I will do my best. The word "ecummenical" comes from the Greek word "oikoumene". The root word in Greek is "oikos" which means "household" "family" "race" "house". Oikoumene carries the meaning of "the inhabited world" (Kittle's Theological Dictionary of the N.T. -- Page 674)
In other words, for a council to be valid, it must include the bishops of the worldwide Church. This prohibits any one man from making decisions on Church doctrine or morals.
We first see this idea in the Jerusalem Council where the apostles met and after consideration of the issues at hand, said:
[color:"0000FF"]Acts 15:28 For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things;[/color]
The idea is that these men come together for discussion, prayer, and ultimately to discern the will of God on a certain issue. From what I have understood, the Council of Chalcedon, in which the existing epistles were scrutinized to determine which were of divine origin, lasted for over a year. Obviously this responsibility was taken very seriously by the men who attended such a council, and indeed, when you look at the history of the ecummenical councils, you will find that there were some weighty matters being discussed.
There are also local councils which are held, but they are not binding upon the whole Church and generally deal with issues of local administration and discipline.
As the Head over the Church on earth (yes, Jesus is the Head over all the Church, but how is He to speak to us unless He have mouthpiece on earth?) the responsibllity of the Holy Father is not to concoct new doctrines. It is to protect the Church from heresy and maintain the teachings of the apostles. At the same time, as refinements to these teachings come in (for instance, the formal definition of TRANSUBSTANTIATION) the Holy Father looks over the further developments in doctrine to be sure that what has been proposed is not contradictory to what has always been taught.
The ratification of the Holy Father protects the Church from error, since the office of St. Peter, the papacy, was promised the protection of the Holy Spirit against error, lest the Church be "overrun by the gates of hell" (Matthew 16: 18 - 19).
Two interesting stories relating to the protection of the Holy Spirit to the office of the Holy Father. The Nicean Council dealt with the Arian heresy and established canons regarding the deith of Christ Jesus. But that did not stop the Arian heresy in its tracks. For a long time after this council, this heresy flourish, [color:"FF0000"]especially in the Orthodox East![/color] There was, in fact, a period of time in which every single Eastern Orthodox bishop was an Arian heretic!!
Wow!
Only the current Holy Father and ST. ATHANASIUS ("Athanasius contra munda -- "Athanasius against the world") were defenders of the Faith orthodox which insisted that Jesus Christ was both truly God and man.
The second story is even more amazing, though forgive me for not remembering the exact names. Around the turn of the millenium, there was a bishop in Rome who was just a-lusting to be pope. He was also a defender of another particularly nasty heresy, that of Monothellitism He was very open about it.
The Holy Father at that time had cause to travel to Constantinope and depose a heretical bishop of the Eastern Church. On the way back from this trip, the pope died unexpectedly. Many thought that this bishop took advantage of the trip to poison him. Upon his return to Rome, the bishops met to elect a new pope. There was a lot of polical maneuvering, especially from the Emperess of Constantinople, who was also a Monothellite and wished to see that doctrine become officially part of the Church. She figured that if this bishop were elected to the Chair of St. Peter, he would obtain for her this desire.
Although the bishops stridently resisted this maneuvering for over a year, during which time the Chair of St. Peter remained empty, eventually they were cornered and forced to elect this bishop.
The Emperess was pleased. Her scheming had worked. The bishop, who had gone all over the parishes of Rome preaching the Monothellite heresy with great vigor, was seated in the Chair of St. Peter.
"I suppose you will continue to preach Monothellitism" asked a contemperary
"No. Now that I am pope, I can no longer do so. I am bound not to," replied the pope elect.
Well, the news of this got back to the Emperess and she sent a delegation of soldiers to Rome, snatched the pope off the Chair of St. Peter and had him tossed in jail in Constantinople, where it is said that he repented of his Monothellite heresy and then eventually after several years, died.
A fasciniating story, but one that proves to me that the Holy Spirit is quite capable of overriding the most stubborn person when it comes to the theological safety of the Church.
In other words, for a council to be valid, it must include the bishops of the worldwide Church. This prohibits any one man from making decisions on Church doctrine or morals.
How does one become a member of this "world wide church"? Interesting that councils decided things instead of papal decrees, huh?
Since you are nudging this thread a bit off topic, re: Papal authority and infallibility. And since you provided a link on the subject of the alleged "Papal Infallibility", I think it is only right and fair that I extend to you the same in kind, i.e., to provide a link to an article by an ex-Catholic priest; who by God's sovereign grace has become a very knowledgeable man of God and a defender of the faith once delivered unto the saints.
