, why he desired the convening of a council to truly discuss the matter).

If I believed Rome were truly in agreement with the ancient, historic, apostolic and Catholic faith of the Church, then I would be in communion with Rome. And my position isn't based upon some kind of anti-Catholicism, but simply the testimony of history. As such, I hold no ill will toward your church--I simply do not, and cannot, accept that it is the Catholic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

If anyone including luther says justification is by faith alone let him be anathema holy apostolic council of trent

 

[Ephfourfive]

Luther was a human being. I'm not sure how a human being can be an innovation. I assume you mean that what Luther taught was innovation. To that, obviously, I disagree. I'm not going to pretend that the doctrine of Justification by grace alone through faith was somehow a clear doctrine in the fathers; the reality is that there was not a clear doctrine at the time of Luther (hence, why he desired the convening of a council to truly discuss the matter).

If I believed Rome were truly in agreement with the ancient, historic, apostolic and Catholic faith of the Church, then I would be in communion with Rome. And my position isn't based upon some kind of anti-Catholicism, but simply the testimony of history. As such, I hold no ill will toward your church--I simply do not, and cannot, accept that it is the Catholic Church.

-CryptoLutheran

This should help you gain understanding

 

[bbbbbbb]

No pope ever officiates at a council they always call the council set the agenda and have legates direct the council because at the conclusion the pope approves the council and promulgates its decrees wielding the two edged sword of declaring the truth and condemning the errors

Well, that is interesting because no pope did any of those things at the Jerusalem council, primarily because there was no pope at that time. One must read an enormous amount of theology into Acts 15 to imagine that Peter was a pope and that he did these things.

 

[Ephfourfive]

Well, that is interesting because no pope did any of those things at the Jerusalem council, primarily because there was no pope at that time. One must read an enormous amount of theology into Acts 15 to imagine that Peter was a pope and that he did these things.

Peter head day of the church on earth!

Matt 10:2
First apostle Peter:

Matt 17:27
Jesus and Peter are one:
Jesus even works a miracle to make this point. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Mt 16:18 Peter received the keys of the kingdom: (jurisdictional authority of the universal church) and the power to bind and loose:

Lk 22:32
Peter commanded to confirm his breathren:

Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter:

Jn 21:17
Peter commanded to Feed my sheep:

Matt 10:2
Peter is the prince of the apostles, head of the universal church on earth!

Jn 20:21-23
Peter and the apostles receive the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins:

Acts 1:15 1:17 1:26
Peter declares Judas office of apostle valid and vacant and chooses a successor:

Acts 2:14
Peter preaches the first sermon on Pentecost:

Acts 2:38
Peter requires baptism as the outward sign and initiation into the new covenant!

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

Acts 5 authority of the apostles verified by them being stricken dead by God verifying Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and the apostles have the light of the Holy Spirit!


1 Tim 1 Paul is Timothy’s spiritual father.
1 Jn 2:1 little children are adult Christians, John is their spiritual father.

Apostles have Care for our souls
(Acts 20:28 Jn 21:17 Heb 13:17)

 

[bbbbbbb]

Peter head day of the church on earth!

Matt 10:2
First apostle Peter:

Matt 17:27
Jesus and Peter are one:
Jesus even works a miracle to make this point. 27 Notwithstanding, lest we should offend them, go thou to the sea, and cast an hook, and take up the fish that first cometh up; and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money: that take, and give unto them for me and thee.

Mt 16:18 Peter received the keys of the kingdom: (jurisdictional authority of the universal church) and the power to bind and loose:

Lk 22:32
Peter commanded to confirm his breathren:

Lk 22:32
Jesus prays for Peter:

Jn 21:17
Peter commanded to Feed my sheep:

Matt 10:2
Peter is the prince of the apostles, head of the universal church on earth!

Jn 20:21-23
Peter and the apostles receive the Holy Spirit and the power to forgive sins:

Acts 1:15 1:17 1:26
Peter declares Judas office of apostle valid and vacant and chooses a successor:

Acts 2:14
Peter preaches the first sermon on Pentecost:

Acts 2:38
Peter requires baptism as the outward sign and initiation into the new covenant!

Acts 4:8 Then Peter, filled with the Holy Ghost, said unto them, Ye rulers of the people, and elders of Israel,

Acts 5 authority of the apostles verified by them being stricken dead by God verifying Matt 16:18 matt 18:18 whatsoever you bind on earth is bound in heaven and the apostles have the light of the Holy Spirit!


1 Tim 1 Paul is Timothy’s spiritual father.
1 Jn 2:1 little children are adult Christians, John is their spiritual father.

Apostles have Care for our souls
(Acts 20:28 Jn 21:17 Heb 13:17)

As yes, selective Catholic eisegesis. You might also wish to mine both of the letters which Peter wrote and in which he clearly enunciates his role in the church.

 

[InTheLightLove]

I would like to ask if the Evangelicals accept the results of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils?

If not, then the question of reincarnation is open for debate.

 

[bbbbbbb]

I would like to ask if the Evangelicals accept the results of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils?

If not, then the question of reincarnation is open for debate.

The assumption here is that "the Evangelicals" constitute a uniform body of Christianity akin to the "the Catholics". The reality is that there are multiple Protestant denominations and I would advise you to look for information from each of them regarding the answer to your question.

 

[Albion]

I would like to ask if the Evangelicals accept the results of the fifth and sixth ecumenical councils?

If not, then the question of reincarnation is open for debate.

It would be open in any case. But the evidence runs against reincarnation, whether we depend on any of the ecumenical councils or not.

As for the other issue, Evangelicals...I cannot think of any Protestant denomination that teaches reincarnation. A few small Catholic ones, yes, but that would be all.