How can the Catholic Church accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils considering they were enforced by roman emperors...

How can the Catholic Church accept the first seven Ecumenical Councils considering they were enforced by roman emperors and probably had strong political influence on everybody involved?

Other urls found in this thread:

papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm
patristica.net/denzinger/#n469
patristica.net/denzinger/#n2286
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

First ecumenical council began because Hosius, papal legate, beseech him to do it. And I can bet my hand that it was the case for six next times

fuck off back to poland you cuck

Well the Catholic Church didn't exist yet and by the time they did most people were pretty much committed to them. Also they are believed to be guided to their conclusions by the holy spirit and the emperor was only really there in the unlikely event they needed a tiebreaker.

>Well the Catholic Church didn't exist yet
>American education

The Roman Catholic Church was founded on December 13, 1545

Thats nonsense luther talked about the catholic church before the council of trent began. The council of trent only refuted and condemned protestantism with already believed doctrines.

Roman Catholic Church was founded when on pentecost AD 33. Don't believe me, believe St. Ignatius of Antioch.

The only church before the schism was the orthodox church.

If the Catholic Church existed at this time so did all Protestant denominations because they all just broke off from an existing church.

>what were the Crusades

The emperor was there specifically so that the state could enforce what the Church decided. Some councils in Church history were even called by the emperor himself. The Pope always had a representative or was personally present,.
The Church is supposed to be united with the state, this idea of "separation of church and state" is a heresy that took root in western civilization going back to the masonic rebellion of 1789.

I think you guys mean the Invisible Church lol jj?

Its more complicated than that. There was just "The church" but he councils did a lot to separate what modern Catholic and Orthodox believe, and both claim to be the inheritors of those councils legacies

Protestants either accept the councils, reject them, or except them to the point they were "in line with scripture"

>The Church is supposed to be united with the state, this idea of "separation of church and state" is a heresy

I dont think you will find that passage in the catechism friend.

>enforced by roman emperors
What are you talking about? Emperors may have convened them, but so what? They were to resolve legitimate problems
>strong political influence on everybody involved?
Not really, in cases like with Arians and Iconoclasts the stronger faction lost.

Citing a catechism is pretty weak bro, not to mention your qualm is that it hasn't been published in one yet which is arbitrary. Catechisms are fallible, and they're not guaranteed to contain literally everything about the faith. They're generally just a good reference to get you started in your spiritual development. Citing councils, papal bulls or encyclicals is much stronger support for any argument.

The Church ought to be separated from the State, and the State from the Church. — condemned heresy
The Syllabus Of Errors
Pope BI. Pius IX - 1864
papalencyclicals.net/pius09/p9syll.htm

"Civil authority must be subject to the Church's authority." Pope Boniface VIII, #469, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma 30th Ed.
patristica.net/denzinger/#n469

"Christians are one in faith and government." Pope Pius XII, #2286, Enchiridion Symbolorum, The Sources of Catholic Dogma 30th Ed.
patristica.net/denzinger/#n2286

What about the "render what's Caesar's unto Caesar, God unto God" business then?

no, that was the One catholic church that is now the orthodox catholic church aka orthodox church

roman bishop basically separated from other bishops several hundred years later founding his herecy

That passage is saying you don't have any religious reason to object to paying tribute because it's for public service provided by the state.

It's funny how Ch*rch fathers tweaked the doctrine to please the government.

There is good scene in Passion or some other film that show Roman soldiers being smug when Christ said it. It's good scene for literal reason for this business is that Jews wanted to have "gotcha" moment and it blow in thier faces.
And for more moral anserw read "Unam Sanctam"
Source of unity cannot separate from members by definition. Your conversion is howling, for no sane Orthodox accuse Catholicism of heresy since it goes right against statements of your patriarchs.