The Top Ten Most Important Church Councils

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.

What about a capital T Tradition such as the Godhead of the Holy Spirit, which is not explicit in scripture? It seems as if the line is arbitrarily drawn as to which tradition/Tradition meets the minimum Scripture threshold. And toward which Christians (Catholics, in this case) the "tradition stone" is cast. I don't think I've ever seen a nonCatholic use the same criticism against a fellow nonCatholic of a different denomination. Just sayin' :)

The Apostle Paul remanded the Thessalonians in II Thess. 2:15, to, "So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us.". So we know that the "traditions" he was referring to were his teachings which he both preached to them in person or wrote to them in his epistles - as well as his other epistles and those of the other Apostles which were also distributed among the local churches. Paul also praised the believers at Corinth who he said, "I praise you for remembering everything I told you and for holding to the traditions that I passed on to you." (I Cor. 11:2).

But Jesus frequently rebuked the religious leaders of the Jews for distorting the word of God BY their traditions, he said in Mark 7:8, "For you ignore God's law and substitute your own tradition." This same thing can happen with religious leaders today and we must be mindful of what the Scriptures say as well as listen to the leading of the Holy Spirit within our hearts. If we are members of the Body of Christ, are believers in Him, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit and we will be given discernment to know truth from error.

As to your contention about capital "T" Tradition versus small "t" tradition, part of being able to "rightly divide the word of truth" as Paul said would come from studying the Bible, we will be able to know the difference. Like I said, I have no problem at all with traditions of various churches with regard to liturgy, order of worship, leadership set ups, songs, etc., but Scripture is always the authority and guide even with these issues.

For example, the Corinthian church had a serious problem with some in the church boasting of their gift of "tongues" and they caused confusion and discord because they were not discerning about God's purpose for the gift. Paul had to teach them the proper place and time for using the gift as well as who and what it was to benefit. - and it was NEVER to glorify the one doing the speaking. I fully understand and accept that through the centuries the Christian faith community developed as it met challenges from within and without. Those who had been gifted with the grace of leadership were set up as the pastors and overseers of the congregation and they had an enormous responsibility to not only know the Scriptures but to be fully committed to the care of their flock. Added to that in the first century was the constant persecution they all faced but it only served to strengthen the faith and endurance of those who lived on and continued to spread the faith far and wide. God guided and encouraged those first believers and the Christian faith grew as the years progressed.

I don't think there is a real "arbitrary line" regarding what we can know is tradition and Tradition. I think God tells us what is essential through His word and the Holy Spirit is who leads and guides to further explain and teach the truths He has revealed. You have mentioned the Holy Spirit several times now regarding His "Godhead". There are ample Scriptures that inform us of His nature, being, purpose and actions so we are not left to our own devices trying to figure it all out. Even in the first century, the believers knew this because they had the teachings of Jesus as well as the Apostles. I do not think the written Epistles were the first time they heard of the truths presented but they were written for the benefit of those who would come after the Apostles died as well as for those still alive - for their encouragement and edification just as us today. After the first thousand years passed, there WAS error that crept in and it was allowed to remain which blurred the line between what was Scriptural and what was man-made tradition. The tradition turned into Tradition and was given an equality WITH Scripture. It is this kind of error that Jesus rebuked and we must all be on guard against even today.

Finally, I think we should all strive to speak the truth in love as much as lies in us. Those who can't find it in themselves to "Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone." (Col. 4:6) should refrain from commenting on some threads until they can do so without the "venom". I agree with you, it turns people off. I'm not perfect, God isn't finished with me yet, but I DO try.

Blessings and peace to you and yours.

"To follow the Word of God or to follow church “tradition” is a choice we all have to make. They lead to different destinations."

