Dogma, Heresy, and Modernity

[zippy2006]

interesting but as you no doubt know you are going to have disagreement with your statements and conclusions.

Do you think so? As others have emphasized, the point I am making is in keeping with historical Christianity.

The other thing to note is that I also gave natural, common sense reasons why the errors of modernity are unacceptable. They lead to a contentless religion and to institutional self-contradiction. In this way the errors of modernity are not only contrary to Christianity; they are contrary to religion itself. I would say they are even contrary to any social grouping with a consistent and substantive character.

There is an interesting article about how this same modern phenomenon has affected ethical values in the West, although it may be a more difficult read ("Is Democracy Moral?").

 

[zippy2006]

I agree with this statement. Years ago, I read an article describing Holy Tradition as a crown with various gems representing each part of tradition. The center jewel was a diamond representing the Holy Scriptures. If various groups say, well I don't believe that icons are appropriate, that removes a set of gems. Another group says, the services should be shorter and with a praise band, they've removed another set of gems. And so on. Once you remove Tradition, you've removed the entire crown. Eventually, Sola Scriptura is left with nothing but an unset diamond. Yes, it is beautiful still on its own, but its just a loose gem. You can turn it and read whatever shines through it, but you may not be looking at it in the manner in which is was shaped by the jeweler to be in a setting. As a result, you no longer see the essentials as essentials because you are looking at the diamond from the wrong angle.

This is a great metaphor. You are getting at the next step: dogmas will only ultimately make sense if they come as a package deal, in an organic setting and community, and in tight relation to praxis (liturgy, devotions, etc.).

 

[The Liturgist]

And when read INSIDE of the phronema of the Church, it's also led to a multiplication of heresies!

Uh, not really. I can think of precisely one that occurred in the Orthodox Church since the Great Schism, Sophianism, and that happened during the time when the Russian Orthodox Church was under Czarist control and suffered from a lack of spiritual consistency, so you had a lot of lukewarm clergy, a number of prominent pious saints like St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, and St. John of Kronstadt, and you had St. Pavel Florensky, a priest, who is venerated as a saint because the Soviets martyed him, but the doctrine he taught was rejected by ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1930s, developing a new socioreligious concept with the secular philosopher Sergei Bulgakov, who later became ordained and was an Archpriest at the Paris cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese in Europe, until recently under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, before the EP decided, for no good reason, to try tomshut it down, despite it representing a dissident liberal faction of Russians more likely to support the EP’s uncanonical creation of the OCU.

Sophianism was an attempt by Bulgakov and Florensky, to their credit, to propagate a social and spiritual program that would appeal to the Russian people, address the inequalities in Russian society, and stop the Bolshevik movement and other Communists by uniting a desire for economic reform with Orthodox spirituality. The problem was, they were influenced by some strange ideas in their effort, but it should be noted that the EP never condemned Sophianism as a heresy and indeed not only ordained Sergei Bulgakov but made him an archpriest. I myself regard it as erroneous, however.

It was related to another peculiar doctrine, that of Imiaslavie, or Name Worship, which appeared among some Athonite monks and basically stated “the name of God is God himself.” It became a subject of controversy, but without ruling on whether or not it was a heresy or correct, the Hegumen of the Russian monastery on Mount Athos and other Russian Orthodox monastic leaders and bishops moved to forbid discussion of it, to avoid discord among the brethren.

So that’s one possible heresy in 1,000 years, not counting the approximately seven schismatic groups that broke away from the Moscow Patriarchate during the Czarist persecution of those people opposed to the Nikonian liturgical reforms; most remained incontrovertibly Orthodox, but I can think of a handful of schismatics that adopted doctrines contrary to Orthodoxy, chiefly because the persecution started in 1666 and they believed the world was ending. These included the Jewish converts and Sabbatarian Christians known as the Molokans; the transcendentalist Unitarian-like Doukhobors, who accepted only the Sermon on the Mount as canonical scripture, and who engaged in the nude protest walks in the early 20th century in Canada, where Leo Tolstoy had paid for them to emigrate to, in protest of compulsory education; the Priestless Old Believers, who believe all legitimate bishops were killed and the last real priests died no later than the early 18th century, and thus have no Eucharist, and some do not practice marriage; a weird variant of these who rejected icons in favor of a hole in the shape of a cross cut in the eastern wall of their chapel, called the Hole Worshippers, and finally, on a darker note, the apocalyptic Flagellants, Mutilators and Immolators, who engaged in auto-flagellation, auto-castration and auto-immolation, as the names imply.

