 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 02:11 am |
|
How many ecumenical councils do we accept? Is Acts 15 not considered an ecumenical council, becasue I never see it on the list, yet theologically I see it referred to as an early council. Whatkeeps it from being on the list of ecumenical councils.
Also, in a debate that I am being asked to monitor this statement below was made. Can anyone tell me what is true and false about it? Is there any controversy or debate as to Nicea and the OT canon? Is there a reason people think this, or does this person simply have the facts wrong. Here is he quote:
1) The first "universal" ecumenical council was at Nicea in 325 ... called by Constantine, to settle the Arian controversy/heresy.
2) While the Nicene Creed is the most prominent production of this council, one of the other resolutions was the "closing" of the canon which affirms the Bible as the OT and NT without the Apocrypha.
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 03:51 pm |
|
Still hoping for some info regarding any of the matters if only just why the council of Jerusalem was not considered ecumenical. I did find this website however that is dedicated to the 'legend' that the council of Nicea actually had something to do with the canonization of scripture.
http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/nicaea.html
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1795 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 05:46 pm |
|
As I understand it, Brian, the Council of Jerusalem, occurring in apostolic times, was not considered among the ecumenical councils because it took place while the Church was in its infancy and its population tiny. By the fourth century, the Church had grown to embrace most of the known world, so that one could say it had reached the “age of majority,” such that the word “ecumenical” could make sense.
Another way of looking at it is that, just as the apostles are strictly speaking not considered bishops, since they had a special mission to inaugurate the Church, so any councils during the time of the apostles were not considered ecumenical but inaugural. The Council of Jerusalem considered whether the Gentiles were eligible to become Christians, and if so, under what terms. This was a condition for the expansion of the Church beyond the realm of Judaism and therefore not a purely Christian matter.
As to the Council of Nicea, the first proposition you list is true. The second seems to be shown false by the research you have uncovered.
As Catholics, we know that the canon was officially (dogmatically) closed by the Council of Trent, centuries later, in agreement with the declarations of the Synod of Rome, the Council of Hippo and the First Council of Carthage at the end of the fourth century. These earlier councils (as opposed to the earlier Council of Nicea) are the first ones to list in definitive fashion the books considered canonical. Since they were local councils rather than ecumenical, they do not carry dogmatic weight. However, they do demonstrate the doctrine that was binding in their day, and they have the approbation of the pope. The fact that Trent did not change the lists shows that they were, in fact, binding.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 10:45 pm |
|
brian wrote: Still hoping for some info regarding any of the matters if only just why the council of Jerusalem was not considered ecumenical. You have to give us time to answer, Brian. We do work for a living!
The Council of Jerusalem was a local council involving only the bishops (apostles and disciples) who lived in Jerusalem at the time. As David indicated, it should be considered an inaugural rather than an ecumenical council.
One definition of "ecumenical" is universal. The Council of Jerusalem was not universal; it involved only those apostles who were in Jerusalem.
History recounts three types of councils:- Local councils, which involved only the bishops of a particular area;
- Inaugural councils, such as the Council of Jerusalem (that may be the only example, actually)
- Ecumenical councils, such as the Council of Nicea, which involved all of Christiandom.
The Orthodox recognize seven Ecumenical Councils. In the west, we recognize some 21 ecumenical councils, the last 14 of which did not include participation of the Eastern Orthodox. You can read about the councils recognized by the west at New Advent.
What makes a council "ecumenical" is the participation of the universal Church. The Council of Jerusalem doesn't count because it involved no one outside of Jerusalem. By this definition, the Council of Nicea was the first true ecumenical council.
When thinking about the concept of an "ecumenical council" it should be remembered that before Christianity became legal, it would have been extremely difficult for all of the bishops of the world to gather in a central location, and it might well have meant the end of Christianity. It would also have been expensive. Nicea and Constantinople were called by Constantine who provided the transportation, the meeting hall, and the funding. He made a meeting of the world's bishops practical for the first time.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 10:49 pm |
|
Thanks. The only question this leaves me with is that you mentioned the apostle's not really being Bishop's. Yet we definitely think of Peter as the first Pope, who is the Bishop of Rome. So is this just in the sense that Peter established that his office would become Bishop of Rome while hehimself was not really a Bishop, or did he live long enough to make the transition from apostle to Bishop? But was he and the rest of the apostle's bishops or not then, or just kind of bishops?
Also seems that somehow the legend that is out there is that there was an altar that they placed certain books on to see which ones would randomly stay on top or something like that. I recently heard of a heresy that was settled that very way. They put the two different writings or doctrines on top of a dead saint (maybe Gregory?) And when they opened the tomb again he was foind to be holding on to one and the other was on the floor. Was this a normal way to decide things back then? Or were they more critical in their analysis as well hopefully.
Brian
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1795 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 11:10 pm |
|
Brian, the apostles were considered more than bishops. Their authority was greater, in the sense that they were, under Christ, the original founders of Christianity worldwide, and the deposit of faith was closed at the death of the last of their number. The ordained line of bishops descended from them is still authoritative, but its office is that of a conservatorship.
In view of the fact that the legends and fantasies you relate or which are mentioned in the article you linked are just that — legends and fantasies — why should we worry about their bizarre twists, like a disinterred dead man clutching a document determining what is true doctrine and what is heresy. If you read the Fathers of the Church, you will find them overall very scholarly and reasonable in their manner of determining what is of the faith. The rest you should take with a grain of salt.
David
|
|
|
brian
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Chicago South Burbs, Illinois USA |
| Posts: | 746 |
| First Name: | brian | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | methodist, evangelical, anglican, catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 11:33 pm |
|
| The only reason I mentioned the other example was because I think it is possibly true because I learned it from a church source. I think it was my priest who told me or it was in the bulletin. So in that example I think may be true and is one that many Catholics affirm, and I was curious about it, and I was curious as to whether that was a common idea. The replacement for Judas was chosen by casting lots. To me that seems weird to, but I suppose they know what was best.
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 5080 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Oct 23rd, 2007 11:48 pm |
|
brian wrote: The replacement for Judas was chosen by casting lots.
But remember that first, the apostles chose two worthy candidates. Either would have been equally qualified, and both were counted among the disciples of Jesus and were present in the company of the apostles.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Current time is 10:59 pm | |
|
|
|
|
|
