Posted on 10/29/2012 1:25:18 PM PDT by NYer
To be deep into history, John Henry Newman wrote, is to cease to be a Protestant. Put another way, to be deep into history is to become stronger in the Catholic faith—something we are all called to do in this Year of Faith.
To make that journey into the history of our faith is to discover anew its most basic tenets. Who was Jesus really? How can God be three persons in one being? What is the proper role of the Church in salvation? And how does Mary fit into all this?
These questions, and many more, were raised and answered in the ecumenical, or universal, Church councils.
Ironically, one key to understanding the orthodox teachings of these councils is heresy. The councils, especially the earliest ones, were essentially anti-heresy conventions, called to sort the wheat of dogma from the chaff of heresy. This could be a dizzying and disorderly process: no sooner had one bastion of orthodoxy had been defended, than the Church had to rush to the defense of another. So, while one council had to correct heretics who falsely divided Christ into two persons, the next council had to make a course correction in the other direction, reining in heretics who falsely united His human and divine natures into one.
“To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame,” G. K. Chesterton wrote in Orthodoxy. “But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth reeling but erect.”
In all, there were 21 ecumenical councils. All were important in their time, but only some of them stand out for the lasting significance they have had on the faith and life of the Church today. Here, then, are the top ten must-know councils, listed chronologically by the date they were convened:
1. First Council of Nicaea, 325: One of the earliest heresies to rear its head was Arianism, which asserted that Christ was created by the Father and later adopted as His Son. Refuting this heresy—by declaring Christ one in being with the Father—was the chief task of the Council of Nicaea. In the process, the Nicene Creed was born.
2. First Council of Constantinople, 381: This council defended dogma on two fronts. It affirmed the divinity of the Holy Spirit as the third person of the Trinity. And it condemned a new heresy that claimed Christ was part man and part God but not completely one or the other. Instead, the heresy, known as Apollinarism, put forward the harebrained theory that Christ was comprised of a human body and a divine mind.
3. Council of Ephesus, 431: This council defined the dogma that Christ is one person, not two persons, as the heretical Nestorians claimed. This council also has the distinction of being the only ecumenical gathering that made any dogmatic statements about Mary, declaring her to be the Theotokos, or Mother of God. The other great achievement of this council is its least known: repudiation of one of the most insidious of heresies in Christian history—Pelagianism, which denied original sin and said men can use their free will to attain salvation on their own merits, without God’s grace.
4. Council of Chalcedon, 451: After Ephesus declared that Christ was one person, some Christians took that teaching too far, concluding that He also had just one nature, a mystical blend of the human and divine (this heresy was known as Monophysitism, from the Greek words for one and nature). That obviously throws a wrench in the entire message of the gospel. If Christ wasn’t fully man, had mankind really been redeemed? If He wasn’t fully divine, had God really saved us? Needless to say, the Church quickly pulled together another council to clarify its earlier teaching: Christ was one person, but had two natures. The council ended up achieving more than it bargained for, in ways good and bad. On the upside, it helped to cement the primacy of the Pope as the leader of the Church. But it had the tragic and unintended consequence of sending the Orthodox churches in Syria, Egypt, and Ethiopia into schism.
5. Third Council of Constantinople, 680: This council squashed a new heresy about Christ called Monothelitism, which held that Christ had just one will. You may be thinking—now we’re really getting into the weeds, aren’t we? But Monothelitism was a serious heresy that was a throwback to Monophysitism (the heresy that Christ had one nature). In saying Christ had one will, the Monothelites were essentially saying he had one nature. In rejecting this heresy, this council closed a major chapter in Church history, putting to rest any major lingering debates over who Christ was.
6. Second Council of Nicaea II, 787: This council declared that venerating icons was not only permissible, but also necessary. And it lambasted anyone who claimed that veneration was akin to worship of God or that veneration of icons violated the Old Testament commandment against worshipping false idols. Protestants who repeat such accusations today could use reminding that this controversy was settled centuries ago.
