I'm not prejudiced against R.C.s BUT...

You realize, I hope, that the the "title" that appears in your edition of the KJV is something added by the editor and publisher, and is not a part of God's word?

It was more a letter of advisement than a binding, official promulgation. But if you insist on regarding it as such, perhaps we should note that they did not lay upon those Gentile believers the burden of following a pope, the burden of making auricular confession to a priest, or the burden of belonging to the Roman church.

Infallible means "incapable of error." Do you really believe that any human being (besides Jesus) is incapable of error? Do you really believe that every single time an apostle opened his mouth to speak about the things of God, every word he spoke was completely free of error? Wow. I don't have that much faith in mankind. Nor do I believe that God put the apostles on 'puppet strings' to control every word that came out of their mouths, but apparently you do!

 

I think this claim is most unlikely. Augustine was quite clearly a Nicene Christian, and embraced the Creed of 381. Augustine did develop a theology of double procession, and no doubt he in part inherited some of that idea from the Cappadocian Fathers, who could have liked to go that far, but did not, probably part in response the the challenge of the pneumatomaci - those who argued that the Spirit was a creation of the Son. Augustine in fact was clear in suggesting that where the Spirit proceeded from the Son, in the first instance The Spirit had proceeded from the Father, even if that spiration was essentially instantaneous. This was a point that Thomas Aquinas also made. Double procession is a reasonable theology based on the accounts especially in John, if one is to ensure that one does not expound one passage in scripture in a way that is repugnant to another.

The Athanasian Creed is not really a Creed in the tradition sense, but a liturgical teaching piece. The Athanasian Creed does not contain the filioque, but does provide reasonable support for a doctrine of double procession.

There is of course only one creed in the East, the Nicene Symbol. In the West the Nicene Creed is the heart of the Eucharistic Creeds, and the Apostles Creed is the Baptismal Symbol. It is obvious nonsense to suggest that these were not rigid documents. The anathemas of Ephesus must surely testify the the seriousness with which the Church embraced the Creed of 381.

 

The Third Synod of Toledo did not implement the Filioque. The Nicene Symbol appears in the record of the Council, and in Reccared's Confession, both times without the filioque. In fact the purpose of the council was to bring the Iberian Principalities from Arianism into the Catholic Church, and the Nicene Faith of the Catholic Church. In no way would that have been an occasion to temp the anathemas of Ephesus.

It is a widely held misconstruction that take the insertion of the Filioque as belonging here.

http://www.benedictus.mgh.de/quellen/chga/chga_045t.htm

 

We know today that the anathema of Ephesus referred to the Creed of 325. The Creed attributed to the Council of 381, but which was actually unknown at that Council, wasn’t received until 451, at Chalcedon. To add to the confusion, we call the latter statement “the Nicene Creed” today, while the actual Creed of Nicea has been in disuse for a millennium. Our “Nicene Creed” today - even without the filioque - is itself a direct violation of the Ephesian anathema, if we take it to be a prohibition of new creeds.

Of course, there was a proliferation of local creeds before and after Nicea as well as Ephesus. The notion that there could be such a thing as an “ecumenical” council that could rule in the name of the whole Church - by universally mandating a “creed”, which had hitherto been a local and flexible statement for use at baptisms - was a quite novel one at the time (Lewis Ayres has written a fair amount about this issue), as was (and is) the notion that one council can bind a future council, to the point of prohibiting drawing up new statements of faith to meet specific needs. The Church in fact continued to do just this long after Ephesus. If the Church can create new creeds or statements of faith - which it has done repeatedly - then a fortiori one of the ways it may do so is by incorporating the wording of an older creed into a new one, which is what the Creed received in 451 at Chalcedon (the “Nicene” Creed) did with the original Creed of 325. The Orthodox make too much of the Ephesian anathema; not merely as law but even as a matter of mere history, it simply cannot have meant what they claim it meant. What was actually going on was that the Alexandrian-minded “orthodox” party believed that the Antiochene-minded “Nestorian” teaching violated the Creed of 325. The Ephesian anathema was thus intended to prohibit the adoption of any Nestorian statements of faith, which had in fact been done 2 years before, at the so-called “Robbers Council”, also at Ephesus. It had nothing to do with any later controversies about the Holy Spirit. (20 years later, the Alexandrian-minded so-called “Monophysites” - who had been part of the “orthodox” party at Ephesus - believed the Definition of Chalcedon was just Nestorianism Reborn, and this eventually led to the introduction of what we call the “Nicene Creed” into the Liturgy itself, under a Monophysite emperor and patriarch, as a swipe at Chalcedon, which is ironic since that Creed was formally received only at Chalcedon.)