Of these, I would assert that by the standards of ChristianForums, the Molokans who remained Christian, the priestless Old Believers, many of whom live in Woodburn, Oregon, and who do observe the Nicene Creed and practice baptism, which does not require a priest, and the Hole Worshippers, are not in any way heretical, and in terms of their worship, the Old Believers are basically Orthodox; they do everything an Orthodox parish does in absence of a priest. ROCOR persuaded one church of Old Believers in Erie, PA, the Church of the Nativity, that they had real priests, and that was great, because that church publishes excellent liturgical books and is also where I get my lestovkas.

So this leaves four heresies, a group of Unitarians who used to protest au naturel, and some mentally ill people who believed the world was ending and engaged in self-harm. These people did not have the Orthodox phronema.

 

[zippy2006]

And when read outside of the phronema of the Church, has led to a multiplication of heresies in the west over and over again. The Orthodox church has its fair share of problems but the complete fracturing of the church has not happened.

Yes, it is a fact of history that Western Christianity is excessively fractured in a way that Eastern Christianity is not, and that the West has not been as attentive to the phronema of the Church as the East has.

 

[Albion]

Uh, not really. I can think of precisely one that occurred in the Orthodox Church since the Great Schism, Sophianism, and that happened during the time when the Russian Orthodox Church was under Czarist control and suffered from a lack of spiritual consistency, so you had a lot of lukewarm clergy, a number of prominent pious saints like St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, and St. John of Kronstadt, and you had St. Pavel Florensky, a priest, who is venerated as a saint because the Soviets martyed him, but the doctrine he taught was rejected by ROCOR and the Moscow Patriarchate in the 1930s, developing a new socioreligious concept with the secular philosopher Sergei Bulgakov, who later became ordained and was an Archpriest at the Paris cathedral of the Russian Orthodox Archdiocese in Europe, until recently under the Ecumenical Patriarchate, before the EP decided, for no good reason, to try tomshut it down, despite it representing a dissident liberal faction of Russians more likely to support the EP’s uncanonical creation of the OCU.

Sophianism was an attempt by Bulgakov and Florensky, to their credit, to propagate a social and spiritual program that would appeal to the Russian people, address the inequalities in Russian society, and stop the Bolshevik movement and other Communists by uniting a desire for economic reform with Orthodox spirituality. The problem was, they were influenced by some strange ideas in their effort, but it should be noted that the EP never condemned Sophianism as a heresy and indeed not only ordained Sergei Bulgakov but made him an archpriest. I myself regard it as erroneous, however.

It was related to another peculiar doctrine, that of Imiaslavie, or Name Worship, which appeared among some Athonite monks and basically stated “the name of God is God himself.” It became a subject of controversy, but without ruling on whether or not it was a heresy or correct, the Hegumen of the Russian monastery on Mount Athos and other Russian Orthodox monastic leaders and bishops moved to forbid discussion of it, to avoid discord among the brethren.

