Christianity
Q&A for committed Christians, experts in Christianity and those interested in learning more
Latest Questions
4
votes
1
answers
99
views
On the Equivalence of "Let Him be Anathema" and Matters of Faith and Morals
When in a biblical passage, such as Gal. 1:8--- > But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema. or when an Ecumenical Council, such as the Council of Trent, declares, for example (on Justification): > 18. If any one sa...
When in a biblical passage, such as Gal. 1:8---
> But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach a gospel to you besides that which we have preached to you, let him be anathema.
or when an Ecumenical Council, such as the Council of Trent, declares, for example (on Justification):
> 18. If any one saith, that the commandments of God are, even for one that is justified and constituted in grace, impossible to keep; let him be anathema.
Can we (from a Catholic perspective) justly conclude that the matter in question is either a matter of faith or morals, and therefore, cannot be rescinded by the Catholic Church?
DDS
(3256 rep)
Jul 5, 2023, 06:22 PM
• Last activity: Jul 30, 2025, 02:43 AM
3
votes
1
answers
105
views
How does the Catholic Church interpret the section of Nicaea II that Eastern Orthodox interpret as affirming the Council in Trullo?
The Council in Trullo, also called the Quinisext Council, was convened in Constantinople in 692. It did not include any representative from Rome and is not considered an ecumenical council. [Canon 13][1] of the Council in Trullo specifically condemns the Roman practice of requiring clergy to be celi...
The Council in Trullo, also called the Quinisext Council, was convened in Constantinople in 692. It did not include any representative from Rome and is not considered an ecumenical council.
Canon 13 of the Council in Trullo specifically condemns the Roman practice of requiring clergy to be celibate (either unmarried, or perminantly abstinent following ordination).
> if anyone shall have been found worthy to be ordained subdeacon, or deacon, or presbyter, he is by no means to be prohibited from admittance to such a rank, even if he shall live with a lawful wife. Nor shall it be demanded of him at the time of his ordination that he promise to abstain from lawful intercourse with his wife
This rule is to be enforced by deposition of the offender
> If therefore anyone shall have dared, contrary to the Apostolic Canons, to deprive any of those who are in holy orders, presbyter, or deacon, or subdeacon of cohabitation and intercourse with his lawful wife, let him be deposed. In like manner also if any presbyter or deacon on pretence of piety has dismissed his wife, let him be excluded from communion; and if he persevere in this let him be deposed.
As far as I can tell, this is incompatible with the Catholic convention of requiring clergy to be celibate.
Furthermore, the Council in Trullo recognized the 85 Apostolic Canons as authoritative, the 85th of which defines a canon for Scripture which is not followed by the Catholic Church because it includes three books of Maccabees, not two.
However, Nicaea II, which is recognized as ecumenical by the Catholic Church and therefore authoritative, says in its first canon:
> we welcome and embrace the divine Canons, and we corroborate the entire and rigid fiat of them that have been set forth by the renowned Apostles, who were and are trumpets of the Spirit, and those both of the six holy Ecumenical Councils **and of the ones assembled regionally for the purpose of setting forth such edicts,** and of those of our holy Fathers. For all those men, having been guided by the light dawning out of the same Spirit, prescribed rules that are to our best interest. Accordingly, we too anathematize whomsoever they consign to anathema; and we too depose whomsoever they consign to deposition; and we too excommunicate whomsoever they consign to excommunication; and we likewise subject to a penance anyone whom they make liable to a penance. [Emph. added]
The Eastern Orthodox Churches take the boldfaced part as an ecumenical endorsement of the Council in Trullo, and thus view it as an authoritative emendation to the fifth and sixth councils. However, the Catholic Church does not (apparently) interpret this canon in the same way, for the reasons outlined above.
How do Catholics understand this part of Nicaea II, if they do not take it as acknowledging the authoritative emendations from the Council in Trullo to the fifth and sixth councils?
Dark Malthorp
(4706 rep)
Mar 11, 2025, 12:09 AM
• Last activity: Mar 28, 2025, 02:44 PM
1
votes
1
answers
85
views
Are Catholics celebrating the 1700 year anniversary of Nicaea?
The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Germany celebrates the anniversary (325-2025) with a new Icon of the Council of Nicaea (see below). Here's the Festival hymn (from [the program](https://www.oekumene-ack.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Theologische_Reflexion/Nizaea2025/Materialien/Die_Pilgerreise_der_Niz%C3...
The Greek Orthodox Metropolis of Germany celebrates the anniversary (325-2025) with a new Icon of the Council of Nicaea (see below).
