They cannot have taken church traditions seriously or they would be Orthodox or Catholic. The entire rift of Protestantism was because 1. bad people in the church were doing bad things, 2. Luther's understanding of scripture didn't mesh with the historical witness of the church.
So much wrong with that.
First, they couldn't be Catholic. Luther wanted to remain Catholic but the RCC kicked him out. The early Reformers also reached out to the EO but were rejected.
Second, based on your statement, the RCC must not be taking traditions seriously or they would be Orthodox.
Finally, taking traditions seriously is not the same thing as viewing traditions as authoritative. You conflate the two concepts.
They cannot have taken church traditions seriously or they would be Orthodox or Catholic. The entire rift of Protestantism was because 1. bad people in the church were doing bad things, 2. Luther's understanding of scripture didn't mesh with the historical witness of the church.
So much wrong with that.
First, they couldn't be Catholic. Luther wanted to remain Catholic but the RCC kicked him out. The early Reformers also reached out to the EO but were rejected.
Second, based on your statement, the RCC must not be taking traditions seriously or they would be Orthodox.
Finally, taking traditions seriously is not the same thing as viewing traditions as authoritative. You conflate the two concepts.
It's like wanting to be a Vegan and eating meat. There are expectations with being Catholic and Orthodox, if you don't agree to the belief systems, why would you want to be a member?
The RCC is Orthodox. The Orthodox are Catholic. Welcome to the redpill.
Tradition is the pillar and buttress of the church. It illuminates and explains scripture.
I have a protestant friend who says I shouldn't do good works. Why? Because then I could boast about them. I explained to him that in the Catholic Church, Jesus is the vine and we are His branches, so the good works I do are really Jesus working through me. He still said I shouldn't do them.
I was reminded of the words of Jesus...John 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
I don't actually believe this story. You seemingly have unending "protestant friends" for every example you want to make to show whatever strawman you want to make about Protestantism.
But, lets see what Luther says. He in fact coined the term "anti-nomianism" which was the very view that if I have faith, then I I don't have to do good works:
" a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever ... Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!"
The issue that I see most often is that Rome either willfully or not misunderstands the entire argument.
Would you please for context also include the part where he says to "sin boldly"
I'll hang up and listen
Please enlighten us all with the context of who Luther was talking to and what the issues were.
Or are you the kind of person who just looks for surface-level claims that fall apart immediately at the mildest scrutiny?
I have a protestant friend who says I shouldn't do good works. Why? Because then I could boast about them. I explained to him that in the Catholic Church, Jesus is the vine and we are His branches, so the good works I do are really Jesus working through me. He still said I shouldn't do them.
I was reminded of the words of Jesus...John 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
I don't actually believe this story. You seemingly have unending "protestant friends" for every example you want to make to show whatever strawman you want to make about Protestantism.
But, lets see what Luther says. He in fact coined the term "anti-nomianism" which was the very view that if I have faith, then I I don't have to do good works:
" a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever ... Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!"
The issue that I see most often is that Rome either willfully or not misunderstands the entire argument.
Would you please for context also include the part where he says to "sin boldly"
I'll hang up and listen
Please enlighten us all with the context of who Luther was talking to and what the issues were.
Or are you the kind of person who just looks for surface-level claims that fall apart immediately at the mildest scrutiny?
I'm the kind of person that realizes a spiritual adviser telling someone to "sin boldly" is damning regardless of context
I have a protestant friend who says I shouldn't do good works. Why? Because then I could boast about them. I explained to him that in the Catholic Church, Jesus is the vine and we are His branches, so the good works I do are really Jesus working through me. He still said I shouldn't do them.
I was reminded of the words of Jesus...John 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
I don't actually believe this story. You seemingly have unending "protestant friends" for every example you want to make to show whatever strawman you want to make about Protestantism.
But, lets see what Luther says. He in fact coined the term "anti-nomianism" which was the very view that if I have faith, then I I don't have to do good works:
" a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever ... Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!"
The issue that I see most often is that Rome either willfully or not misunderstands the entire argument.
Would you please for context also include the part where he says to "sin boldly"
I'll hang up and listen
Please enlighten us all with the context of who Luther was talking to and what the issues were.
Or are you the kind of person who just looks for surface-level claims that fall apart immediately at the mildest scrutiny?
I'm the kind of person that realizes a spiritual adviser telling someone to "sin boldly" is damning regardless of context
Gotcha..so you really don't know what you're talking about. Just surface level pop nonsense.
I have a protestant friend who says I shouldn't do good works. Why? Because then I could boast about them. I explained to him that in the Catholic Church, Jesus is the vine and we are His branches, so the good works I do are really Jesus working through me. He still said I shouldn't do them.
I was reminded of the words of Jesus...John 10:32 Jesus answered them, "I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of these do you stone me?"
I don't actually believe this story. You seemingly have unending "protestant friends" for every example you want to make to show whatever strawman you want to make about Protestantism.