So that’s one possible heresy in 1,000 years, not counting the approximately seven schismatic groups that broke away from the Moscow Patriarchate during the Czarist persecution of those people opposed to the Nikonian liturgical reforms; most remained incontrovertibly Orthodox, but I can think of a handful of schismatics that adopted doctrines contrary to Orthodoxy, chiefly because the persecution started in 1666 and they believed the world was ending. These included the Jewish converts and Sabbatarian Christians known as the Molokans; the transcendentalist Unitarian-like Doukhobors, who accepted only the Sermon on the Mount as canonical scripture, and who engaged in the nude protest walks in the early 20th century in Canada, where Leo Tolstoy had paid for them to emigrate to, in protest of compulsory education; the Priestless Old Believers, who believe all legitimate bishops were killed and the last real priests died no later than the early 18th century, and thus have no Eucharist, and some do not practice marriage; a weird variant of these who rejected icons in favor of a hole in the shape of a cross cut in the eastern wall of their chapel, called the Hole Worshippers, and finally, on a darker note, the apocalyptic Flagellants, Mutilators and Immolators, who engaged in auto-flagellation, auto-castration and auto-immolation, as the names imply.

Of these, I would assert that by the standards of ChristianForums, the Molokans who remained Christian, the priestless Old Believers, many of whom live in Woodburn, Oregon, and who do observe the Nicene Creed and practice baptism, which does not require a priest, and the Hole Worshippers, are not in any way heretical, and in terms of their worship, the Old Believers are basically Orthodox; they do everything an Orthodox parish does in absence of a priest. ROCOR persuaded one church of Old Believers in Erie, PA, the Church of the Nativity, that they had real priests, and that was great, because that church publishes excellent liturgical books and is also where I get my lestovkas.

All you've done here is contend that the many schisms aren't really that bad after all. They're called "basically Christian" as if that means there was no split.

The issue was about the existence, the reality, of splits and the nonsensical claim that Orthodoxy hasn't had any of them, while (allegedly) everyone else has experienced countless divisions. It was not about which of the various splits is less extreme or disturbing.

In the past, I occasionally visited an Orthodox church which was part of one of the feuding three or four different Orthodox jurisdictions in the area.

Literally right next door to that church lived a lifelong Orthodox woman, but she didn't consider this century-old parish to be legitimate and so traveled on Sundays to a neighboring state to worship in an Orthodox church of the same ethnic make-up and background but of a different jurisdiction!

And that's to say nothing of the Greeks in town who don't even recognize the existence of the Slavic Orthodox churches.

No schisms? No fractures?

 

[GodLovesCats]

I agree with this statement. Years ago, I read an article describing Holy Tradition as a crown with various gems representing each part of tradition. The center jewel was a diamond representing the Holy Scriptures. If various groups say, well I don't believe that icons are appropriate, that removes a set of gems. Another group says, the services should be shorter and with a praise band, they've removed another set of gems. And so on. Once you remove Tradition, you've removed the entire crown. Eventually, Sola Scriptura is left with nothing but an unset diamond. Yes, it is beautiful still on its own, but its just a loose gem. You can turn it and read whatever shines through it, but you may not be looking at it in the manner in which is was shaped by the jeweler to be in a setting. As a result, you no longer see the essentials as essentials because you are looking at the diamond from the wrong angle.

The problem with this idea is Sola Scriptura believers (who make up most Protestants) are 100% correct. Christianity is based on the Bible alone. Calling the Bible a loose stone and saying every other stone must be on the proverbial crown is just telling most Christians they are not Christians.

 

[The Liturgist]

All you've done here is contend that the many schisms aren't really that bad after all. They're still Christians after all or they still agree with the others on certain matters, etc.

But the issue was about splits and the nonsensical claim that Orthodoxy hasn't had any of them, while (allegedly) everyone else has experienced countless ones.

Not true. @GreekOrthodox made it clear he was talking about heresies and schismatic factionalism on a massive scale, not “splits.”

Specifically, he wrote:

And when read outside of the phronema of the Church, has led to a multiplication of heresies in the west over and over again. The Orthodox church has its fair share of problems but the complete fracturing of the church has not happened.

“A multiplication of heresies.” Not four isolated incidents. Not a handful of schisms generally of a temporary nature, which I can count on one hand, but complete fracturing. There are, at most, including the Oriental Orthodox, who have only one church isolated from canonical Oriental Orthodoxy, probably because its in full communion with the Mar Thoma Syrian Church, part of the Anglican Communion, whose Metropolitan ordains its Metropolitan and vice versa, so its status as an Oriental Orthodox church is questioned, but I will count it, there are five active schisms, and if we omit the marginal case mentioned above and limit ourselves to the EO, four.