Here's the Festival hymn (from [the program](https://www.oekumene-ack.de/fileadmin/user_upload/Theologische_Reflexion/Nizaea2025/Materialien/Die_Pilgerreise_der_Niz%C3%A4a-Ikone_2025.pdf)) :
German:
>„Wir feiern freudig das Jubiläum des Konzils,
und nun kommt in Deutschland eine neue ehrwürdige Ikone zu uns;
die Väter haben uns das Symbolum des Glaubens geschenkt und darin bekannt,
dass Christus, der Sohn Gottes, Licht vom Licht und Eines Wesens ist; Ihr preisen wir“
-*Festlied der Nizäa-Ikone* English Translation: >„We joyfully celebrate the anniversary of the Council,
and now a new venerable icon comes to us in Germany;
the Fathers have given us the Symbol of Faith and in it professed that Christ,
the Son of God, is Light from Light and of one substance; You we praise.“
-*Festival hymn of the Nicaea Icon*
**Is the Catholic church doing anything special or similar for this 1700th year anniversary?**
und nun kommt in Deutschland eine neue ehrwürdige Ikone zu uns;
die Väter haben uns das Symbolum des Glaubens geschenkt und darin bekannt,
dass Christus, der Sohn Gottes, Licht vom Licht und Eines Wesens ist; Ihr preisen wir“
-*Festlied der Nizäa-Ikone* English Translation: >„We joyfully celebrate the anniversary of the Council,
and now a new venerable icon comes to us in Germany;
the Fathers have given us the Symbol of Faith and in it professed that Christ,
the Son of God, is Light from Light and of one substance; You we praise.“
-*Festival hymn of the Nicaea Icon*

Wyrsa
(8411 rep)
Mar 27, 2025, 12:27 PM
• Last activity: Mar 28, 2025, 11:17 AM
3
votes
2
answers
314
views
Which, and how many, of the Ecumenical Councils in Christendom does the Eastern Greek Orthodox Church accept as a basis for determining Doctrines?
The Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek Orthodox) considers ***(a) Scripture, (b) Tradition, and (c) Ecumenical Councils***, as a basis for determining and establishing doctrines (beliefs). However there are many Councils in the history of Christendom, with varied acceptance. Protestants generally accept...
The Eastern Orthodox Church (Greek Orthodox) considers ***(a) Scripture, (b) Tradition, and (c) Ecumenical Councils***, as a basis for determining and establishing doctrines (beliefs).
However there are many Councils in the history of Christendom, with varied acceptance. Protestants generally accept the results of "the First Four." While the Roman Catholic religion accepts almost two dozen (21), and counting!
How many does the Orthodox accept-along with its Holy Scriptures and Tradition of the Patristic Elders-for determining doctrines? And is there a ***reason(s)*** given for why only such a number?
Would the Church accept the findings of a ***new Ecumenical Council***, if one were to be held in modern times?
ray grant
(4700 rep)
Mar 19, 2025, 07:56 PM
• Last activity: Mar 19, 2025, 10:28 PM
2
votes
4
answers
1250
views
Why was homoousios used in the Nicene Creed?
The word homoousios is not in the Bible. It also was not a standard part of the Christian confession immediately before Nicaea. Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (RW, 236) and “conceptual innovation” (RW, 234-5). The Arians objected that these words are both “unscriptural”...
The word homoousios is not in the Bible. It also was not a standard part of the Christian confession immediately before Nicaea. Rowan Williams described it as “the radical words of Nicaea” (RW, 236) and “conceptual innovation” (RW, 234-5). The Arians objected that these words are both “unscriptural” and “untraditional” (RW, 234-5). In contrast to these “radical words,” Williams refers to “the lost innocence of pre-Nicene trinitarian language” (RW, 234-5). [Rowan Williams - Arius, Heresy & Tradition, 2001]
In the third century, the word homoousios was associated with Sabellian Monarchianism which taught that God is one person as well as one being. The word was used by some Libyan bishops to say that Christ and the Father are one and the same God, by Sabellius to abolish the distinction of the three hypostases, and by Paul of Samosata to describe Father and Son as a primitive undifferentiated unity.
This was one of the reasons why the Arians did not like the word. But the anti-Arians did not like the word either:
> 1. Eusebius of Caesarea unambiguously stated that it was Constantine, and nobody else, not even the anti-Arians, who wanted the word
> homoousios.
>
> 2. After Nicaea, the word falls completely out of the controversy very shortly after the Council of Nicaea and is not heard of for over
> twenty years (See - Homoousios ).