No, it is not. To follow the Word of God is to follow the Traditions of the Church. Scripture, which followed the Traditions, are clear on this too:

"For a whole year they met with the church, and taught a large company of people; and in Antioch the disciples were for the first time called Christians." - Acts 11:26

"Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ. I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I have delivered them to you." 1 Corinthians 11:1-2

"If you will give these instructions to the brothers, you will be a good minister of Christ Jesus, nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound teaching you have followed." - 1 Timothy 4:6

"Stand firm, and hold to the traditions which you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by letter." - 2 Thessalonians 2:15

This is not exclusively a Catholic view either. Two prominent Protestant scholars, A.N.S. Lane and D. H. Williams, wrote that the Early Church Fathers held to the “coincidence view” of Scripture and Tradition; that Scripture and Tradition do not differ in content, and that both are equally authoritative. This is in recognition that BEFORE there was a Bible the Early Christian Fathers wrote:

Whenever anyone came my way, who had been a follower of my seniors, I would ask for the accounts of our seniors: What did Andrew or Peter say? Or Phillip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew, or any of the Lord’s disciples? I also asked: What did Aristion and John the Presbyter, disciples of the Lord say. For, as I see it, it is not so much from books as from the living and permanent voice that I must draw profit”. St Papias - The Sayings of the Lord (between A.D. 115 and 140)

“For even creation reveals Him who formed it, and the very work made suggests Him who made it, and the world manifests Him who ordered it. The Universal [Catholic] Church, moreover, through the whole world, has received this tradition from the Apostles”

“True knowledge is the doctrine of the Apostles, and the ancient constitution of the Church throughout all the world, and the distinctive manifestation of the body of Christ according to the successions of the bishops, by which they have handed down that Church which exists in every place, and has come even unto us, being guarded and preserved, without any forging of Scriptures, by a very complete system of doctrine, and neither addition nor curtailment [in truths which she believes]; and [it consists in] reading [the Word of God] without falsification, and a lawful and diligent exposition in harmony with the Scriptures, both without danger and without blasphemy… (Against Heresies 2:9) St. Irenaeus A.D. 189.

"Wherever it shall be clear that the truth of the Christian discipline and faith are present, there also will be found the truth of the Scriptures and their explanation, and of all the Christian traditions" (The Demurrer against the heretics 19:3) - Tertullian 200 AD.

"That alone is to be believed as the truth which is in no way at variance with ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition" (Fundamental doctrines 1, preface: 2) Tertullian 225 AD.

“Seeing there are many who think they hold the opinions of Christ, and yet some of these think differently from their predecessors, yet as the teaching of the Church, transmitted in orderly succession from the Apostles, and remaining in the churches to the present day, is still preserved, that alone is to be accepted as truth which differs in no respect from ecclesiastical and apostolic tradition.” (On First Principles Bk. 1 Preface 2 – Origen [circa A.D. 225]).

While [Ignatius of Antioch] was making the journey through Asia under the strictest military guard, he strengthened the diocese in each city where he stayed by spoken sermons and exhortations, and he especially exhorted them above all to be on their guard against the heresies which then for the first time were prevalent and he urged them to hold fast to the tradition of the Apostles to which he thought it necessary, for securities sake, to give form by written testimony (Ecclesiastical History, 3:36- St Eusebius [A.D. 325]).

Without prefixing Consulate, month, and day, [the Fathers] wrote concerning Easter, "It seemed good as follows," for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, "It seemed good" but, "Thus believes the Catholic Church"; and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to show that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolic; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles (Letter on the Councils of Ariminum and Seleucia – St Athanasius [A.D. 359]).

“Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in mystery" by the tradition of the Apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will contradict; - no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in these matters… (On the Holy Spirit 27 St. Basil [A.D. 375]).

While you thrist for the same God, you drink from a half empty glass.

Peace be with you

I agree with this post more than any other I've read from you :)

But Jesus frequently rebuked the religious leaders of the Jews for distorting the word of God BY their traditions, he said in Mark 7:8, "For you ignore God's law and substitute your own tradition."

And yet in Mt 23:2-3 Jesus indicates the people should follow the teaching but not the hypocritical example of those leaders. And he says it's because of their position of authority (the seat of Moses). If my understanding is correct, the "seat of Moses" is part of Jewish oral tradition. Whether or not Christians of today accept oral tradition, it does seem that Jesus did and told his followers to do the same.

This same thing can happen with religious leaders today and we must be mindful of what the Scriptures say ...

My Bible says Jesus promised three times (Jn 14:17, 15:26, 16:13) on Holy Thursday that he would guide his apostles. Not to be argumentative, but do you consider these verses to apply to leaders of all Christian churches? Or only some? Or none, it's more an individual thing? Just trying to understand, not argue ;) Your posts are helpful to me because you state more succinctly what some of the nonCatholics I know IRL have difficulty expressing as clearly.

as well as listen to the leading of the Holy Spirit within our hearts.