7. Fourth Lateran Council, 1215: By all accounts, this was an epic council. Both St. Dominic and St. Francis attended; a Holy Roman Emperor was named; and the council helped launch a new crusade. In matters of strictly faith and morals, its achievements were equally staggering: the council defined the doctrine that there is no salvation outside the church, approved the use of the term transubstantiation, mandated that Christians go to confession at least once a year, and condemned the erroneous Trinitarian teachings of Joachim of Fiore, calling them heretical and “insane.”
8. Council of Florence, 1431: This council is important for two apparently unrelated reasons. First, it decided what books belong in the Bible. Second, it made a heroic attempt to reunite Catholic Church with the Eastern Orthodox Greek churches that had broken off several hundred years earlier. But the reunion was short-lived—almost immediately dissolving after the council ended.
9. Council of Trent, 1545: It’s hard to imagine a more influential council. Trent defined and defended a whole swath of Church dogmas and teachings about the Eucharist, the authority of the Church, the role of Scripture, and the nature of the Sacraments. The council also led to a standardized Mass, launched the Counter Reformation, and inspired the baroque movement in the arts. In short, Trent gave Catholicism its definitive shape and substance for the next half millennium—at least, up until Vatican II. (But that’s another story.
10. Vatican I, 1869: Although it had been an article of faith since the earliest times, it wasn’t until Vatican I that the Church defined the dogma of papal infallibility. Two criteria were put in place: the Pope had to be speaking in an official capacity, that is, from the chair, or cathedra, of St. Peter and he had to be speaking about matters of faith and morals. Since that council, there has been only one infallible papal statement, in 1950, on the Assumption of Mary. (The other commonly cited ex cathedra statement, on Mary’s Immaculate Conception, was in 1854.)
Why Vatican II didn’t make the list: Obviously, Vatican II looms the largest of all the councils not only because it was the most recent one but also because it brought sweeping changes to the Church. The significance and salience of those changes remain a subject of controversy and confusion—and therefore the lasting impact of Vatican II is unclear. If those changes mark the beginning of a new course for the Church—whatever that might be—then Vatican II will go down as a pivotal moment. But history has yet to render its verdict.
Apparently their Bible reads “Man does not live by bread alone but by every tradition that precedes from every council”. But mine reads we are to go into battle against the forces of evil with “the sword of the spirit, which is the Word of God”. Ephesians 6:17 may not be in their Bible though. It would be a poor soldier that went into battle without his sword.
Luther's novel tradition of "the Bible alone" is not in the Bible.
Yet Jesus tells us, "if he refuses to listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.
According to Martin Luther’s restoration of the historical Christian faith, a great many that followed him, including most Protestants today are off track.
Do you believe according to the Lutheran Confession are one of those?
Hello boatbums. What about nonCatholic churches that hold to their own traditions? Are those congregations devoid of truth? I'm thinking of one of the pastors in my family. Each year his congregation votes whether to retain him or fire him. I understand that Judas' office was replaced by drawing lots. Hardly the same thing is it? Is his congregation putting a tradition above scripture when it comes to acceptance/rejection of who feeds them the word of God? If so, are they cut off from God's truth?
What if my cousin's church observes traditions that originated in the Catholic Church? Has he separated himself from the truth? If so, mustn't he abandon the celebration of liturgical seasons? The New Testament doesn't tell us to celebrate Easter, Good Friday, or Christmas annually. Or to make lenten sacrifices or use advent wreaths. If his church observes these practices are they in violation of God's truth?
Or what if he preaches on the Holy Spirit? Scripture doesn't explicitly tell us that the Spirit is the 3rd Person of the Most Holy Trinity. Is he putting tradition above God's truth to portray the Spirit as part of the Godhead?
Not trying to be argumentative. I'm just confused as to the criteria that should be employed to determine if a nonscriptural tradition places someone outside God's truth, as you say it does. I'm hard pressed to think of any nonCatholic Christians I know in real life who don't observe some traditions that originated in the Catholic Church. I would hope you'd not view these people I cherish as good Christians as having separated themselves from God's truth!