>
> 3. At the Council of the Western Bishops at Sardica in the year 343, where they rephrased the Nicene Creed, the pro-Nicene theologians
> omitted the word.
>
> 4. At the end of his life Ossius gave his unconditional consent to the so-called "blasphemy" of Sirmium (AD 357), which states that neither
> homoousios nor homoiousios are Biblical.
>
> 5. Eustathius, archbishop of Antioch in the 4th century, whose anti-Arian polemic made him unpopular among his fellow bishops in the
> East, openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the formula approved
> at Nicaea.
So, if the word homoousios is not found in the Holy Scriptures or in the orthodox Christian confession before Nicaea, why was it included in the Nicene Creed?
Andries
(1962 rep)
Feb 12, 2023, 03:26 PM
• Last activity: Mar 14, 2025, 09:02 PM
2
votes
2
answers
281
views
According to Nicaea II, would the Assyrian Church of the East be counted as heretical for their view on icons?
### Context The Assyrian Church of the East is the last remaining branch of the Churches of the East (historically known as Nestorians, though they themselves reject that epithet). The Churches of the East split from the Churches of the West (which subsequently branched into Catholics, Eastern Ortho...
### Context
The Assyrian Church of the East is the last remaining branch of the Churches of the East (historically known as Nestorians, though they themselves reject that epithet). The Churches of the East split from the Churches of the West (which subsequently branched into Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, and Protestants) in 431 over the Council of Ephesus and specifically the issue of whether the Virgin Mary should be called *theotokos* (God-bearer) or not. Thus, they were not represented at any of the subsequent ecumenical councils.
The veneration of icons is allowed by the Assyrian Church of the East (their theology may even encourage it), but they have not actually used icons in worship for a very long time. The FAQ of the Australian archdiocese of the ACotE says:
> Icons are holy images. Man is the image of God, in as much as He was fashioned after God’s image and likeness (Genesis 1:26). As the perfect revelation of God, Jesus is the image and reflection of his Father who is unseen (John 14:8-9). In baptism, we are ‘re-created’ in the image of the Son, whom bear by means of the sacrament. The saints are images of whom we strive to become, by the grace of Christ, after having being perfected in faith. There are liturgical and canonical prescriptions which indicate the use of icons in the tradition of the Assyrian Church of the East. However, **they have fallen out of use for many centuries,** and have only remained in some Gospel lectionaries. [emph. added]
Similarly, Reverend Tower Andrious mentions that Assyrian Christians might "think it sound[s] normal and true" that their church does not use icons "because they did not see Icons in their churches" (*Icons in the Church of the East *).
In the West, the issue of icon veneration was the primary controversy resolved at Nicaea II (787), which, of course, had no representation from CotE. This council is accepted as authoritative by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. The decisions of Nicaea II appear to mandate the use of icons, as they declared:
> We, therefore, following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her), define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and on hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Savior Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people.
and in another place:
> Anathema to those who do not salute the holy and venerable images.
These statements are interpreted by the Eastern Orthodox and Catholic Churches as mandating that churches be adorned with icons and that believers ought to venerate them. I am not sure that they could be interpreted otherwise.
### My question
**Given that the Assyrian Church of the East does not currently use icons, despite expressly permitting their veneration, would it be considered heretical on that basis by the churches who follow the authority of Nicaea II?** To be clear, I am not asking if they would be considered heretical on other grounds, but solely on their attitude towards icons. One might put the question more abstractly: If a hypothetical church were in total agreement with the Catholics or EO on all points of doctrine but did not actually have icons in their church building nor venerate them in private, would it be considered heretical by the Catholics or EO, respectively?
If the answer would be different between Catholics and EO, then I'm interested in hearing both perspectives.
Dark Malthorp
(4706 rep)
Mar 11, 2025, 04:51 PM
• Last activity: Mar 12, 2025, 02:54 PM
8
votes
5
answers
3066
views
Why do some Christians use the New Testament but deny the early church ecumenical council doctrines?
Most Christians do not doubt the authenticity and inspiration of the New Testament. Most Christians agree that the New Testament should be treated as inerrant and authoritative. Most Christians know as a historical fact that the ancient united Church carefully determined which New Testament books we...
Most Christians do not doubt the authenticity and inspiration of the New Testament.
Most Christians agree that the New Testament should be treated as inerrant and authoritative.
Most Christians know as a historical fact that the ancient united Church carefully determined which New Testament books were canonical.
And most Christian also know that this same Church also confessed God as Holy Trinity, among many other canonized teachings and doctrines.