Ah yes, of course. Our "ole buddy" Richard Bennett. Well known to us as one of the "Top 10" anti-Catholics out there. Any time a priest apostacizes from the Church and begins some sort of ministry to reach out to us poor lost papists, he becomes a glowing light in the anti-Catholic sky.
I've only read a couple of paragraphs and already I have found it lacking.
For instance:
Quote
The lives of the believers and the doctrine taught were in accord with the Lord’s words, “One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren.”1 The Scriptures, however, warned that from the midst of the brotherhood would arise a power that would attempt to destroy the Gospel and the simple brotherhood of believers.
So in other words, according to the Bible (as sayeth Sire Bennett) there should be no hierarchial structure among the believers, just an all encompassing equality, right?
Yet, if this is true, then how doth the scriptures in other places assign to some the ranks of elder, deacon, and bishop? Are not those hierarchial positions which make one man "above another".
Sorry, not buying it. I'll read the link, thank you, but as we Catholics know, there is no one more passionately anti-catholic than a former Catholic.
OrthodoxCatholic said: but as we Catholics know, there is no one more passionately anti-catholic than a former Catholic.
And as we Christians know, there are none so zealous for the truth as those who have been delivered out of darkness into the marvelous light of the Lord Christ. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" />
Okay..... so the writings of Richard Bennett strike a sour note with you, eh? No problem.. here's a couple from a non-exCatholic who is a scholar in his own right, especially in regard to the writings of the Church Fathers. You must may find him intriguing.
Thank you for the links, however, I hope you realize that during the two and a half years I was investigating the Church (trying to disprove what She taught), I read most of the authors you are throwing at me, along with a vast body of Catholic theologians, Early Fathers, and apologists who basically deflated all of the Protestant arguments.
I am familiar with William Webster and as I read the link, I found myself reading the same old arguments I have heard over and over and over again from various Protestants of various denominations, all of whom had but one thing in common -- their disdain for Catholic theology and their sharring of the same arguments against it.
As for me, I spent my time putting the various arguments both pro and con Catholicism against the one key which I found in the scriptures -- the covenantal relationship of man to God.
OrthodoxCatholic said: As for me, I spent my time putting the various arguments both pro and con Catholicism against the one key which I found in the scriptures -- the covenantal relationship of man to God.
Catholicism fit.
Protestantism did not.
Therefore, I converted.
It's unfortunate that you "converted" on the basis of an erroneous concept of covenant and not the totality of biblical teaching on the core doctrines, e.g., Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. Like Scott Hahn who "converted" to Romanism after he had been schooled in the doctrines of free sovereign grace, one can only conclude that you have never truly embraced the truth with a living faith, but sadly there was only a head knowledge.
Hebrews 6:4-8 (ASV) "For as touching those who were once enlightened and tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Spirit, and tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the age to come, and [then] fell away, it is impossible to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame. For the land which hath drunk the rain that cometh oft upon it, and bringeth forth herbs meet for them for whose sake it is also tilled, receiveth blessing from God: but if it beareth thorns and thistles, it is rejected and nigh unto a curse; whose end is to be burned."
1 John 2:19 (ASV) "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us: but [they went out], that they might be made manifest that they all are not of us."
OC wrote: "The ratification of the Holy Father protects the Church from error, since the office of St. Peter, the papacy, was promised the protection of the Holy Spirit against error, lest the Church be "overrun by the gates of hell" (Matthew 16: 18 - 19). --and-- "Two interesting stories relating to the protection of the Holy Spirit to the office of the Holy Father. --[snip]-- "Only the current Holy Father and ST. ATHANASIUS ("Athanasius contra munda -- "Athanasius against the world") were defenders of the Faith orthodox which insisted that Jesus Christ was both truly God and man. --[snip]-- "A fasciniating story, but one that proves to me that the Holy Spirit is quite capable of overriding the most stubborn person when it comes to the theological safety of the Church."
Given the foregoing I have three questions: 1- Do you intend, and if so, to what extent, the implication that the Pope is protected from error because the Office is protected from error? (I'll try to read yuour link to Armstrong's writing sometime today....) 2- Why, if the Holy Spirit protects both the Office and Pope against error, have there been only two Popes who were "defenders of the Faith orthodox which insisted that Jesus Christ was both truly God and man" ? 3- Isn't what you've presented an indictment against the Holy Spirit's capability to "override" a quite long list of "stubborn" people?