This is why I look for the fruits of the Holy Spirit no matter which denomination is speaking and regardless of lay or clergy status :)

If we are members of the Body of Christ, are believers in Him, we have the indwelling Holy Spirit and we will be given discernment to know truth from error.

I ask this with the sincerest respect and charity. You and I disagree. What means should be used to determine which of us, although genuinely sincere, is in error when we both have scriptures that support our positions?

Scripture is always the authority and guide even with these issues.

I can understand and respect that as a personal preference. What I disagree with is any notion that Jesus asked us to view scripture this way. Given the scandal of the RCC throughout the ages, I think Jesus would understand Christians who take this position. Without intending to sound haughty, I just don't see evidence in scripture that Jesus asked us to take that view.

Thank you again for the courtesy in your response. Peace to you always!

It was more than just a "hypocritical example" that Jesus spoke against by those who were supposed to be the leaders within the religious community. He directed his rebuke at those who perverted God's word WITH their traditions. A prime example was when Jesus was speaking to "Pharisees and teachers of the law" in Mark chapter 7. They were criticizing Jesus' disciples because they had not washed their hands before they ate. Now, we might say, "Ick, who doesn't wash their hands before they eat?", but they were more concerned with "ceremonial washing", rites, if you will, rather than cleanliness. The passage says:

So the Pharisees and teachers of the law asked Jesus, “Why don’t your disciples live according to the tradition of the elders instead of eating their food with defiled hands?”

He replied, “Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written:

“‘These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.’

You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.”

Then Jesus gave them the example that I think speaks to this point:

Thus you nullify the word of God by your tradition that you have handed down. And you do many things like that.”

That really is the gist, isn't it? We are real good about looking pious and doing the things that appear righteous, and we excel in what my Mom would call "quibbling" - hemming and hawing and dancing all around the truth. These leaders, who were supposed to be the example for the people, became the very ones Jesus warned people to avoid. This is how we can know, like you asserted and I agree, by the fruit in their lives. Does their life reflect a genuine devotion and love of Christ? Jesus set up his Apostles and disciples to be the sowers of the seeds of the fledgling church. They were given the gifts of the Spirit and the truth of the Gospel by which to convert souls and win them to Christ for His kingdom.

What means should be used to determine which of us, although genuinely sincere, is in error when we both have scriptures that support our positions?

I think we should use the same means as those did then, the Word of God with the leading of the Holy Spirit. You ask, what if we both have Scripture that backs us up? It depends upon what is being disputed. If it is major doctrine, then there is only one truth, but if it is a minor issue like what day should we conduct worship services, then, again, Scripture says there is liberty. The great Athanasius of Alexandrea will always be remembered for his faithfulness to Holy Scripture in his disputes against the teachings of Arius in the fourth century. These people also said they used Scripture for their arguments, but Athanasius had the better argument from the same Scripture. From the link http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#2 we learn from his writings:

"And let them [the Arians] blame themselves in this matter, for they set the example, beginning their war against God with words not in Scripture. However, if a person is interested in the question, let him know, that, even if the expressions [used by those who oppose Arianism] are not in so many words in the Scriptures, yet, as was said before, they contain the sense of the Scriptures, and expressing it, they convey it to those who have their hearing unimpaired for religious doctrine." (Defense of the Nicene Definition, 5:21)

"Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded Councils for the faith's sake; for divine Scripture is sufficient above all things; but if a Council be needed on the point, there are the proceedings of the Fathers, for the Nicene Bishops did not neglect this matter, but stated the doctrines so exactly, that persons reading their words honestly, cannot but be reminded by them of the religion towards Christ announced in divine Scripture" (De Synodis, 6)

"A Desire to learn and a yearning for heavenly things is suitable to a religious Emperor; for thus you will truly have 'your heart' also 'in the hand of God.' Since then your Piety desired to learn from us the faith of the Catholic Church, giving thanks for these things to the Lord, we counselled above all things to remind your Piety of the faith confessed by the Fathers at Nicaea. For this certain set at nought, while plotting against us in many ways, because we would not comply with the Arian heresy, and they have become authors of heresy and schisms in the Catholic Church. For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both 'known and read' from the Divine Scriptures." (Festal Letter 56:1)

"And this is usual with Scriptures, to express itsellf in inartificial and simple phrases." (Four Discourses Against the Arians, 4:33)

The leaders within the Christian church today have the same Scriptures with which to settle questions about doctrine and I do not believe God left the most critical answers up in the air or conditional. There ARE absolutes and we can have assurance about what we must believe to BE His children.