But, if one does not want to interpret the Bible through the hermeneutic of Nicaea-Constantinople... or through the hermeneutic of the other canonized doctrines and teachings... how can you accept the New Testament at all?
After all, neither the Old nor New Testaments fell from the sky.
---
P.S. I am **not** referring to any councils after 1054 AD (Great Schism). So let's all understand that this is not about "the Western/Catholic/Roman church" nor "the Eastern/Orthodox/Byzantine Church" which then started to exist independently of each other.
Wyrsa
(8411 rep)
Feb 15, 2025, 09:56 PM
• Last activity: Feb 22, 2025, 12:33 PM
1
votes
0
answers
31
views
Are there any unitarian denominations that accept the Ecumenical Councils that occurred before the Great Schism?
There are many denominations out there who claim to be unitarian, do any of them accept all or some of the ecumenical councils? If so which councils do they accept and on what basis? If they accept one not on this list feel free to mention it and explain why. 1. First Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325...
There are many denominations out there who claim to be unitarian, do any of them accept all or some of the ecumenical councils? If so which councils do they accept and on what basis?
If they accept one not on this list feel free to mention it and explain why.
1. First Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 325 A.D.)
2. Second Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 381 A.D.)
3. Third Ecumenical Council (Ephesus, 431 A.D.)
4. Fourth Ecumenical Council (Chalcedon, 451 A.D.)
5. Fifth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 553 A.D.)
6. Sixth Ecumenical Council (Constantinople, 680 A.D.)
- The Quinisext Synod (691 A.D.)
7. Seventh Ecumenical Council (Nicea, 787 A.D.)
Wyrsa
(8411 rep)
Feb 14, 2025, 03:38 PM
2
votes
0
answers
49
views
What makes something a "doctrine" of the Orthodox church, beyond the early ecumenical councils?
Sorry if I'm a bit wordy, I'm a bit new to apologetics and am trying to understand church history. This is something I struggle to understand a bit. With Catholicism, you have the Pope as a unifying force and a lot of ecumenical councils that lay out the rules of infallibility. So it's usually easy...
Sorry if I'm a bit wordy, I'm a bit new to apologetics and am trying to understand church history.
This is something I struggle to understand a bit. With Catholicism, you have the Pope as a unifying force and a lot of ecumenical councils that lay out the rules of infallibility. So it's usually easy to determine if someone agrees with "Catholic theology" or not. With Lutherans and other Protestant groups, the rules are less strict, and they tend to see "the church" as more universal.
But then there's Orthodox, a group that believes they are the one true church and even in some form of "no salvation outside the church." But how does the Orthodox church decide which teachings one must accept to be Orthodox?
Oriental Orthodoxy accepts three councils as infallible, and I think most Orthodox accept seven. But I don't really see explicit Orthodox doctrine on which parts of these councils are infallible the way that later Catholic councils have. (The canons of the councils themselves that I've read don't use the word "infallible", and Lutherans see the councils as authoritative but below scripture.)
Orthodoxy has a specific view of the trinity and a specific view on salvation that differ from Lutheranism, despite both groups generally agreeing with those councils. **So what it it that determines these Orthodox beliefs, if they don't consider anything outside 3-7 ecumenical councils and scripture to be infallible?** If Orthodox consider their view of the trinity to be fallible, why? Doesn't the Catholic view also follow the Nicene creed?
As an application of my question, how does the Orthodox church decide what the "one true church" is when making statements like "no salvation outside the church"? If Oriental Orthodoxy and Eastern Orthodoxy are the same church, despite doctrinal disagreements, then what makes Eastern Orthodoxy and Lutheranism not the same church, despite many similarities? In the early church, weren't there different congregations with bishops that were considered the same church, despite having different practices? Where's the line, according to Orthodoxy?
Bart Johnson
(83 rep)
Dec 7, 2024, 02:06 AM
• Last activity: Dec 9, 2024, 06:08 PM
1
votes
1
answers
126
views
To what extent does the council of Nicea reflect the beliefs of the early church?
The council of Nicea was held in A.D. 325 a few hundred years after the early church. Yet it contained church leaders from all over, and it reached a wide consensus on a number of issues. Some of these [decisions][1] seem contradictory with Protestantism, specifically the seeming appeal to bishops a...
The council of Nicea was held in A.D. 325 a few hundred years after the early church. Yet it contained church leaders from all over, and it reached a wide consensus on a number of issues. Some of these decisions seem contradictory with Protestantism, specifically the seeming appeal to bishops and the church community as a final authority.