I really am interested in giving you an opportunity to explain what, for me, is a glaringly inconsistent statement of what the Holy Spirit has promised and what you admit as historical fact, especially since you cite what you interpret as a Scriptural promise to the contrary.
[Personal note: There is some importance in this discussion for me because I have an RC friend that is new to her faith and she has raised these same questions in our sometimes lengthy, but always very cordial, conversations about RCism and how it differs from my beliefs as a Protestant.]
It's unfortunate that you "converted" on the basis of an erroneous concept of covenant and not the totality of biblical teaching on the core doctrines, e.g., Sola Scriptura, Sola Fide, etc. Like Scott Hahn who "converted" to Romanism after he had been schooled in the doctrines of free sovereign grace, one can only conclude that you have never truly embraced the truth with a living faith, but sadly there was only a head knowledge
This is, of course, the usual response I see from Calvinists and a number of Fundamentalists. "You weren't really saved in the first place."
Do I understand you to be saying that since I am not a Calvinist, that I cannot be saved? In other words, by your testimony, that 1500 years of Christians ALL went to hell because there was no such thing as Calvinisim, forensic justification, and all the other baggage that comes with Reformed doctrines? That is the epistomological end of your argument, which is based on the idea that salvation incorporates not only faith in Christ's sacrificial work, but the holding of doctrines perfectly.
Well, to answer your other question, it was not just the covenant which convinced me. As John Heny Bishop Newman, famous Anglican convert to the Church said "To go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant," meaning simply that there is simply no external evidence for the existence of anything other than the Catholic Faith prior to 1517 (unles you count on your side the multitudes of heretics such as the Arians, the Monophysites, Donatists, etc. that is company I most certainly would not wish to claim for my own! <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
PS You may, if you wish, impugn my education and intellgence. I will be the first one to tell you that I do not know everything. But the credentials of such men as Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis, etc. are beyond question.
1- Do you intend, and if so, to what extent, the implication that the Pope is protected from error because the Office is protected from error? (I'll try to read yuour link to Armstrong's writing sometime today....)
2- Why, if the Holy Spirit protects both the Office and Pope against error, have there been only two Popes who were "defenders of the Faith orthodox which insisted that Jesus Christ was both truly God and man" ? 3- Isn't what you've presented an indictment against the Holy Spirit's capability to "override" a quite long list of "stubborn" people?
I really am interested in giving you an opportunity to explain what, for me, is a glaringly inconsistent statement of what the Holy Spirit has promised and what you admit as historical fact, especially since you cite what you interpret as a Scriptural promise to the contrary.
1. I would say yes, the office is protected by the Holy Spirit. The promise of the protection of the Holy Spirit given in Matthew 16: 18 - 19 is given in the context of the speech to St. Peter, meaning that this promise is intended for him.
As part of your question, I would ask you this, if the office of St. Peter is not protected from doctrinal and moral error by the Holy spirit, then which office of leadership is? What man can claim that blessing of having his teaching absolutely free form error?
This is an important question, since in Protestantism not only are there massive disagreements, but a number of them are on things very basic to salvation and eternal life.; Therefore, it is important to KNOW just who is teaching "the truth and nothing but the truth" isn't it?
2. I'm sorry. I am not familiar with the situation you are quoting me. Could you perhaps enlighten me a bit more? My understanding is that all of the popes have validated the position of Christ's deity, but I am interested in what you can share with me. This has not been an area of study for mre.
3. How is this an indictment against the work of the Holy Spirit?
Quote
[Personal note: There is some importance in this discussion for me because I have an RC friend that is new to her faith and she has raised these same questions in our sometimes lengthy, but always very cordial, conversations about RCism and how it differs from my beliefs as a Protestant.]
Curiousity bids me to ask from where this young lady has converted from and what her backgound is theologically? (If you don't mind)
Do I understand you to be saying that since I am not a Calvinist, that I cannot be saved? In other words, by your testimony, that 1500 years of Christians ALL went to hell because there was no such thing as Calvinisim, forensic justification, and all the other baggage that comes with Reformed doctrines? That is the epistomological end of your argument, which is based on the idea that salvation incorporates not only faith in Christ's sacrificial work, but the holding of doctrines perfectly.
Proven false, no matter how desperately you attempt to assert it.