But, lets see what Luther says. He in fact coined the term "anti-nomianism" which was the very view that if I have faith, then I I don't have to do good works:
" a living, creative, active and powerful thing, this faith. Faith cannot help doing good works constantly. It doesn't stop to ask if good works ought to be done, but before anyone asks, it already has done them and continues to do them without ceasing. Anyone who does not do good works in this manner is an unbeliever ... Thus, it is just as impossible to separate faith and works as it is to separate heat and light from fire!"
The issue that I see most often is that Rome either willfully or not misunderstands the entire argument.
Would you please for context also include the part where he says to "sin boldly"
I'll hang up and listen
Please enlighten us all with the context of who Luther was talking to and what the issues were.
Or are you the kind of person who just looks for surface-level claims that fall apart immediately at the mildest scrutiny?
I'm the kind of person that realizes a spiritual adviser telling someone to "sin boldly" is damning regardless of context
Gotcha..so you really don't know what you're talking about. Just surface level pop nonsense.
Would you please give me context where telling someone to sin boldly is appropriate?
I was not aware of that statement by Luther and was intrigued by it and your legitimate question. Here's what Google AI says about it (I bolded the last paragraph to emphasize it):
Quote:
Yes, Martin Luther told Philipp Melanchthon to "sin boldly" (pecca fortiter) in a letter dated August 1, 1521, but it was not an invitation to engage in immorality. Instead, it was pastoral encouragement to recognize human helplessness and rely entirely on God's grace, with the full phrase being: "Be a sinner and sin boldly, but believe and rejoice in Christ even more boldly".
Context of the "Sin Boldly" Advice
Encouragement to a Scrupulous Friend: Luther was writing to his colleague Philipp Melanchthon, who was deeply anxious about his own sinfulness and inability to live up to God's standards.
Against Self-Righteousness: Luther argued against trying to become "so holy that you are not a sinner," arguing that true faith requires recognizing oneself as a genuine sinner rather than pretending to be righteous.
The Power of Grace: Luther emphasized that because salvation is based on Christ's victory over sinnot on human effortsone can be bold in faith, even when admitting to, and dealing with, serious, real sin.
The Full Meaning: The statement meant, "Be honest about your sins, do not hide them, but trust in the far greater grace of Christ".
The phrase, found in The Scriptorium Daily and Luther's Letters, is generally understood by theologians not as a license for immorality, but as a call for radical,, faith-filled dependence on divine mercy over human works.
"Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died."
(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 May 1, 1532, p. 33)
"Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died."
(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 May 1, 1532, p. 33)
Quite a tough passage as it has no context, wasn't written by Luther, and some of the words are not readable so the translation probably has issues.
Without context, it might be on par with claiming the Bible says there is no god. (Psalm 14:1). Further, claiming Luther thought Christ sinned does not match his Christology that is well documented with context and legible.
As to this thread
"Teacher," said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mark 9:38-41).
The gospel of Christ is proclaimed in protestant churches. Praise be to God. The gospel is proclaimed in Catholic churches. Praise be to God.
Enjoyed the video, thanks for posting. Honestly it gets me more fired up at fellow Protestants whom have a complete lack of knowledge for Church History. Coming from someone guilty of it up until recently.
Appreciated the depth vs mainstream argument as well as I thought it was very helpful. Also the idea of the gates of hell not prevailing….in no way should we expect perfection but as with a tough battle, the bride of Christ will win the day.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
"Christ committed adultery first of all with the woman at the well about whom St. John tells us. Was not everybody about Him saying: "Whatever has he been doing with her?" Secondly, with Mary Magdalene, and thirdly with the woman taken in adultery whom he dismissed so lightly. Thus even Christ, who was so righteous, must have been guilty of fornication before He died."
(D. Martin Luthers Werke, kritische Gesamtausgabe [Hermann Bohlau Verlag, 1893], vol. 2, no. 1472, April 7 May 1, 1532, p. 33)
Quite a tough passage as it has no context, wasn't written by Luther, and some of the words are not readable so the translation probably has issues.
Without context, it might be on par with claiming the Bible says there is no god. (Psalm 14:1). Further, claiming Luther thought Christ sinned does not match his Christology that is well documented with context and legible.
As to this thread
"Teacher," said John, "we saw someone driving out demons in your name and we told him to stop, because he was not one of us."
"Do not stop him," Jesus said. "For no one who does a miracle in my name can in the next moment say anything bad about me, for whoever is not against us is for us. 41 Truly I tell you, anyone who gives you a cup of water in my name because you belong to the Messiah will certainly not lose their reward. (Mark 9:38-41).
The gospel of Christ is proclaimed in protestant churches. Praise be to God. The gospel is proclaimed in Catholic churches. Praise be to God.
Yes. Thaddeus has tried this nonsense before. He's being disingenuous.
The best guess is that "IF" Luther said this, it was during his "Table Talks" which were literally him, his friends, and his students sitting around a table discussing theology.
It is well documented that Luther would often take extreme or even incorrects views to force students to debate properly, as a good teacher would do.
If this was actually something he said, note that this was not a lecture, a sermon, or an actual book written by him, but notes taken by students.