For example, the council refers to itself several times as "the great and holy Synod," implying that these decisions are binding to some extent, not just suggestions. It refers to penance, which Protestants typically don't practice.
It also heavily implies that church custom ought to be followed:
> It has come to the knowledge of the holy and great Synod that, in some
> districts and cities, the deacons administer the Eucharist to the
> presbyters, whereas **neither canon nor custom permits** that they who
> have no right to offer should give the Body of Christ to them that do
> offer. And this also has been made known, that certain deacons now
> touch the Eucharist even before the bishops.
They also state:
> It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the
> bishops in the province
which seems to appeal to church consensus in a way that seems to contradict Protestant beliefs.
Together, the most clear implication seems to be that believers everywhere are bound to follow the teachings given by ecumenical councils or decisions made by a consensus of bishops. I suppose Protestants could argue that humans are capable of error and that these teachings were a modern invention, not something believed by the early church. But if that were the case, then why would bishops from *all* across the continent be able to agree on these declarations?
I'm open to arguments that large swaths of the church had fallen into error by AD 325, or that this contradicts things agreed on in the early church. But I'm not sure how to make that argument. On the one hand, there's a lot here that we don't see said by Ignatius or early writers. On the other hand, I don't see Ignatius *contradicting* what's written here, and a consensus by successors of the apostles could indicate that the apostles themselves did believe these things and passed them on as tradition.
Ignatius also writes :
> Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop...It is not lawful
> without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast
That doesn't directly imply everything said at Nicea, but the similarity in what's said at Nicea and by Ignatius seems to strengthen the case that Nicea was based on tradition passed down from the apostles. Why would the tradition change so much and so broadly?
Bart Johnson
(83 rep)
Dec 6, 2024, 06:34 PM
• Last activity: Dec 9, 2024, 01:21 AM
6
votes
1
answers
127
views
What function does a Council actually serve in Calvinism?
Calvin begins his [*Antidote*](https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_trentantidote.html) 1 with the following word (*Preface*): >The name of Sacred Council 2 is held in such reverence in the Christian Church, that the very mention of it produces an immediate effect not only on the ignora...
Calvin begins his [*Antidote*](https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/calvin_trentantidote.html)1 with the following word (*Preface*):
>The name of Sacred Council2 is held in such reverence in the Christian Church, that the very mention of it produces an immediate effect not only on the ignorant but on men of gravity and sound judgment. And doubtless, as the usual remedy which God employed from the beginning in curing the diseases of his Church was for pious and holy pastors to meet, and, after invoking his aid, to determine what the Holy Spirit dictated, Councils are deservedly honored by all the godly. There is this difference, however, — the vulgar, stupified with excessive admiration, do not afterwards make any use of their judgment, whereas those of sounder sense allow themselves, step by step, and modestly, indeed, but still allow themselves to inquire before they absolutely assent. And so it ought to be, in order that our faith, instead of rashly subscribing to the naked decisions of men, may submit to God only.
>
>...
I see one glaring contradiction here:
- "Men of sound judgement" consider [General] Councils "Sacred" and, if they are "godly," they "honor" said Councils, since their teaching is what "the Holy Spirit dictated" and in fact are "the normative remedy which God employ[s]" for combating heresy ("curing the diseases of his Church").
- "However," a Council's teaching can be rejected ("[not submitted to]") on the nebulous and subjective ground of its being against "their judgement" and "sounder sense," in which case the teaching is deemed actually "the ... decisions of men" and not God.
I like to think of myself as having a basic grasp on logic. So when I read this, the gist is:
- Councils have the authority to agree with me, because God is behind them. *Only have the power to agree with me*, because ones who don't are no Councils at all, but the decisions of men; and *because they agree with me*, God is behind them (question-begging).
Of course it's clear to see this is logically incoherent and fallacious—but my point is that it is the necessary conclusion of the above.
What am I missing here? How aren't Councils hereby portrayed as no-more-important-opinions-than-any-believers' simply stated 'louder,' in bigger numbers (in some caess), and with more insistence (bullying)? (It's 'bullying' if it's not legitimate authority taking punitive measures (such as excommunication/anathema).
P.S. Even though this question is primarily to do with Calvinism, answers from a similar or identical stance on the basic role and meaning of Councils are welcome to answer it as well.
NOTE: Nothing I have asked or said or ever will ask or say is asked with an intentionally offensive, or disingenuous spirit. Any offense caused is therefore neither intended nor my fault—in addition to being, by definition, a misreading of my question.
