http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_wordWandile said:No serious Orthodox theologians hold the position of the laity must accept the council.ialmisry said:but the answers given which aren't true to history are the ones you are giving.Wandile said:I mean exactly what I've said in my OP. But some answers given aren't true to history so I'm questioning them...Mor Ephrem said:Are you interested in how Orthodoxy (Eastern and Oriental) recognises councils as "ecumenical", as your OP states? Or was that simply a smokescreen to allow you to resume the OO baiting you've done in other threads (and for which I've previously called you out)?Wandile said:This is true only if circular reasoning is a valid argument. The councils didn't only become ecumenical in 2013. Niceae I was ecumenical in the 4th century. Yet tones of bishops and priests rejected it as well as their faithful. Same with Chalcedon. In fact the Non Chalcedonians were part of the church up until and during the council and yet they rejected it....
Orthodox Rome knew how to unite, non-Orthodox Rome can and will only divide and conquer.
OK, Inquisitor Winston Smith.Wandile said:Now I don't "Oriental orthodox bait"... I just refer to history...plain and simple. .
No Orthodox, serious or not, should take an Ultramontanist as a guide as to what Orthodox theologians should teach.
Sorry, we don't share you clericalism.
Tell the people at the "They" Institute that that is the position history demonstrates.Wandile said:Thy recognize how Ahistorical the position is...
splitting, are you.Wandile said:Chalcedon is a prime example of how the Alexandrians never accepted the council showing that some faithful rejected and yet the council was still ecumenical
Alexandrians were not all laity. And not all Alexandrians rejected the Council.