The point he was most likely making would be related to Galatians 3:
Quote:
10 For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, "Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them." 11 Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for "The righteous shall live by faith." 12 But the law is not of faith, rather "The one who does them shall live by them." 13 Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for usfor it is written, "Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree" 14 so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
The point is never that Jesus Himself sinned. Luther is explicitly clear in his actual Treatise on Galatians that:
Quote:
But here we must make a distinction, as the words of Paul plainly show. For he saith not that Christ was made a curse for Himself, but for us. Therefore all the weight of the matter standeth in this word "for us." For Christ is innocent as concerning His own person, and therefore He ought not to have been hanged on a tree: but because, according to the law of Moses, every thief and malefactor ought to be hanged, therefore Christ also, according to the law, ought to be hanged, for He sustained the person of a sinner and a thief, not of one, but of all sinners and thieves. For we are sinners and thieves, and therefore guilty of death and everlasting damnation. But Christ took our sins upon Him, and for them died upon the Cross; therefore it behoveth that He should become a transgressor, and (as Isaiah saith, chapter liii.) "be reckoned among the transgressors." Martin Luther, Commentary on Galatians (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 270.
It's clear then that by taking on our sin. He became sin FOR US. Our sins have been imputed to Him, such that on judgement day, all who believe are judged righteous.
------------------ Unfortunately Thaddeus won't even attempt to understand this, so it will come up again.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
I don't have time to make this a research project but Pew Research indicates that Christians are leaving BOTH Catholic and Protestant traditions faster than those joining. This is the real problem.
Furthermore, Pew also indicates that in general, more Catholic brethren leave for Protestant circles that the other way around. I hear that is because they actually have access to the Bible rather than just the fathers
Javier Perdomo did a look at this exact thing as part of a substack:
I don't have time to make this a research project but Pew Research indicates that Christians are leaving BOTH Catholic and Protestant traditions faster than those joining. This is the real problem.
Furthermore, Pew also indicates that in general, more Catholic brethren leave for Protestant circles that the other way around. I hear that is because they actually have access to the Bible rather than just the fathers
Javier Perdomo did a look at this exact thing as part of a substack:
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
The only reason why any Protestants fastens on the "Rome" angle is to try and use some sort of semantic argument. The early church wasn't Protestant, it was Catholic; led in Jesus' earthly absence by the Apostles and their successors. Peter's final See was Rome, and his authority as leader of the Apostles with the mandate to feed Christ's sheep, was passed on to his successors who naturally kept the same Apostolic seat. This is the same with the Orthodox where EP Bartholomew is referred to as the successor of St Andrew.
You've got Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. All ancient key sees founded by St Peter, St Andrew, St James the Just and St Mark; all passed on to present day.
So again, I'll give you half a point for making the point that the early Church wasn't Roman instantly, but it was certainly Catholic; and is maintained today by the Catholic and Orthodoz faith, and cosplayed by the Prots.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
Ortlund was saying that when he (or protestants in general ) review church history, they don't find such and such doctrines or practices. Therefore they are "modern accretions" and need to be thrown out to be in accordance with the historical church. So his interpretation of history makes Protestantism look more historical.
Newman said when you review church history, you see a church that had development of doctrine at the very beginning. We see certain points on disagreement between church fathers, local councils, etc. We see Ecumenical councils being called to settle disputed doctrine over the course of centuries. This leaves Anglicans (who he was writing to) two options:
1. Recognize that development of doctrine is a charism of the True Church with true apostolic authority, and that did not go away. or
2. Refuse to recognize this fact. And if you refuse to recognize this fact, it leaves you in a position to draw an arbitrary line at some point on the timeline in which you will choose to only believe things before a certain date. This is obviously problematic because it's a matter of personal opinion of when that date should be.
Ortlund has no idea what Newman was actually saying in his writings but determined he was "wrong" anyway. Newman didn't even consider the Anglican Church to be protestant in the way he viewed the protestant groups of his day. He view Anglicans as a church is schism from Rome, and it needed to go back.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
The only reason why any Protestants fastens on the "Rome" angle is to try and use some sort of semantic argument. The early church wasn't Protestant, it was Catholic; led in Jesus' earthly absence by the Apostles and their successors. Peter's final See was Rome, and his authority as leader of the Apostles with the mandate to feed Christ's sheep, was passed on to his successors who naturally kept the same Apostolic seat. This is the same with the Orthodox where EP Bartholomew is referred to as the successor of St Andrew.
You've got Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. All ancient key sees founded by St Peter, St Andrew, St James the Just and St Mark; all passed on to present day.
So again, I'll give you half a point for making the point that the early Church wasn't Roman instantly, but it was certainly Catholic; and is maintained today by the Catholic and Orthodoz faith, and cosplayed by the Prots.
No. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was catholic. It was universal. Rome is but a branch off of the church.
The rest is Roman claims. Peter was not the Pope. The claim of successors is Rome's claim, not the church.
That's why to be Protestant is to be the early church. One of the hallmarks of the Reformers is the realization that the early church disagreed on a great many things.
If Rome wants to be the early church, it needs to give up the Pope, give up it's claims about Mary. There weren't 7 Sacraments, but most commonly 2. And so forth.