Thanks in advance.
---
1 i.e. to the Council of Trent
2 i.e. as an institution in general
Sola Gratia
(8509 rep)
Feb 9, 2019, 08:45 PM
• Last activity: Nov 4, 2024, 02:28 PM
1
votes
2
answers
113
views
The Fourth Lateran Council on Conscience
According to St. John Henry Newman (in his essay on Conscience): [![enter image description here][1]][1] [1]: https://i.sstatic.net/KYLSy.png However, [*Papal Encyclicals Online*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm#25), says nothing of the sort. Unlike previous Councils, the proc...
According to St. John Henry Newman (in his essay on Conscience):
However, [*Papal Encyclicals Online*](https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum12-2.htm#25) , says nothing of the sort. Unlike previous Councils, the proceedings were not formally recorded. Hence, we must rely on other sources which provide accounts from observers of the Council.
Question: Can someone produce evidence that the Fourth Lateran Council promulgated what Newman indicates on conscience?

DDS
(3256 rep)
Jan 4, 2024, 02:28 AM
• Last activity: Apr 30, 2024, 02:41 PM
7
votes
2
answers
1794
views
Are there any Protestant denominations that reject any of the first six Church Ecumenical Councils?
Here is a simple summary of the purpose of the first six councils: >1. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325) – Affirmed the deity of Christ. The false doctrine of Arianism was rejected and affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father...
Here is a simple summary of the purpose of the first six councils:
>1. FIRST COUNCIL OF NICAEA (325) – Affirmed the deity of Christ. The false doctrine of Arianism was rejected and affirmed the apostles’ teaching of who Christ is—the one true God and the Second Person of the Trinity, with the Father and the Holy Spirit.
>2. FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381) – Clarified the nature of the Holy Spirit and dealt a fatal blow to Arianism. It sharpened the distinctions between the Eastern and Western branches of the church. When the Great Schism occurred centuries later, one of the primary disagreements was the hierarchy of Rome and Constantinople.
>3. COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431) – Clarified the nature of Christ’s personhood. The false teaching of Nestorianism was repudiated and also denounced (and rejected) Pelagianism and re-affirmed the Nicene Creed. The decision to condemn Nestorianism caused an immediate split in the Eastern Church, creating several splinter groups. Some of these survive today, including the Assyrian Church of the East and Chaldean Catholicism.
>4. COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451) – Clarified the teaching concerning Christ’s nature and person, including the “hypostatic union.” The false doctrine of monophysitism was rejected. The Council produced the “Chalcedonian Definition,” which affirms that Christ is “the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man.”
>5. SECOND COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (553) – Confirmed the conclusions of the first four councils.
>6. THIRD COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (680–681) – Clarified the nature of Christ’s will.
I have left out the seventh ecumenical council (the SECOND COUNCIL OF NICAEA in 787) because it established guidelines for the veneration of images. Some Protestants reject this council, while accepting the Council of Hieria of 754, which rejected the veneration of icons.
Do Protestant denominations broadly accept the authority of these councils and agree with the theological views as presented in the first six ecumenical councils? I ask because I read an article that said Protestants recognise the first six, although they do not hold those decrees in the same regard as Catholics.
Is there a general acceptance by Protestants of the first six ecumenical councils? Or are some parts rejected by Protestant denominations?
Lesley
(34714 rep)
Jan 10, 2024, 05:51 PM
• Last activity: Jan 21, 2024, 03:29 PM
24
votes
4
answers
3267
views
Was the Nicene Creed accepted under duress?
In the book *[Are you Really that Stupid? Observations of a Skeptical Believer](http://amzn.to/1KARD6p)*, author Joshua Christian makes the claim that the Nicene Creed was accepted under less than ideal (from a theological standpoint) circumstances, involving political maneuvering, blackmail, threat...
In the book *[Are you Really that Stupid? Observations of a Skeptical Believer](http://amzn.to/1KARD6p)* , author Joshua Christian makes the claim that the Nicene Creed was accepted under less than ideal (from a theological standpoint) circumstances, involving political maneuvering, blackmail, threats as well as actual instances of violence, in an effort by Constantine to forge a "unified" church, and thus a unified empire.
> [Constantine] now began to pressure all bishops to sign. Arians refusing to sign were exiled.
> ...
> The pressure from the emperor was so great and his reactions so feared that attendees justified their signatures thusly; Apuleius wrote "I pass over in silence... those sublime and Platonic doctrines understood by very few of the pious, and absolutely unknown to every one of the profane." "the soul is nothing worse for a little ink."