Have a peaceful night.

"1) Peter was the first Pope!..."

Peter was indeed the first Bishop of Rome and head of the Church. As proof let’s first consider all of the words used to set the scene for the dialog in Matthew 16.

Let’s first consider all of the words used to set the scene for the dialog in Matthew 16. Following the feeding of the 5,000 near Capernaum and the dialog in the Synagogue in which Jesus declared His body the Eucharist and real food Jesus took Peter and along with the other Apostles and Disciples up to Caesarea Philippi to reveal his papacy to him. The selection of the location is far from a coincidence and not casually identified in the Gospel. Caesarea Philippi is a 25 mile, two day hike from Capernaum through some pretty rough country. Jesus took them there for a reason.

Caesarea Philippi is located near the Golan Heights. The city, previously known as Panis, was built above a huge rock wall that was known in ancient times as the “Rock of the Gods”. It was a very important location militarily, and had been a place of temples and worship dating back thousands of years before the first century.

At the base of the cliff is a massive grotto that at the time was a natural cistern that the Greeks and their predecessors believed was a gate to the underworld. The waters from the springs in the area are literally the headwaters of the Jordan River. Ancient practice was to perform blood rituals in the cistern and predict the mood of the Gods and the future by observing blood in the nearby springs. Physically, and to the observers that rock wall stood between a city of temples and the gates of hell.

It was before this wall, with the temple to Pan, the Greek God of chaos and confusion, that the conversation took place. In the presence of the massive rock that was a foundation to a holy city Jesus told Peter that he was a smaller rock, and that upon it, like the larger rock upon which was built the city before them, He would build His Church and that it would stand forever against the gates of hell. A side note is that all of this arguing about the relevance of Petros versus Petra is foolish in the context of that location. Jesus often used wordplay and humor to convey His message.

Jesus began the dialog by asking His Apostles and Disciples who the people said He was. He was demonstrating His rejection of a democratic, self-interpreting Church. The response to the question was varied. Some said John the Baptist, some said Elijah, some said one of the prophets. All were wrong.

Jesus then asked the Apostles collectively who they thought He was and there was silence and He then rejected an oligarchical or elite governance. Then, without consulting the other Apostles, Peter stepped forward and declared that Jesus was indeed the Son of the Living God, which was the correct answer. Jesus acknowledged this and declared that Peter could only have learned this from God, designating that like the He had throughout the history of His people God had chosen one person to be the spiritual leader to carry on after Jesus. And there, before the rock that stood between the ancient temple city of Caesarea Philippi and the cave grotto that was known to the people on the region as the gates or jaws of hell declared, it was upon Peter that he would found his Church, His Ekklesia, His Qahal.

Peace be with you.

[ “1) Peter was the first Pope!...” ]

That was a question not a statement..
That Peter was a Pope is extremely specious.. except in RCC church history..
Which is the point...

The whole specious tale of Peters role in church history is conflated in RCC church history..
The whole concept of clergy was suspicious to all the apostles.. being Jews..
Clergy murdered Jesus... and are still trying to murder his memory..

The RCC can conflate church history all they want but that does not make it true.. or even accurate..
Not that it all is not true, just conflated.. but some is not true..

The reason I selected Peter as one of the RCC bases is much of their “dogma” is based in it..
WRONGLY but honestly probably..

So it was with Jesus speech at the end of the Passover feast to Jews by a Jew at a Jewish feast about Jewish things.. Which the RCC conflates into extreme fiction.. i.e. missa(wafer)

I mention this for discussion not for argument..
Its true many lurkers may only know of the RCC Tale of this saga even a few protestants accept but there are other views of it.. Which I attempt to “bring out” or encourage some to research..

Expecting Jews most whom didn’t have a bible or could even read(mostly) would not, even could not, think as the RCC conflated fiction purports..

I mention this for research purposes.. your last diatribe(post) was weak..
Sorry but it seems that way to me..