And that's where Newman got it wrong. He started with the end in mind. He started with "If Rome does it, even the smallest glimmer was enough to justify it." Newman made his decision. Much of Rome recognizes that his claims really don't stand up to scrutiny.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
Ortlund was saying that when he (or protestants in general ) review church history, they don't find such and such doctrines or practices. Therefore they are "modern accretions" and need to be thrown out to be in accordance with the historical church. So his interpretation of history makes Protestantism look more historical.
Newman said when you review church history, you see a church that had development of doctrine at the very beginning. We see certain points on disagreement between church fathers, local councils, etc. We see Ecumenical councils being called to settle disputed doctrine over the course of centuries. This leaves Anglicans (who he was writing to) two options:
1. Recognize that development of doctrine is a charism of the True Church with true apostolic authority, and that did not go away. or
2. Refuse to recognize this fact. And if you refuse to recognize this fact, it leaves you in a position to draw an arbitrary line at some point on the timeline in which you will choose to only believe things before a certain date. This is obviously problematic because it's a matter of personal opinion of when that date should be.
Ortlund has no idea what Newman was actually saying in his writings but determined he was "wrong" anyway. Newman didn't even consider the Anglican Church to be protestant in the way he viewed the protestant groups of his day. He view Anglicans as a church is schism from Rome, and it needed to go back.
Yes..you summarize well the false dichotomy that most see Newman created.
Newman chose to synthesize disagreements to the point that two fathers could have contrary opinions (or even no real opinion), but those seeds were enough to justify the Rome accretion.
That ends up being the actual problem. He starts with the end in mind and defacto says "if Rome is doing it today, even the smallest seed must exist in the earliest fathers."
As Ortlund points out, that's simply not the case with things such as the Sacraments, Mary, pope, and so forth, yet Newman may see that since someone had sacraments, that it grew to 7 is ok.
And I'd agree with Ortlund that this methodology is not "steeped in history." It's ignoring history to justify modernity.
One of my ancestors, I found out through a genealogy search, was a big fan of Luther. Since then, I have done a lot of research on the man who added a word to scripture to make it come out like he wanted it to, and who demoted 7 books of the bible on his own authority because he didn't like them, all the while saying "scripture alone!". He called Jesus a sinner, be broke his sacred vows of celibacy and obedience, he advocated killing peasants and Jews and burning their synagogues, and he hated Catholics as well. Hitler even mentioned him in Mein Kampf. So no, I am not a big Luther fan.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
The only reason why any Protestants fastens on the "Rome" angle is to try and use some sort of semantic argument. The early church wasn't Protestant, it was Catholic; led in Jesus' earthly absence by the Apostles and their successors. Peter's final See was Rome, and his authority as leader of the Apostles with the mandate to feed Christ's sheep, was passed on to his successors who naturally kept the same Apostolic seat. This is the same with the Orthodox where EP Bartholomew is referred to as the successor of St Andrew.
You've got Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. All ancient key sees founded by St Peter, St Andrew, St James the Just and St Mark; all passed on to present day.
So again, I'll give you half a point for making the point that the early Church wasn't Roman instantly, but it was certainly Catholic; and is maintained today by the Catholic and Orthodoz faith, and cosplayed by the Prots.
No. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was catholic. It was universal. Rome is but a branch off of the church.
The rest is Roman claims. Peter was not the Pope. The claim of successors is Rome's claim, not the church.
That's why to be Protestant is to be the early church. One of the hallmarks of the Reformers is the realization that the early church disagreed on a great many things.
If Rome wants to be the early church, it needs to give up the Pope, give up it's claims about Mary. There weren't 7 Sacraments, but most commonly 2. And so forth.
And that's where Newman got it wrong. He started with the end in mind. He started with "If Rome does it, even the smallest glimmer was enough to justify it." Newman made his decision. Much of Rome recognizes that his claims really don't stand up to scrutiny.
"The early church disagreed on a lot of things" yet they had a mechanism to fix it to ensure homogeneity of belief. This is why they held councils. When presented with a question, the early church held councils, when presented with a question the Protestant church starts a new branch which aligns with whatever their whim is.
Let me guess, to you the early church last until around the mid 4th century, no? So in your belief structure the church went off the rails for 1250 years, but was saved by a Catholic monk, who somehow despite being Roman Catholic, and believing the same things about Mary that Catholics need to give up discovered the secret formula of authentic Christianity and fixed things.
And this kernel of authentic Christianity is kept alive in your 6,000,000 strong member church?
One of my ancestors, I found out through a genealogy search, was a big fan of Luther. Since then, I have done a lot of research on the man who added a word to scripture to make it come out like he wanted it to, and who demoted 7 books of the bible on his own authority because he didn't like them, all the while saying "scripture alone!". He called Jesus a sinner, be broke his sacred vows of celibacy and obedience, he advocated killing peasants and Jews and burning their synagogues, and he hated Catholics as well. Hitler even mentioned him in Mein Kampf. So no, I am not a big Luther fan.
Holy strawman.