> Abu Al-Hassan Al-Nadwi reported that **out of the 2030 attendees, only 318 readily accepted the creed.** Only after returning home did other attendees ... summon the courage to express to Constantine in writing how much they regretted having put their signatures to the Nicene formula, "We committed an impious act, O Prince ... by subscribing to blasphemy from fear of you."
(Emphasis mine)
To what extent is this an accurate account of the Council of Nicaea?
Flimzy
(22318 rep)
Feb 28, 2014, 08:44 PM
• Last activity: Jan 9, 2024, 04:20 PM
9
votes
2
answers
1023
views
Do the canons of the Second Council of Constantinople anathematise those who believe that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage?
## Motivation I have difficulty, personally, believing in the **perpetual virginity of Mary**. I do not begrudge anyone else believing that doctrine; I cannot imagine that it affects a person's salvation either way. But, to the best of my understanding, a straightforward reading of Matthew 1.25 rule...
## Motivation
I have difficulty, personally, believing in the **perpetual virginity of Mary**. I do not begrudge anyone else believing that doctrine; I cannot imagine that it affects a person's salvation either way. But, to the best of my understanding, a straightforward reading of Matthew 1.25 rules it out:
>but knew her not until she had borne a son; and he called his name Jesus.
On the other hand, I do respect the authority, indeed the infallibility, of the Ecumenical Councils. I was a bit shocked, then, to read today that the Fifth Ecumenical Council, alias the **Second Council of Constantinople**, made belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary mandatory for anyone calling himself a Christian. I would be grateful, therefore, for any help in resolving my consequent cognitive dissonance.
*I would prefer, however, for any given answer to this question to focus on the interpretation of the canons of Second Council of Constantinople, and not my reading (or misreading) of scripture. Matthew 1.25 has been discussed many times elsewhere; the Second Council of Constantinople has not.*
## The Second Council of Constantinople
According to this translation , Canon 2 of the Fifth Ecumenical council states:
>If anyone shall not call in a true acceptation, but only in a false acceptation, the holy, glorious, and ever-virgin Mary, the Mother of God, or shall call her so only in a relative sense, believing that she bare only a simple man and that God the word was not incarnate of her, but that the incarnation of God the Word resulted only from the fact that he united himself to that man who was born; if he shall calumniate the Holy Synod of Chalcedon as though it had asserted the Virgin to be Mother of God according to the impious sense of Theodore; or if anyone shall call her the mother of a man or the Mother of Christ, as if Christ were not God, and shall not confess that she is exactly and truly the Mother of God, because that God the Word who before all ages was begotten of the Father was in these last days made flesh and born of her, and if anyone shall not confess that in this sense the holy Synod of Chalcedon acknowledged her to be the Mother of God: let him be anathema.
After a bit of reflection, I think I understand from this:
1. The bishops who drew up this canon believed in the perpetual virginity of Mary.
1. The canon anathematises those who fail to acknowledge Mary as **Mother of God** but it does not anathematise, explicitly at least, anyone failing to acknowledge Mary as Ever-Virgin.
Canon 2, on the other hand, does seem to come a bit closer to an explicit anathematisation of those denying Mary the title of Ever-Virgin:
>If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God has two nativities, the one from all eternity of the Father, without time and without body; the other in these last days, coming down from heaven and being made flesh of the holy and glorious Mary, Mother of God and always a virgin, and born of her: let him be anathema.
But, again, the anathema, at least to my mind, seems to be aimed at a Christological heresy rather than a Mariological one, at whether, through Mary, God was born of a woman, rather than at whether the Mother of God ever slept with her husband. Although it is also clear that the bishops present at the council did believe in Mary's perpetual virginity.
(Mary is also called Ever-Virgin in several other canons, but I do not have anything to say about those canons which I have not said already.)
## Summation
I wholeheartedly believe that Mary is the Mother of God in precisely the Christological sense outlined in the canons of the Second Council of Constantinople. Therefore, it seems that, despite not believing in the perpetual virginity of Mary, I am not liable to any of the anathemas (anathemata?) of said canons. But is that just casuistry and/or wishful thinking on my part?
(One final thing: it seems that the text of the canons was not preserved in the original Greek, but only in a single Latin manuscript, which was not rediscovered until the 1980s. Does this have any bearing on the authority of the canons in the form in which we have them today?)
Tom Hosker
(522 rep)
Dec 15, 2023, 12:53 AM
• Last activity: Dec 15, 2023, 05:19 PM
4
votes
1
answers
392
views
On the Contributions of St. Athanasius at the First Council of Nicea?