I occasionally visited an Orthodox church nearby which was part of one of the competing three or four different Orthodox jurisdictions in the area.

Which jurisdictions? Because you know, the existence of overlapping jurisdictions does not mean competition in Orthodoxy, because they are usually in full communion. Conwertsy go to whichever parish is closer, or in my case, whoever had better music and friendlier people (all were friendly).

Literally right next door lived a lifelong Orthodox woman, but she didn't consider this congregation to be legitimate and preferred a different branch of the church (same ethnicity for both of them) and therefore traveled on Sundays to a neighboring state to worship!

There are no “branches” of the church. Maybe she was an Old Calendarist, but they’re not heretical nor technically even schismatic.

And that's to say nothing of the Greeks in town who don't even count the Slavic Orthodox Christians as members of the same faith.

If they said that, they were stupid and ignorant and at odds with their own bishops; while Russia broke communion with the Ecumenical Patriarchate in 2018, that was because the Ecumenical Patriarchate established the Orthodox Church in Ukraine, which is Russia’s canonical territory. Not a heresy, and not even a schism, because the OCU merely reun

No schisms? No fractures? What a laugh.[/QUOTE]

Ok, so we have four “fractures.” Now, how many continuing Anglican churches and non-Anglican Communion churches like ACNA and the Free Church of England are there?

And how many theological errors would you attribute to churches in or descended from the Anglican Communion? For example, do you regard the sacramental theology of the Anglican Province of Cheist the King or the predominant view of human sexuality in the Episcopal Church as representative of Anglican doctrinal orthodoxy?

 

[Albion]

Not true. @GreekOrthodox made it clear he was talking about heresies and schismatic factionalism on a massive scale, not “splits.”

Specifically, he wrote:

“A multiplication of heresies.” Not four isolated incidents.

He also wrote this:

The Orthodox church has its fair share of problems but the complete fracturing of the church has not happened.

You must have missed that part although it was right next to the part you chose to quote.

Not a handful of schisms generally of a temporary nature...

Goodness. "A temporary nature." Well, I did see that you chose to identify a few of the ones that almost no one is aware of while ignoring ones that count millions of followers and have been significant for centuries.

 

[The Liturgist]

The problem with this idea is Sola Scriptura believers (who make up most Protestants) are 100% correct. Christianity is based on the Bible alone. Calling the Bible a loose stone and saying every other stone must be on the proverbial crown is just telling most Christians they are not Christians.

@GreekOrthodox never said that, and by the way, the Bible doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura. Nor does either the Old Testament or the New Testament contain a table of contents, which makes sense, seeing they are a collection of books written by the Holy Prophets, Kings, Historians, Priests, Sages, Apostles and Evangelists, collected by the religion of ancient Israel, Second Temple Judaism and the Christian Church. For these reasons, namely 2 Thessalonians 1:15 and the need for a canon, everyone relies, at least to some extent, on extra-Biblical traditions to supply a baseline interpretation in the form of the essential doctrines contained in the Nicene Creed and the canon of sacred scriptures which separates the authentic works of Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, from later writings and works of uncertain provenance, and more importantly, from spurious Gnostic psuedepigraphical garbage, like the Pistis Sophia and the Tripartite Tractate.

So everyone may not wear the full crown of Holy Tradition that @GreekOrthodox described, but everyone who is authentically Christian has at least some gold fittings in the form of a subset of tradition to secure the diamond of Sacred Scripture to their person.

 

[The Liturgist]

Goodness. "A temporary nature." Well, you chose to identify a few of the ones that appear the least important while conveniently ignoring ones that count millions of followers and have been significant for centuries.

Uh no, I counted that one. Yes, there’s only one (Russian Old Rite Orthodox churches and Old Believers not in communion with any canonical Patriarchate). These groups are close to reconciliation, with probably half reuniting with Moscow since the formation of the canonical Old Rite parishes, or Edinovertsy, around 1806.