I will admit...it is a least refreshing that you don't even pretend to be honest in these discussions.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
The only reason why any Protestants fastens on the "Rome" angle is to try and use some sort of semantic argument. The early church wasn't Protestant, it was Catholic; led in Jesus' earthly absence by the Apostles and their successors. Peter's final See was Rome, and his authority as leader of the Apostles with the mandate to feed Christ's sheep, was passed on to his successors who naturally kept the same Apostolic seat. This is the same with the Orthodox where EP Bartholomew is referred to as the successor of St Andrew.
You've got Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. All ancient key sees founded by St Peter, St Andrew, St James the Just and St Mark; all passed on to present day.
So again, I'll give you half a point for making the point that the early Church wasn't Roman instantly, but it was certainly Catholic; and is maintained today by the Catholic and Orthodoz faith, and cosplayed by the Prots.
No. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was catholic. It was universal. Rome is but a branch off of the church.
The rest is Roman claims. Peter was not the Pope. The claim of successors is Rome's claim, not the church.
That's why to be Protestant is to be the early church. One of the hallmarks of the Reformers is the realization that the early church disagreed on a great many things.
If Rome wants to be the early church, it needs to give up the Pope, give up it's claims about Mary. There weren't 7 Sacraments, but most commonly 2. And so forth.
And that's where Newman got it wrong. He started with the end in mind. He started with "If Rome does it, even the smallest glimmer was enough to justify it." Newman made his decision. Much of Rome recognizes that his claims really don't stand up to scrutiny.
"The early church disagreed on a lot of things" yet they had a mechanism to fix it to ensure homogeneity of belief. This is why they held councils. When presented with a question, the early church held councils, when presented with a question the Protestant church starts a new branch which aligns with whatever their whim is.
Let me guess, to you the early church last until around the mid 4th century, no? So in your belief structure the church went off the rails for 1250 years, but was saved by a Catholic monk, who somehow despite being Roman Catholic, and believing the same things about Mary that Catholics need to give up discovered the secret formula of authentic Christianity and fixed things.
And this kernel of authentic Christianity is kept alive in your 6,000,000 strong member church?
And yet...there's no evidence they used the so called mechanisms. People were allowed to disagree without the threat of being burned alive.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
The only reason why any Protestants fastens on the "Rome" angle is to try and use some sort of semantic argument. The early church wasn't Protestant, it was Catholic; led in Jesus' earthly absence by the Apostles and their successors. Peter's final See was Rome, and his authority as leader of the Apostles with the mandate to feed Christ's sheep, was passed on to his successors who naturally kept the same Apostolic seat. This is the same with the Orthodox where EP Bartholomew is referred to as the successor of St Andrew.
You've got Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. All ancient key sees founded by St Peter, St Andrew, St James the Just and St Mark; all passed on to present day.
So again, I'll give you half a point for making the point that the early Church wasn't Roman instantly, but it was certainly Catholic; and is maintained today by the Catholic and Orthodoz faith, and cosplayed by the Prots.
No. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was catholic. It was universal. Rome is but a branch off of the church.
The rest is Roman claims. Peter was not the Pope. The claim of successors is Rome's claim, not the church.
That's why to be Protestant is to be the early church. One of the hallmarks of the Reformers is the realization that the early church disagreed on a great many things.
If Rome wants to be the early church, it needs to give up the Pope, give up it's claims about Mary. There weren't 7 Sacraments, but most commonly 2. And so forth.
And that's where Newman got it wrong. He started with the end in mind. He started with "If Rome does it, even the smallest glimmer was enough to justify it." Newman made his decision. Much of Rome recognizes that his claims really don't stand up to scrutiny.
"The early church disagreed on a lot of things" yet they had a mechanism to fix it to ensure homogeneity of belief. This is why they held councils. When presented with a question, the early church held councils, when presented with a question the Protestant church starts a new branch which aligns with whatever their whim is.
Let me guess, to you the early church last until around the mid 4th century, no? So in your belief structure the church went off the rails for 1250 years, but was saved by a Catholic monk, who somehow despite being Roman Catholic, and believing the same things about Mary that Catholics need to give up discovered the secret formula of authentic Christianity and fixed things.
And this kernel of authentic Christianity is kept alive in your 6,000,000 strong member church?
And yet...there's no evidence they used the so called mechanisms. People were allowed to disagree without the threat of being burned alive.
Yes..you summarize well the false dichotomy that most see Newman created.
Newman chose to synthesize disagreements to the point that two fathers could have contrary opinions (or even no real opinion), but those seeds were enough to justify the Rome accretion.
That ends up being the actual problem. He starts with the end in mind and defacto says "if Rome is doing it today, even the smallest seed must exist in the earliest fathers."
As Ortlund points out, that's simply not the case with things such as the Sacraments, Mary, pope, and so forth, yet Newman may see that since someone had sacraments, that it grew to 7 is ok.
And I'd agree with Ortlund that this methodology is not "steeped in history." It's ignoring history to justify modernity.