In 325, the bishops gathered at Nicea (with Athansius present not as a bishop but as a deacon-secretary to the Bishop of Alexandria) for an ecumenical council---in which the Council declared that the Son had no beginning, but had an ``eternal derivation'' from the Father, and therefore was co-eterna...
In 325, the bishops gathered at Nicea (with Athansius present not as a bishop but as a deacon-secretary to the Bishop of Alexandria) for an ecumenical council---in which the Council declared that the Son had no beginning, but had an ``eternal derivation'' from the Father, and therefore was co-eternal with Him and equal to God in all aspects.
Did St. Athanasius actually speak at the Council of Nicea; if so, is there a record of what he said? Or, perhaps, was his earlier treatise ``On the Incarnation'' invoked during the Council's proceedings? In a nutshell---What was the extent of St. Athanasius' contributions personally *at the Council* and which affected the outcome(s) of the First Council of Nicea?
DDS
(3256 rep)
Sep 30, 2023, 05:05 PM
• Last activity: Nov 30, 2023, 08:07 PM
-1
votes
2
answers
229
views
Did the 1st Council of Nicea have a predecessor?
Prior to the First Council of Nicea was there any single meeting or ongoing group that attempted organization of the faith and its followers in any similar way ?
Prior to the First Council of Nicea was there any single meeting or ongoing group that attempted organization of the faith and its followers in any similar way ?
Bang Interro
(7 rep)
Oct 9, 2023, 09:35 PM
• Last activity: Oct 22, 2023, 02:55 AM
3
votes
2
answers
277
views
When a Council Deprives an Archbishop of "Sacerdotal Communion"?
On pg. 13 of the c. 1930 booklet, "Ephesus and Its Great Council," by T. A. Johnston, is found the following (excerpt from a quote by the said Ecumenical Council on the condemnation of Nestorius): > ...The Lord Jesus Christ whom he blasphemed decides by this holy Council that Nestorius is deprived o...
On pg. 13 of the c. 1930 booklet, "Ephesus and Its Great Council," by T. A. Johnston, is found the following (excerpt from a quote by the said Ecumenical Council on the condemnation of Nestorius):
> ...The Lord Jesus Christ whom he blasphemed decides by this holy Council that Nestorius is deprived of his episcopal dignity and of sacerdotal communion.
I interpret this as the Council deprived Nestorius of his archbishopric in Constantinople; but, I am unclear as to what "sacerdotal communion" means.
Does this mean that Nestorius is forbidden to receive Holy Communion, which certainly would imply that he was excommunicated? Does it mean that he was stripped of his priestly dignity, i.e., laicized? I don't ever recall having seen this term elsewhere.
DDS
(3256 rep)
Aug 10, 2023, 04:48 PM
• Last activity: Oct 13, 2023, 12:50 AM
2
votes
1
answers
295
views
Church Fathers on the Authority of Ecumenical Councils
This post is somewhat related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97211/on-the-end-of-the-patristic-era-as-considered-by-the-catholic-church The First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church was the Council of Nicea in 325. Did any of the Fathers of the Church (say, from the Aposto...
This post is somewhat related to https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/97211/on-the-end-of-the-patristic-era-as-considered-by-the-catholic-church
The First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church was the Council of Nicea in 325.
Did any of the Fathers of the Church (say, from the Apostolic Fathers up to St. John Damascene in the 8th century) have anything to say about the authority of Ecumenical Councils? If so, what? Did any Church Fathers deny the authority of such councils?
DDS
(3256 rep)
Sep 30, 2023, 03:10 AM
• Last activity: Oct 5, 2023, 01:35 PM
3
votes
1
answers
1053
views
Why is the Council of Jerusalem not considered as the First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church?
According to the [Catholic Encyclopedia](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm), a question about the First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) I have read that the Council of Jerusalem is labeled as a "General Council." Furthermore, it is my understanding that the terms "General Council" and "...
According to the [Catholic Encyclopedia](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04423f.htm) , a question about the First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325)
I have read that the Council of Jerusalem is labeled as a "General Council." Furthermore, it is my understanding that the terms "General Council" and "Ecumenical Council" are synonymous. If that is correct, then why is the Council of Jerusalem (50 A.D. or thereabouts) not considered to be the First Ecumenical Council of the Catholic Church?
DDS
(3256 rep)
Oct 1, 2023, 09:35 PM
• Last activity: Oct 2, 2023, 12:57 PM
Showing page 1 of 20 total questions