Minor quibble: we’re sufficiently removed from medieval Orthodox polemics that we should be able to discard any talk of “double procession” today. There is in fact no such doctrine, in either the writings of Augustine (or Aquinas or Scotus), or in the later dogmatic definitions of the Western Church, which Anglicanism inherited. The procession of the Holy Spirit is uniformly presented in those sources as being one, single procession, by one simple act, from a single source: the Father and the Son acting not in concert, but absolutely indivisibly and without distinction (since they are distinct only in their relations of fatherhood and sonship).

 

Please cite me where in the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Catholic Church sui iuris it states that an ecumenical council has authority over the pope, and not the other way around.

 

This was the specific part of your comment I was responding to:
He cannot be bound by councils and I'm not completely sure he's bound by Tradition

Just wondering, but did you read my whole reply?
I pretty much showed he was bound by councils and tradition and isn’t some rampaging tyrant.
I feel like you didn’t read my post because I did not say the council has authority over the pope under normal circumstances. My post clearly shows that catholic doctrine holds the pope as the head working together with his fellow bishops. That the infallibility of ecumenical councils comes from the council itself, not the pope, and that the bishops, when together with the pope, exercise infallibility through the council.
The pope is clearly the leader, like a president.
However, if the pope is ever found to declare some heresy, the council does have the power to depose him. This happened with pope honorius.

 

Yes I do know it was added on later by editors and publishers. My point was that a historic Anglican bible recognizes it as a council. I don’t know how you can’t, it’s obviously a council which sends doctrinal decrees all the churches ought to obey.


You say it is an advisement rather than a binding promulgation.
You do know this concerned the very heart of the gospel? The reason Paul wrote much of romans and Galatians, to let us know that we are saved by grace and not the mosaic law?
It wasn’t an “advise.” It was the whole point of the gospel. The New Testament clearly tells us that if we follow the law thinking it will save us, we will perish, as only the grace of God saves us. Early Christians even said that those who practiced Jewish customs like circumcision, if they did it because they thought it saved them, they were in peril.



So I don’t know how you think this is a mere advise. Do you not think the apostles had some authority over the churches and over you? Or you just think the Bible is the only one with authority?


Let me ask you, the decree of Jerusalem is in the Bible. How do you NOT believe it’s binding? Is the Bible not binding to you?




The way I am using infallible is to mean free from doctrinal error. Even the Bible has historical errors here and there, and yet we still say it’s infallible, so you should have no issue with that.

I don’t think the apostles spoke infallibly every time. This is how I think it worked.
The apostles were lead by the Holy Spirit in a special way and were given a special grace. Men like Paul and Peter were clearly given visions concerning the true gospel.
They already mostly held correct doctrine so it wasn’t really a problem. But I do believe that when the apostles preached to the churches they were all in one accord, this by the power of the Holy Spirit. I believe when the apostles meant to bind the whole church on doctrine, like the council of Jerusalem, or their preaching, or letter writing, it was infallible, yes.


Can I ask how you think the Bible is infallible? You say :
Do you really believe that every single time an apostle opened his mouth to speak about the things of God, every word he spoke was completely free of error? Wow. I don't have that much faith in mankind. Nor do I believe that God put the apostles on 'puppet strings' to control every word that came out of their mouths, but apparently you do!

I can say the same thing about the letters the apostles wrote.
Do you really believe that every single time an apostle put pen to paper to write about the things of God, every word he wrote was completely free of error? Wow. I don't have that much faith in mankind. Nor do I believe that God put the apostles on 'puppet strings' to control every word that came they wrote on paper, but apparently you do!


But this is clearly ridiculous. The scriptures are infallible precisely because they are 1) written by the apostles commissioned by Christ himself to spread the gospel , and
2) doctrinal writings meant to bind the whole church.
This wasn’t Paul writing fiction in his basement, he didn’t have a magic pen. He was just lead by the Holy Spirit to true doctrine. And since he had true doctrine, all his writings binding on the church had true doctrine, and so did his preaching.

A lot of things you’re saying making it seem ridiculous that the apostles could together preach true doctrine by the power of God can equally be applied to all of Christianity and the Bible itself. Our beliefs can all be made to sound ridiculous.
“You mean you believe some letters written by some peasant Jews are infallible!?”

And yet we do. It’s really not that far fetched to believe the apostles taught true doctrine to the churches.
It also seems to me you think the Bible is the only thing with authority over you but somehow the men wrote it don’t have any. Or at least not as much.