So Newman so desperately wanted to convert to Catholicism that he decided to agree with all Roman claims prior to doing his research? Furthermore, Ortlund is not starting with the end in mind when he decided that if a teaching today can't be found in it's precise modern day form in the early church it doesn't belong well before doing his historical deep dive? He doesn't have a preconceived idea of "historic" vs "modern" when he picks whatever arbitrary cutoff date for when said teachings had to appear by?
Have you read any of Newman's pre-conversion writings? I think you've already started with the end in mind when you consider Newman's journey.
If you're going to toss that out there (as inaccurate as it is), then it's best to be consistent.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
The only reason why any Protestants fastens on the "Rome" angle is to try and use some sort of semantic argument. The early church wasn't Protestant, it was Catholic; led in Jesus' earthly absence by the Apostles and their successors. Peter's final See was Rome, and his authority as leader of the Apostles with the mandate to feed Christ's sheep, was passed on to his successors who naturally kept the same Apostolic seat. This is the same with the Orthodox where EP Bartholomew is referred to as the successor of St Andrew.
You've got Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. All ancient key sees founded by St Peter, St Andrew, St James the Just and St Mark; all passed on to present day.
So again, I'll give you half a point for making the point that the early Church wasn't Roman instantly, but it was certainly Catholic; and is maintained today by the Catholic and Orthodoz faith, and cosplayed by the Prots.
No. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was catholic. It was universal. Rome is but a branch off of the church.
The rest is Roman claims. Peter was not the Pope. The claim of successors is Rome's claim, not the church.
That's why to be Protestant is to be the early church. One of the hallmarks of the Reformers is the realization that the early church disagreed on a great many things.
If Rome wants to be the early church, it needs to give up the Pope, give up it's claims about Mary. There weren't 7 Sacraments, but most commonly 2. And so forth.
And that's where Newman got it wrong. He started with the end in mind. He started with "If Rome does it, even the smallest glimmer was enough to justify it." Newman made his decision. Much of Rome recognizes that his claims really don't stand up to scrutiny.
"The early church disagreed on a lot of things" yet they had a mechanism to fix it to ensure homogeneity of belief. This is why they held councils. When presented with a question, the early church held councils, when presented with a question the Protestant church starts a new branch which aligns with whatever their whim is.
Let me guess, to you the early church last until around the mid 4th century, no? So in your belief structure the church went off the rails for 1250 years, but was saved by a Catholic monk, who somehow despite being Roman Catholic, and believing the same things about Mary that Catholics need to give up discovered the secret formula of authentic Christianity and fixed things.
And this kernel of authentic Christianity is kept alive in your 6,000,000 strong member church?
And yet...there's no evidence they used the so called mechanisms. People were allowed to disagree without the threat of being burned alive.
There's no evidence of councils?
7 Ecumenical Councils. If that's the standard, then, like I pointed out to Thaddeus, we are all in agreement. We don't differ over those councils.
None addressed Mary. None addressed the Pope and lack of evidence. None address the majority of disagreements.
Yes..you summarize well the false dichotomy that most see Newman created.
Newman chose to synthesize disagreements to the point that two fathers could have contrary opinions (or even no real opinion), but those seeds were enough to justify the Rome accretion.
That ends up being the actual problem. He starts with the end in mind and defacto says "if Rome is doing it today, even the smallest seed must exist in the earliest fathers."
As Ortlund points out, that's simply not the case with things such as the Sacraments, Mary, pope, and so forth, yet Newman may see that since someone had sacraments, that it grew to 7 is ok.
And I'd agree with Ortlund that this methodology is not "steeped in history." It's ignoring history to justify modernity.
So Newman so desperately wanted to convert to Catholicism that he decided to agree with all Roman claims prior to doing his research? Furthermore, Ortlund is not starting with the end in mind when he decided that if a teaching today can't be found in it's precise modern day form in the early church it doesn't belong well before doing his historical deep dive? He doesn't have a preconceived idea of "historic" vs "modern" when he picks whatever arbitrary cutoff date for when said teachings had to appear by?
Have you read any of Newman's pre-conversion writings? I think you've already started with the end in mind when you consider Newman's journey.
If you're going to toss that out there (as inaccurate as it is), then it's best to be consistent.
I don't pretend to speak for Newman's motives for converting or not. There's certainly a general belief that he developed his theory to address the very arguments he made against Rome as an Anglican.
But it is also widely recognized by all sides that Newman's "synthesis" probably overemphasized the actual unity that existed among the Church fathers.
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
The only reason why any Protestants fastens on the "Rome" angle is to try and use some sort of semantic argument. The early church wasn't Protestant, it was Catholic; led in Jesus' earthly absence by the Apostles and their successors. Peter's final See was Rome, and his authority as leader of the Apostles with the mandate to feed Christ's sheep, was passed on to his successors who naturally kept the same Apostolic seat. This is the same with the Orthodox where EP Bartholomew is referred to as the successor of St Andrew.
You've got Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. All ancient key sees founded by St Peter, St Andrew, St James the Just and St Mark; all passed on to present day.
So again, I'll give you half a point for making the point that the early Church wasn't Roman instantly, but it was certainly Catholic; and is maintained today by the Catholic and Orthodoz faith, and cosplayed by the Prots.
No. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was catholic. It was universal. Rome is but a branch off of the church.
The rest is Roman claims. Peter was not the Pope. The claim of successors is Rome's claim, not the church.
That's why to be Protestant is to be the early church. One of the hallmarks of the Reformers is the realization that the early church disagreed on a great many things.
If Rome wants to be the early church, it needs to give up the Pope, give up it's claims about Mary. There weren't 7 Sacraments, but most commonly 2. And so forth.
And that's where Newman got it wrong. He started with the end in mind. He started with "If Rome does it, even the smallest glimmer was enough to justify it." Newman made his decision. Much of Rome recognizes that his claims really don't stand up to scrutiny.
"The early church disagreed on a lot of things" yet they had a mechanism to fix it to ensure homogeneity of belief. This is why they held councils. When presented with a question, the early church held councils, when presented with a question the Protestant church starts a new branch which aligns with whatever their whim is.
Let me guess, to you the early church last until around the mid 4th century, no? So in your belief structure the church went off the rails for 1250 years, but was saved by a Catholic monk, who somehow despite being Roman Catholic, and believing the same things about Mary that Catholics need to give up discovered the secret formula of authentic Christianity and fixed things.
And this kernel of authentic Christianity is kept alive in your 6,000,000 strong member church?
And yet...there's no evidence they used the so called mechanisms. People were allowed to disagree without the threat of being burned alive.
There's no evidence of councils?
7 Ecumenical Councils. If that's the standard, then, like I pointed out to Thaddeus, we are all in agreement. We don't differ over those councils.
None addressed Mary. None addressed the Pope and lack of evidence. None address the majority of disagreements.
So yeah. No evidence.
Who were those councils headed by? Why were those 7 so important?
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
The only reason why any Protestants fastens on the "Rome" angle is to try and use some sort of semantic argument. The early church wasn't Protestant, it was Catholic; led in Jesus' earthly absence by the Apostles and their successors. Peter's final See was Rome, and his authority as leader of the Apostles with the mandate to feed Christ's sheep, was passed on to his successors who naturally kept the same Apostolic seat. This is the same with the Orthodox where EP Bartholomew is referred to as the successor of St Andrew.
You've got Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. All ancient key sees founded by St Peter, St Andrew, St James the Just and St Mark; all passed on to present day.
So again, I'll give you half a point for making the point that the early Church wasn't Roman instantly, but it was certainly Catholic; and is maintained today by the Catholic and Orthodoz faith, and cosplayed by the Prots.
No. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was catholic. It was universal. Rome is but a branch off of the church.
The rest is Roman claims. Peter was not the Pope. The claim of successors is Rome's claim, not the church.
That's why to be Protestant is to be the early church. One of the hallmarks of the Reformers is the realization that the early church disagreed on a great many things.
If Rome wants to be the early church, it needs to give up the Pope, give up it's claims about Mary. There weren't 7 Sacraments, but most commonly 2. And so forth.
And that's where Newman got it wrong. He started with the end in mind. He started with "If Rome does it, even the smallest glimmer was enough to justify it." Newman made his decision. Much of Rome recognizes that his claims really don't stand up to scrutiny.
"The early church disagreed on a lot of things" yet they had a mechanism to fix it to ensure homogeneity of belief. This is why they held councils. When presented with a question, the early church held councils, when presented with a question the Protestant church starts a new branch which aligns with whatever their whim is.
Let me guess, to you the early church last until around the mid 4th century, no? So in your belief structure the church went off the rails for 1250 years, but was saved by a Catholic monk, who somehow despite being Roman Catholic, and believing the same things about Mary that Catholics need to give up discovered the secret formula of authentic Christianity and fixed things.
And this kernel of authentic Christianity is kept alive in your 6,000,000 strong member church?
And yet...there's no evidence they used the so called mechanisms. People were allowed to disagree without the threat of being burned alive.
There's no evidence of councils?
7 Ecumenical Councils. If that's the standard, then, like I pointed out to Thaddeus, we are all in agreement. We don't differ over those councils.
None addressed Mary. None addressed the Pope and lack of evidence. None address the majority of disagreements.
So yeah. No evidence.
Who were those councils headed by? Why were those 7 so important?
Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church was the key architect behind all 7?
I don't mean to be rude, but it's actually one of the least accurate videos Ortland has ever made, taking passages out of context and not reading primary sources. Doctrinal development has been a part of the Church from the beginning.
This video (i'm not sure I'd call it a response), seemingly misses the entire point of Ortlund's video.
First, I have to point out that he's seemingly trying to go for clicks by also looping in Jordan Cooper into the mix? The last video I could find from Cooper, related to Newman, appears to be from 2024 (he clipped something in Jan 2025).
Second, he misses the entire point of Ortlund's video. He's not doing a deep dive into Newman's theology, but instead posing the questions such as is Rome deep in history? Is Protestantism deep in history?
Ortlund even ends it by making the statement that was roughly the Early Church wasn't Protestant. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was the early church, and we should recognize that.