Peace be with you.
Funny, but that isn't what happened to me - The deeper I got into history, the more certain I became in my opposition of the Roman church. Go figger...
I never said it was. We also have the Holy Spirit to guide us and that will never be in contradiction of the Scriptures or the will of God.
Yet Jesus tells us, "if he refuses to listen to the church, treat him as a pagan or tax collector.
The church today is a far cry from the pure Church which Jesus is referring to. Has error crept into churches doctrine? I would say yes and the way to get right is to study the Bible and see what the early church taught that is not followed today.
Correction.
Although it is not widely known in our Western world, the Catholic Church is actually a communion of Churches. According to the Constitution on the Church of the Second Vatican Council, Lumen Gentium, the Catholic Church is understood to be "a corporate body of Churches," united with the Pope of Rome, who serves as the guardian of unity (LG, no. 23). At present there are 22 Churches that comprise the Catholic Church. The new Code of Canon Law, promulgated by Pope John Paul II, uses the phrase "autonomous ritual Churches" to describe these various Churches (canon 112). Each Church has its own hierarchy, spirituality, and theological perspective. Because of the particularities of history, there is only one Western Catholic Church, while there are 21 Eastern Catholic Churches. The Western Church, known officially as the Latin Church, is the largest of the Catholic Churches. It is immediately subject to the Roman Pontiff as Patriarch of the West. The Eastern Catholic Churches are each led by a Patriarch, Major Archbishop, or Metropolitan, who governs their Church together with a synod of bishops. Through the Congregation for Oriental Churches, the Roman Pontiff works to assure the health and well-being of the Eastern Catholic Churches.
While this diversity within the one Catholic Church can appear confusing at first, it in no way compromises the Church's unity. In a certain sense, it is a reflection of the mystery of the Trinity. Just as God is three Persons, yet one God, so the Church is 22 Churches, yet one Church.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church summarizes this nicely:
"From the beginning, this one Church has been marked by a great diversity which comes from both the variety of God's gifts and the diversity of those who receive them... Holding a rightful place in the communion of the Church there are also particular Churches that retain their own traditions. The great richness of such diversity is not opposed to the Church's unity" (CCC no. 814).
Although there are 22 Churches, there are only eight "Rites" that are used among them. A Rite is a "liturgical, theological, spiritual and disciplinary patrimony," (Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, canon 28). "Rite" best refers to the liturgical and disciplinary traditions used in celebrating the sacraments. Many Eastern Catholic Churches use the same Rite, although they are distinct autonomous Churches. For example, the Ukrainian Catholic Church and the Melkite Catholic Church are distinct Churches with their own hierarchies. Yet they both use the Byzantine Rite.
To learn more about the "two lungs" of the Catholic Church, visit this link:
The Vatican II Council declared that "all should realize it is of supreme importance to understand, venerate, preserve, and foster the exceedingly rich liturgical and spiritual heritage of the Eastern churches, in order faithfully to preserve the fullness of Christian tradition" (Unitatis Redintegrato, 15).
Orthodox catholic hierarchy is all the same to me..
We were talking of “church history” and RCC church history is unique and branded..
A microcosm of unique myths and legend some of which may have actually happened in some sense.. OR NOT..
Whether it/they(things) actually happened or not is not the question..
That there several versions/types of church IS the question..
KEEPing Roman Catholics ignorant (of this) is paramount to some in the hierarchy I understand..
Its just that I hate lies.. no matter the good intent..
Name one.
Please get the facts, either from NYer's link or from this one.
[ Its just that I hate lies.. no matter the good intent. / Name one. ]
Thats a different conversation... we’re talking about church history here..
Please try to stay on the subject..
Bouncing around confuses the issues.. unless thats what you want to do?..
Brilliant strategy.... won’t work with me tho..