 

XIX. Of the Church.
The visible Church of Christ is a congregation of faithful men, in which the pure Word of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duly ministered according to Christ's ordinance, in all those things that of necessity are requisite to the same. As the Church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, have erred, so also the Church of Rome hath erred, not only in their living and manner of Ceremonies, but also in matters of Faith.

Article XXI
General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture.​

Mark 10:42-45
So Jesus called them and said to them, ‘You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.’​

I think it is important to say clearly, especially as we come to the Feast of Christ the King, that the Kingdom of God is not about an alternative to earthly kingdoms, but an entirely different way of being ruled. It is not about Power and Authority, but rather vulnerability and service. If the Pope is clearly the leader like the President, then it would represent a dismal failure of our proclamation of the Gospel.

Anglicans do not look to Councils for Infallibility, and Anglicans do not look to Popes for Infallibility. There have been dark days in the life of the Church, and indeed of the Papacy, yet all is not lost, largely due to the one thing that is infallible, the God's Love for Us.

 

Just curious, but Which of the ecumenical councils does the Church of England regard are erring?

Also just because the kingdom of God, or the city of God as st Augustine puts it, is not necessarily earthly, doesn’t mean the church shouldn’t have leaders.
You have the bishop of Canterbury as your sort of “patriarch,” do you not?
And Constantinople considers itself the new Rome.
It is clear the church needs leaders, order. And structure. The apostles took painstaking efforts to leave good leaders behind for the churches.

 

The decision of the council in Acts 15 is presented as something binding forever. And the more binding it is, the more of a problem it is for those who wish to prove Petrine primary from the text of the New Testament. I quote the passage in full here:

Then certain individuals came down from Judea and were teaching the brothers, “Unless you are circumcised according to the custom of Moses, you cannot be saved.” And after Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and debate with them, Paul and Barnabas and some of the others were appointed to go up to Jerusalem to discuss this question with the apostles and the elders. So they were sent on their way by the church, and as they passed through both Phoenicia and Samaria, they reported the conversion of the Gentiles, and brought great joy to all the believers. When they came to Jerusalem, they were welcomed by the church and the apostles and the elders, and they reported all that God had done with them. But some believers who belonged to the sect of the Pharisees stood up and said, “It is necessary for them to be circumcised and ordered to keep the law of Moses.”

The apostles and the elders met together to consider this matter. After there had been much debate, Peter stood up and said to them, “My brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that I should be the one through whom the Gentiles would hear the message of the good news and become believers. And God, who knows the human heart, testified to them by giving them the Holy Spirit, just as he did to us; and in cleansing their hearts by faith he has made no distinction between them and us. Now therefore why are you putting God to the test by placing on the neck of the disciples a yoke that neither our ancestors nor we have been able to bear? On the contrary, we believe that we will be saved through the grace of the Lord Jesus, just as they will.”

The whole assembly kept silence, and listened to Barnabas and Paul as they told of all the signs and wonders that God had done through them among the Gentiles. 13 After they finished speaking, James replied, “My brothers, listen to me. Simeon has related how God first looked favorably on the Gentiles, to take from among them a people for his name. This agrees with the words of the prophets, as it is written,

‘After this I will return,
and I will rebuild the dwelling of David, which has fallen;
from its ruins I will rebuild it,
and I will set it up,
so that all other peoples may seek the Lord—
even all the Gentiles over whom my name has been called.
Thus says the Lord, who has been making these things known from long ago.’

Therefore I have reached the decision that we should not trouble those Gentiles who are turning to God, but we should write to them to abstain only from things polluted by idols and from fornication and from whatever has been strangled and from blood. For in every city, for generations past, Moses has had those who proclaim him, for he has been read aloud every sabbath in the synagogues.”

Then the apostles and the elders, with the consent of the whole church, decided to choose men from among their members and to send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They sent Judas called Barsabbas, and Silas, leaders among the brothers, with the following letter: “The brothers, both the apostles and the elders, to the believers of Gentile origin in Antioch and Syria and Cilicia, greetings. Since we have heard that certain persons who have gone out from us, though with no instructions from us, have said things to disturb you and have unsettled your minds, we have decided unanimously to choose representatives and send them to you, along with our beloved Barnabas and Paul, who have risked their lives for the sake of our Lord Jesus Christ. We have therefore sent Judas and Silas, who themselves will tell you the same things by word of mouth. For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to impose on you no further burden than these essentials: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from fornication. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

So they were sent off and went down to Antioch. When they gathered the congregation together, they delivered the letter. When its members read it, they rejoiced at the exhortation. Judas and Silas, who were themselves prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. After they had been there for some time, they were sent off in peace by the believers to those who had sent them. But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, and there, with many others, they taught and proclaimed the word of the Lord.