The only reason why any Protestants fastens on the "Rome" angle is to try and use some sort of semantic argument. The early church wasn't Protestant, it was Catholic; led in Jesus' earthly absence by the Apostles and their successors. Peter's final See was Rome, and his authority as leader of the Apostles with the mandate to feed Christ's sheep, was passed on to his successors who naturally kept the same Apostolic seat. This is the same with the Orthodox where EP Bartholomew is referred to as the successor of St Andrew.
You've got Rome, Constantinople, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria. All ancient key sees founded by St Peter, St Andrew, St James the Just and St Mark; all passed on to present day.
So again, I'll give you half a point for making the point that the early Church wasn't Roman instantly, but it was certainly Catholic; and is maintained today by the Catholic and Orthodoz faith, and cosplayed by the Prots.
No. It wasn't Roman Catholic. It was catholic. It was universal. Rome is but a branch off of the church.
The rest is Roman claims. Peter was not the Pope. The claim of successors is Rome's claim, not the church.
That's why to be Protestant is to be the early church. One of the hallmarks of the Reformers is the realization that the early church disagreed on a great many things.
If Rome wants to be the early church, it needs to give up the Pope, give up it's claims about Mary. There weren't 7 Sacraments, but most commonly 2. And so forth.
And that's where Newman got it wrong. He started with the end in mind. He started with "If Rome does it, even the smallest glimmer was enough to justify it." Newman made his decision. Much of Rome recognizes that his claims really don't stand up to scrutiny.
"The early church disagreed on a lot of things" yet they had a mechanism to fix it to ensure homogeneity of belief. This is why they held councils. When presented with a question, the early church held councils, when presented with a question the Protestant church starts a new branch which aligns with whatever their whim is.
Let me guess, to you the early church last until around the mid 4th century, no? So in your belief structure the church went off the rails for 1250 years, but was saved by a Catholic monk, who somehow despite being Roman Catholic, and believing the same things about Mary that Catholics need to give up discovered the secret formula of authentic Christianity and fixed things.
And this kernel of authentic Christianity is kept alive in your 6,000,000 strong member church?
And yet...there's no evidence they used the so called mechanisms. People were allowed to disagree without the threat of being burned alive.
There's no evidence of councils?
7 Ecumenical Councils. If that's the standard, then, like I pointed out to Thaddeus, we are all in agreement. We don't differ over those councils.
None addressed Mary. None addressed the Pope and lack of evidence. None address the majority of disagreements.
So yeah. No evidence.
Who were those councils headed by? Why were those 7 so important?
Are you suggesting that the Roman Catholic Church was the key architect behind all 7?
Depending on who you ask, will color those councils a certain way. Catholics claim them. The Orthodox do as well. We were one Church then before the major schisms.
Summaries from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which list the popes or papal representatives associated thein...
First Ecumenical Council: Nicaea I (325) The Council of Nicaea lasted two months and twelve days. Three hundred and eighteen bishops were present. Hosius, Bishop of Cordova, assisted as legate of Pope Sylvester. The Emperor Constantine was also present. To this council we owe The Creed (Symbolum) of Nicaea, defining against Arius the true Divinity of the Son of God (homoousios), and the fixing of the date for keeping Easter (against the Quartodecimans).
Second Ecumenical Council: Constantinople I (381) The First General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Damasus and the Emperor Theodosius I, was attended by 150 bishops. It was directed against the followers of Macedonius, who impugned the Divinity of the Holy Ghost. To the above-mentioned Nicene Creed it added the clauses referring to the Holy Ghost (qui simul adoratur) and all that follows to the end.
Third Ecumenical Council: Ephesus (431) The Council of Ephesus, of more than 200 bishops, presided over by St. Cyril of Alexandria representing Pope Celestine I, defined the true personal unity of Christ, declared Mary the Mother of God (Theotokos) against Nestorius, Bishop of Constantinople, and renewed the condemnation of Pelagius.
Fourth Ecumenical Council: Chalcedon (451) The Council of Chalcedon 150 bishops under Pope Leo the Great and the Emperor Marcian -- defined the two natures (Divine and human) in Christ against Eutyches, who was excommunicated.
Fifth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople II (553) The Second General Council of Constantinople, of 165 bishops under Pope Vigilius and Emperor Justinian I, condemned the errors of Origen and certain writings (The Three Chapters) of Theodoret, of Theodore, Bishop of Mopsuestia and of Ibas, Bishop of Edessa; it further confirmed the first four general councils, especially that of Chalcedon whose authority was contested by some heretics.
Sixth Ecumenical Council: Constantinople III (680-681) The Third General Council of Constantinople, under Pope Agatho and the Emperor Constantine Pogonatus, was attended by the Patriarchs of Constantinople and of Antioch, 174 bishops, and the emperor. It put an end to Monothelitism by defining two wills in Christ, the Divine and the human, as two distinct principles of operation. It anathematized Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Macarius, and all their followers.
Seventh Ecumenical Council: Nicaea II (787) The Second Council of Nicaea was convoked by Emperor Constantine VI and his mother Irene, under Pope Adrian I, and was presided over by the legates of Pope Adrian; it regulated the veneration of holy images. Between 300 and 367 bishops assisted.
