Is the council of jerusalem viewed as an ecumenical council?
No, because it did not involve all the bishops of the world It was a local synod convened by the Church at Jerusalem.
The First Ecumenical Council was Nicaea I in the fourth century.
but wasnt the Jerusalem coucil a council involving church leaders (mainly apostles) who came from different places in communion with Peter, the leader of the Church at the time, that made a pronouncement on faith and morals that was binding on the whole church? Isnt that basically what an ecumenical council is?
Thanks in advance
I’m not, like, an expert on these matters, but it seems to me impractical that an ecumenical council would require an assembly of all the bishops of the world.
The council of Jerusalem was as ecumenical as you can get. It included the apostles! It certrainly considered itself ecumenical since it gave directives for the whole church, which we accept even today.
An ecumenical council is one that convokes all the bishops, which does not mean that they must all attend to be valid.
[quote=ST100]Is the council of jerusalem viewed as an ecumenical council?
According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, there were 21 Ecumenical Councils, the first being The First Council of Nicea in 325.
Peace and God bless!
At the council of Jerusalem, weren’t all the bishops of the world present? The evangelization had just begun and all the “bishops” came from wherever they were preaching. Hadn’t Paul gone the farthest at this point? He was there. Egypt had not been converted yet, right? or all of Asia? There was no abundance of bishops at this point, all of them were there?
The only thing I’ve ever heard was that the council of Jerusalem was considered the first council. Maybe not in the terms we define them today because the whole world has pretty much evangelized and there are thousands of bishops, but back then, there were very few.
Anybody with any other knowledge or documentation?
well it seems like it would be an ecumenical council…i just dont know why it is not included as one of the 21
[quote=porthos11]No, because it did not involve all the bishops of the world It was a local synod convened by the Church at Jerusalem.
Which is why deference was given to James, the local Bishop.
Officially, the First Ecumenical Council was Nicaea I as you said.
This is an old thread, but I see there was never an answer to the original question, a question I’d like to know the answer to. Why is the first Ecumenical Council of the Church listed as Nicea instead of the Council of Jerusalem?