There are a lot of fascinating aspects to this passage. Luke refers to Peter as Peter but quotes James referring to him as Simeon. The account presents Paul as being much more in harmony with James than Paul's own account in Galatians would lead us to believe. Apparently there were Christians who remained active Pharisees. And so on. This may be one of the most interesting passages in the entire New Testament. The rules that James and the council imposed on the Gentile believers correspond more or less to what Judaism came to call the "Noahide" laws, in reference to Gen. 9:

God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. The fear and dread of you shall rest on every animal of the earth, and on every bird of the air, on everything that creeps on the ground, and on all the fish of the sea; into your hand they are delivered. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; and just as I gave you the green plants, I give you everything. Only, you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood. For your own lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning: from every animal I will require it and from human beings, each one for the blood of another, I will require a reckoning for human life.

Whoever sheds the blood of a human,
by a human shall that person’s blood be shed;
for in his own image
God made humankind.

And you, be fruitful and multiply, abound on the earth and multiply in it.”

Then God said to Noah and to his sons with him, “As for me, I am establishing my covenant with you and your descendants after you, and with every living creature that is with you, the birds, the domestic animals, and every animal of the earth with you, as many as came out of the ark. I establish my covenant with you, that never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.” God said, “This is the sign of the covenant that I make between me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all future generations: I have set my bow in the clouds, and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds, I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. When the bow is in the clouds, I will see it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is on the earth.” God said to Noah, “This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between me and all flesh that is on the earth.”

The decision of James here was perfectly consonant with how later (rabbinic) Judaism prescribed righteousness for Gentiles who chose not to convert to Judaism. The Noahic covenant that included the obligations mentioned in Acts 15 is stated multiple times in the Genesis passage to be binding on all human beings for all time. Acts 15 is exactly what we would expect from Jewish believers in Jesus who took Torah observance seriously, as we know James and Peter (and subsequent generations of Jewish Christians in Syria and Palestine) did.

 

The "Robber Council" of Ephesus in 429, and the 7th Ecumenical Council, primarily (at least among the ancient councils). The Robber Council wasn't considered "ecumenical" by later generations, but it met all the criteria for one at the time it was convened.

 

Well I think it’s backed by church history and the New Testament, but I can see why you would say that.
Here is St. John chrysostom’s commentary on acts 15:



“This (James) was bishop, as they say, and therefore he speaks last, and herein is fulfilled that saying, "In the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established." (Deuteronomy 17:6; Matthew 18:16.) But observe the discretion shown by him also, in making his argument good from the prophets, both new and old. For he had no acts of his own to declare, as Peter had and Paul. And indeed it is wisely ordered that this (the active) part is assigned to those, as not intended to be locally fixed in Jerusalem, whereas (James) here, who performs the part of teacher, is no way responsible for what has been done, while however he is not divided from them in opinion.…
"And after that they had held their peace, James answered," etc. (v. 13.) (b) Peter indeed spoke more strongly, but James here more mildly: for thus it behooves one in high authority, to leave what is unpleasant for others to say, while he himself appears in the milder part…
And observe, that which was needful to be enacted as a rule, that it is not necessary to keep the Law, this Peter introduced: but the milder part, the truth which was received of old, this James saith, and dwells upon that concerning which nothing is written, in order that having soothed their minds by that which is acknowledged, he may opportunely introduce this likewise. "Wherefore," saith he, "my sentence is, not to trouble them which from among the Gentiles do turn unto God" (v. 19)”

 

I'm sorry but Chrysostom was a terrible exegete - the text specifically says James made the decision himself - and in this particular area he definitely had an axe to grind. He had almost no insight into the historical context of the 1st century passages he commented upon, and (perhaps as a result) he was one of the most virulently anti-Jewish writers of the patristic era.

 

Funny that you mention that because pope Leo was the one that declared that council a robber council, and urged the emperor to convene a new council, then sent his tome to be reviewed and approved by it.
Peter chrysologus said to eutyches :
“…to attend obediently in all things to all that is written by the most blessed Pope of the city of Rome. For blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, grants the truth of the faith to those who ask him…. we, for the love of peace and faith, cannot hear causes of faith without the consent of the bishop of the city of Rome.”



Also I thought the Anglican Church historically accepted the 7 ecumenical councils?
Has it always rejected it ?
I was under the impression it did not, along with traditional Lutherans.