[ This is not about “Orthodox” churches. This is about Catholic Churches with different rites. ]
I didn’t bring up orthodox church history someone else did..
I merely responded to him/her..
My point so far totally IGNORED is that Roman Catholic History is only one view of church History.. there are
others..
Was hoping for a sidebar on other church historys..
But it seems most all Roman Catholics have no inkling there is even other church historys.. let alone what they are..
Most protestant scholars I know are well versed in Roman Catholic church history..
Its just that it seems almost all Roman Catholic scholars are pretty much ignorant of other views..
And RCC laity are even more ignorant..
Ignorance is not stupid.... its just willful.. willful ignorance..
I ‘m not a protestant or catholic.. and am just observing what seems to be..
Dogmatic ignorance is another story completely..
But interesting just the same.. and interests me...
That is simply not true. Every Church council was brought about by challenges to Church orthodoxy from within and from without. A study of the proceedings from the Councils can more clearly spell out the cultural and political history of Western civilization than any college history text book I ever read.
Other church histories are always presented in the context of secular and Protestant revisionism, which is always at odds and in opposition to Church history. Even the terminology of secular history is tainted, a perfect example is the term "Dark Ages".
Peace be with you.
Who are the revisionists the protestants or the "catholics"...
The "catholics" didn't fair well during the dark ages.. Actually few did..
If you(anyone) gives benefit of the doubt to dark ages historians toward "truth" (accuracy) they may be playing PollyAnnas GLAD Game.. Even scripture may have been "tainted".. Church History is even more at risk..
I may be a bit jaded even cynical.. but I am at the least suspicious.. There would much pressure to make church history jive with common dogma at the time.. Which could make some of it "BE Jive"..
[ Other church histories are always presented in the context of secular and Protestant revisionism, which is always at odds and in opposition to Church history.]
I see, so there is no roman catholic revisionism?..
RCC church history is the base the standard?...
So, Anything that disagrees is suspect challenging the standard..
I see where you are coming from...
But I disagree.. BOTH can be in error one or the other..
You are not appearing logical.. or even fair..
I am not here to convert you to anything..
If your historical views are parochial then they are..
I post mainly for lurkers that do not post but ARE logical..
And you know..... not parochial..
OR have not ever heard Roman Catholic Church History is
NOT THE STANDARD.. but just another “view”..
I know you aren't trying to be argumentative and you ask a reasonable question, but go back to what I actually said: "the truth is not found in those who hold their "traditions" above the Word of God". That is the key in determining what is the truth about our faith - can it be proved by the Holy Scriptures. My concern is certainly not with "traditions" at all but with those traditions that are placed above what the Bible says. Here's an example:
You brought up this issue:
You are right, Scripture makes no such demands, so it should be viewed in light of what the tradition is and what the importance is placed on it for the Christian. Scripture DOES tell us in Colossians 2:16, "So don't let anyone condemn you for what you eat or drink, or for not celebrating certain holy days or new moon ceremonies or Sabbaths." and also in Romans 14:5, "One person regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.". We can understand from these passages and others that anyone who comes along and makes observances of certain "holy days" mandatory upon a Christian and makes them essential for salvation, has disobeyed what Scripture says. They have placed their "tradition" above the word of God.
St. Augustine was said to have made this statement:
I think it is a good rule to follow. There are certain essential doctrines that all Christians should be unified on, i.e.; Deity of Christ, salvation through Christ, the authority and accuracy of the Bible. But where the Bible is silent, we still have its guidance to light our path and the indwelling Holy Spirit, who leads us into all truth.
Thanks for the question. Peace be unto you.
in all things, charity.
I'm so glad you said that. Thank you! I don't know why Catholics or nonCatholics believe that posts filled with venom can possibly be perceived as bearing any Truth. If no fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5) are manifest, seems to me the poster has already forfeited credibility. So it becomes more about throwing stones than behaving like children of the same Father.
May Christ's peace reign in your heart always.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.