I think there were decisions of ecumenical councils, like iconoclasm, that were explicitly rejected by later ecumenical councils many years later? That makes me think that a council widely considered ecumenical could made a mistaken decision, and therefore not be infallible. Obviously the ecumenical council that accepted iconoclasm was not infallible. Likewise, if the decision was not received by much of the church, like the article describes about the Council of Chalcedon, then receptionism would say it probably wasn't really an ecumenical council. So would it be a protestant heresy to say you or I don't consider the ecumenical councils infallible? Maybe not really- Luther accepted the councils' decisions on which books to put in the bible and how to make the Nicene Creed, so he must have thought those particular decisions were infallible. If he thought the decision on bible-book selection was fallible, he would not consider the bible to be infallible. Oh my, there is another example of Luther's confusing theology, just as he did not use the term "justification" the same way he thought that St James did. [[User:Rakovsky|Rakovsky]] 08:14, March 12, 2010 (UTC)