 

One customarily finds references in classic Anglican sources to the first four (or sometimes the first six) councils as being normative, but there is a minority opinion that the 7th should be considered "ecumenical" as well. Certainly our churches are typically adorned as though the 7th was valid. Anglicans are free to come to their own conclusions on the issue; there's not a dogmatic definition of "ecumenical council" I know of that's morally or canonically binding on all Anglicans.

 

That’s fine. But you can clearly see there were people in the early church that thought Peter was the leader of the apostles, unlike you claim, and I’m not just making this up as I go. Wether you disagree with chrysostom doesn’t take away from the fact that most church fathers believed Peter to be the leader, or as the East calls him, the mouthpiece of the apostles.


James did not make the decision by himself, the apostles made it together.
It was the Jerusalem decree that they made together, and Paul and Peter already stated that they agreed beforehand.
James was the bishop of Jerusalem so it’s natural he leads in his own territory, as st chrysostom says. He was clearly speaking, when he said “listen to me” and “we should not trouble them” to the Jews in his party, and letting them know he agreed with Paul and Peter. Who else could he possibly be talking to?
The Jews already accused Paul of saying the law wasn’t necessary for them, and Paul even had to go through a purification ritual.
They also did not trust Peter as evidenced by the fact that “when certain men came from James” they convinced him to act like a hypocrite.
So clearly it’s James who the Jews see as more authoritative over Peter and Paul.
And again, even if you disagree, I’m not making this up, as people in the early church agreed with me Peter was a leader.

 

Interesting. I’m guessing this is to appease the more “reformed” types of anglicans.

 

He has declared tons of heresies, or what would be heresy to prior churchmen or councils. Except, like shooting an arrow and then painting the target around it, every time he declared a new doctrine he said that "this was the original doctrine all along" and used persecutions to push the opposing side out. The Eastern Orthodox were also guilty of this. The clearest example is veneration of images, declared as a heresy by many saints, church fathers, and prohibited by councils; but declared as "orthodoxy" at Nicea II and the the remnant of the patristic church pushed out as heretics.

Another similar example is transubstantiation, literally antithetical to every church father, them believing in real presence but not in transubstantiation. But in the middle times, those who believed in the real presence but not transubstantiation were declared heretics.

Also similar is the Papacy itself: in the patristic era and even through the middle ages, the Popes were just eminent Patriarchs, first among equals, subject to reproof and discipline from the Church. But when the Popes gathered enough power they declared for such behavior to be heretical.

St. Gregory the Great said that universal jurisdiction was the forerunner of the antichrist, but when the Popes gathered enough power, they declared that the Papacy was like one of the articles of the Creed and therefore anyone who said what St. Gregory said, would be a heretic.

How anyone can follow such a bloodthirsty and malicious cult is beyond me. It literally opposes every nerve and fibre of ancient Christianity.

Unfortunately for you I follow the trad arguments on this from FSSP, the SSPX, and sedevacantists quite closely, so I'm sorry to say that I saw your argument being made by "conservatives" about a hundred times. And all the traditionalist RCCs demolish it as heretical. You can swallow the placebo pill from Siscoe and Salza if you want, but don't pretend that there isn't a much stronger argument on the other side.

What's the stronger argument? simply this: how does one know when the Pope lost office, on mere epistemological grounds? It is impossible to know. If the "Roman see can be judged by no one", then it is impossible for you or anyone to determine that he fell into heresy in order to become liable for judgment by a council. You literally first can't get to step 1, in order to get to your step 2.

 

Well, the reform-minded were the ones in charge in those days, i.e., they weren’t trying to appease themselves. They believed that the 7th council provided the basis for later medieval practices such as adoration of the host, which the Reformers believed were violations of the prohibition of idolatry. It’s really not until after the Oxford Movement that you see some Anglicans rethinking the issue, more or less along similar lines to what the Orthodox think. Anglican churches for centuries were very sparsely adorned; these days that’s more the exception than the rule. A lot of things have changed over the last 150 years.

 

It's not an issue. First off, Nicea II was actually rejected by the Frankish churches and the rest of the Latin christendom, including the Anglo-Saxon Church of England. Thus Nicea II is not an ecumenical council. But despite being a firm opponent of this robber council, I fully support the Anglican tradition of stained glass windows and many other wonderful and tasteful ornaments in the church.

Such ornaments are not a compromise in favor of Nicea II, because we never have adoration for those things. That was the heterodoxy which it tried to enshrine. We have always loved and cherished church ornaments. The difference is, in our prayers we never, ever, direct our veneration to anyone other than God, and to anything other than a cross upon the altar.