Hello again. In the verses you cited, I don't see Jesus condemning Tradition (authoritative oral teaching) or tradition (custom). He insists on a proper placement of priorities (right ordering of the heart, so to speak) so that custom doesn't supercede weightier matters or allow for skirting the commandments. If oral tradition was a risk for the transmission of Jesus' message, why did he tell his followers in Mt 23:2-3 to do as instructed but not follow bad example? Note in Mt 23:23 he said "these you ought to have done without neglecting the others." He didn't say either practice should have been avoided entirely.(Then there's the question why he didn't just give the apostles something he wrote and tell them to spread the gospel in that fashion to bypass the tradition obstacle many would face centuries later.)

In any case, I'm not out to change your mind. I object to the notion that Tradition/tradition are unscriptural or not in keeping with Jesus' example. I won't belabor things trading verses, I think you understand my point as I do yours. We simply disagree.

From the link http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/Ancients_on_Scripture.html#2 we learn ....

We learn that quotes taken out of context don't make Athanasius a sola scriptura Christian :) Read some of his writing in context and you'll see that he is clear that "the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers." (From Letter to Serapion of Thmuis, 359 A.D) Some Catholics take his next comment out of context as if anyone who doesn't believe this isn't Christian. I won't do here what the site you have referenced has done, which is to selectively quote as if one who opposes your view actually supports it.

I think we should use the same means as those did then, the Word of God with the leading of the Holy Spirit.

The Word of God tells us that the Church built on the foundation of the apostles is the pillar of truth. When we discount apostolic succession and authority, how are we not negating the promises Jesus gave to the eleven? Thanks be to God that he can work in any circumstance!! :)

Peace be with you always. I appreciated the sincerity and courtesy of your response.

Glad to see you didn't give up our discussion. I think we may be talking past each other somehow. I have never said Tradition/tradition is wrong or unneeded nor do I think Jesus had no use for it or that the church (the whole body of Christ) does not benefit from the traditions and history of our great faith. No, I simply want to state that whatever the tradition that is under consideration, it MUST be proved by Scripture or, in the case of Scripture not addressing it at all, it must not be "binding" upon a Christian WRT his salvation. In other words, I do not believe some church leader hundreds or thousands of years after the Scriptures were written can come along and invent a new doctrine and call it "Tradition" and make it mandatory or required for a Christian under penalty of loss of salvation and this is what the Roman Catholic Church has done on many doctrines.

As for Athanasius, he most certainly DID believe in the sufficiency of the Scriptures and warned his followers to not even accept anything he said if it could not be proved by Scripture. This WAS the guideline the early fathers used to know what was truth from error and that is how they could know when heresy crept in - they used the same measuring stick, the Bible.

Some proponents of the Roman Catholic magesterium's infallible authority asserted that whatever the Church taught was "always and everywhere believed". Roman Catholic apologetics that came out of the Reformation had a certain character that asked (maybe in disbelief) “Where was your religion before the year 1517?” This appeal was characterized by the Roman Catholic claim, “Semper Eadem,” “always the same.” By 1688, this appeal to authority and antiquity was so etched into the public mind that bishop Jacques-Benigne Bossuet (1627-1704) had produced a work, Histoire des Variations des Églises Protestantes (1688) in which he asserted:

If by such proofs they show us the least unconstancy, or the least variation in the dogmata of the Catholic Church from her first origin down to us, that is from Christianity’s first foundation; readily will I own to them that they are in the right, and I myself will suppress this my whole history (cited by Owen Chadwick, “From Bossuet to Newman,” Second Edition, ©1987 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pgs 17, 20).

But as it turns out, Rome, however, cannot hold itself to that standard. Less than 200 years later, Newman was crafting a “theory of Development” that was necessary to explain away all of the many changes that Rome HAD incorporated. (from http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2011/01/just-trust-us-on-this-one-wink-wink.html).

It is getting WAY late, so I will sign off for now. We can pick up this dialog tomorrow if you desire. One last thing, you asked, "When we discount apostolic succession and authority, how are we not negating the promises Jesus gave to the eleven?". I have a differing view than you do about what "apostolic succession" really means and how it applies to authority within the church. We can discuss this, too.

Have a good night and a blessed day!

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.