Quote
As John Heny Bishop Newman, famous Anglican convert to the Church said "To go deep into history is to cease to be Protestant," meaning simply that there is simply no external evidence for the existence of anything other than the Catholic Faith prior to 1517 (unles you count on your side the multitudes of heretics such as the Arians, the Monophysites, Donatists, etc. that is company I most certainly would not wish to claim for my own!
I would repeat your charge concerning material from converts. I doubt it would matter. Oh, repeating somebody elses words doesn't answer the basic question of Biblical interpretation and the differences we have.
Quote
You may, if you wish, impugn my education and intellgence. I will be the first one to tell you that I do not know everything. But the credentials of such men as Scott Hahn, Robert Sungenis, etc. are beyond question.
No, you may be educated, yet, you remain incorrect. The only thing I know of those two men is some articles and debates I read or listened to with James White. Needless to say, both got their respective tails pounded. Here are a couple of links to these things,
OC, you wrote earlier: "Only the current Holy Father and ST. ATHANASIUS ("Athanasius contra munda -- "Athanasius against the world") were defenders of the Faith orthodox which insisted that Jesus Christ was both truly God and man. "
Now you have said: "2. I'm sorry. I am not familiar with the situation you are quoting me. Could you perhaps enlighten me a bit more? My understanding is that all of the popes have validated the position of Christ's deity, but I am interested in what you can share with me. This has not been an area of study for mre."
Initially you said only two Popes "insisted that Jesus Christ was both truly God and man." Now you have said, "My understanding is that all of the popes have validated the position of Christ's deity...."
Am I understanding you to mean that only two Popes have subscribed to both the Divinity *and* the Humanity of Christ ("truly God and Man," you said), and the others merely His "deity".
My other two questions remain unless I am missing some historical fact others here may be assumed to know but which I do not.....
I guess I'm just now perplexed that you want me to enlighten you on what your own claims are.
Is there anyone else who can point me to some misunderstanding I have? Have I read something into OC's statements that he didn't explicitly say?
Thanks OC, too, for being concerned about my friend, but I'm going to let that remain a personal matter, for now at least. I merely brought it up so you'd know I'm sincere in my desire to help myself and others understand; we share that much in common.
The Scriptures have never led any person into Arianism
I'm sorry. That is patently not true. Bishop Arias defended his position FROM THE SCRIPTURES. The JW's of today will also use the scriptures to try to convince you that Jesus was not God manifest in the flesh. In fact, the scriptures have been misused for 2,000 years to produe all manner of crazy beliefs. You simply cannot argue this fact.
That the scriptures are not either perspicuous nor self-interpreting is quite clear just from looking at the myriads of various Protestant denominations.
As for the idea of "winning" a debate, I do hope you realize that after any debate is over, whether it be a debate on politics, morality, or religion, each side will tell thier apologeticist "you really told him!"
Do you know when a debate is really won?
When the other side's apologist shows up in your camp repenting.... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />
Cordially in Christ,
Brother Ed
Last edited by OrthodoxCatholic; Sun Dec 26, 20043:08 PM.
OC, you wrote earlier: "Only the current Holy Father and ST. ATHANASIUS ("Athanasius contra munda -- "Athanasius against the world") were defenders of the Faith orthodox which insisted that Jesus Christ was both truly God and man. "
Now you have said: "2. I'm sorry. I am not familiar with the situation you are quoting me. Could you perhaps enlighten me a bit more? My understanding is that all of the popes have validated the position of Christ's deity, but I am interested in what you can share with me. This has not been an area of study for mre."
Initially you said only two Popes "insisted that Jesus Christ was both truly God and man." Now you have said, "My understanding is that all of the popes have validated the position of Christ's deity...."
I cannot find the quote you are referring to, so I think what I did was to write my opening sentence very very poorly. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/Banghead.gif" alt="" />
Let me apolgize for acting brain dead and see if I can straighten this mess out:
Here's the quote I think I messed up:
Quote
"Only the current Holy Father and ST. ATHANASIUS ("Athanasius contra munda -- "Athanasius against the world") were defenders of the Faith orthodox which insisted that Jesus Christ was both truly God and man.
What I meant to say was that only St. Anthanasius and THE MAN WHO WAS THE HOLY FATHER [color:"0000FF"]AT THAT TIME[/color]. St. Athanasius was a bishop in the Church, never a pope. What I wrote indeed makes it look like only two popes (the current Holy Father and St. Athanasius) were orthodox in their Christology. My apologies again.[/quote]
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/pilgrim/pil_sig2.gif)
![[Linked Image]](http://www.the-highway.com/Smileys/pencil.gif)
