10-04-2013, 03:02 AM
Akhi Michael
That's the whole point. The account was a later forgery, in order to give the false impression that the council was truly ecumenical. It was not. Nor was any bishop of any capacity in the Persian Church present, representing the CoE in that council. Otherwise, the CoE would have known it. And it wouldn't have needed to be presented with the results of the council 90 years later.
It is extremely offensive to be taught your own history by others, implying that you don't even know which council you yourself attended. The CoE would know if it was present or not, and it wouldn't need to be taught about it centuries later by outsiders.
+Shamasha
That's the whole point. The account was a later forgery, in order to give the false impression that the council was truly ecumenical. It was not. Nor was any bishop of any capacity in the Persian Church present, representing the CoE in that council. Otherwise, the CoE would have known it. And it wouldn't have needed to be presented with the results of the council 90 years later.
It is extremely offensive to be taught your own history by others, implying that you don't even know which council you yourself attended. The CoE would know if it was present or not, and it wouldn't need to be taught about it centuries later by outsiders.
+Shamasha