Why no new Ecumenical Councils?

[mcarmichael]

sure, but that wouldn't do anything. and since they would get no vote in anything we do, Rome coming would be a waste of time and money.

maybe so, but not ours.

 

[mcarmichael]

Perhaps it would be what former President Barack Obama would term a "teachable" moment.

Yeah?

 

[mcarmichael]

Actually, I'm surprised. I didn't realize that the Council of the Apostles isn't recognized as an "Ecumenical" Council.

I'm sure it still counts, though.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Perhaps it would be what former President Barack Obama would term a "teachable" moment.

Yeah?

doubt it.

 

[ArmyMatt]

Actually, I'm surprised. I didn't realize that the Council of the Apostles isn't recognized as an "Ecumenical" Council.

I'm sure it still counts, though.

it has ecumenical status, and is the model for all following councils

 

[prodromos]

Trello, maybe?

You know that is the Greek word for "crazy", don't you?

 

[mcarmichael]

You know that is the Greek word for "crazy", don't you?

of course.

 

[Rider Galera]

I think we should do another. We could do another, couldn't we?

There are rules in place, aren't they? Would they invite Pope Francis? Or has the term "ecumenical" become too tarnished due to the so-called "ecumenical movement (if this is what it is called)"?

I may just be giving evidence to my ignorance, but why do you think we'd need another ecumenical council? My understanding is that the councils were to establish doctrines and whatnot as well as dispel heresies. Is there need of another? If so, what exactly do you think needs to be addressed?