 

[The Liturgist]

You must have missed that part although it was right next to the part you chose to quote.

It hasn’t happened. The Eastern Orthodox Church has very few schismatic groups, five, to be exact, and the Oriental Orthodox, who are reconciled with the EOs where it matters, are unified (we can count the Malankara Independent Syrian Church as being something other than Oriental Orthodox because its bishop is ordained by the Mar Thoma Metropolitan, who is a member of the Anglican Communion, which violates the principle of Apostolic Succession according to St. Cyprian of Carthage, which the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox follow, instead of the Augustinian model).

 

[Albion]

Uh no, I counted that one. Yes, there’s only one (Russian Old Rite Orthodox churches and Old Believers not in communion with any canonical Patriarchate).

These groups are close to reconciliation, with probably half reuniting with Moscow since the formation of the canonical Old Rite parishes, or Edinovertsy, around 1806.

The Eastern Orthodox Church has very few schismatic groups

Do you realize what you've been arguing in the past several posts? To the charge that it's nonsense to claim that Orthodoxy hasn't experienced schisms (making it therefore unique, allegedly), you've turned to apologizing FOR THE SCHISMS.

So, there were schisms or splits.

Well, maybe the schismatics were right. Or not. Either way, you've acknowledged, correctly, that Orthodoxy indeed has experienced a series of these fractures, just like every other branch of Christianity has.

 

[GodLovesCats]

Or...we might also say all of that another way--

What you get to after all the layers of wrappings are removed is the word of God.

I like this much better.

 

[The Liturgist]

Do you realize what you've been arguing in the past several posts? To the charge that it's nonsense to claim that Orthodoxy hasn't experienced schisms (making it therefore unique, allegedly), you've turned to apologizing FOR THE SCHISMS.

So, there were schisms or splits.

Well, maybe the schismatics were right. Or not. Either way, you've acknowledged, correctly, that Orthodoxy indeed has experienced a series of these fractures, just like every other branch of Christianity has.

No, not like every other branch of Christianity. There are, excluding the Malankara / Mar Thoma issue, which is more of an isolation, four schisms in Eastern Orthodoxy, and none in Oriental Orthodoxy. That these schisms exist is deeply regrettable, however, there are fourteen Continuing Anglican churches out of communion with most others, and ACNA, and the Free Church of England, among other Anglican churches not in communion with Lambeth Palace.

And that’s Anglicanism we’re talking about, an entity historically the most unified of Protestant churches, not counting the Methodists and all the schisms that resulted from that.

And by the way, if you think that the different Orthodox jurisdictions represent fragmentation, don’t, because they are direct analogues to the Provinces of the Anglican Communion, in full communion, with complete acceptance of sacraments from each other.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

St. Silouan and the Archmandrite:

This Archimandrite thought highly of the Staretz and many a time went to see him during his visits to the Holy Mountain. The Staretz asked him what sort of sermons he preached to people. The Archimandrite, who was still young and inexperienced gesticulated with his hands and swayed his whole body, and replied excitedly, ‘I tell them, Your faith is all wrong, perverted. There is nothing right, and if you don’t repent, there will be no salvation for you.’

The Staretz heard him out, then asked, ‘Tell me, Father Archimandrite, do they believe in the Lord Jesus Christ, that He is the true God?’

‘Yes, that they do believe.’

‘And do they revere the Mother of God?’

‘Yes, but they are not taught properly about her.’

‘And what of the Saints?’

‘Yes, they honour them but since they have fallen away from the Church, what saints can they have?’

‘Do they celebrate the Divine Office in their churches? Do they read the Gospels?’

‘Yes, they do have churches and services but if you were to compare their services with ours—how cold and lifeless theirs are!’

‘Father Archimandrite, people feel in their souls when they are doing the proper thing, believing in Jesus Christ, revering the Mother of God and the Saints, whom they call upon in prayer, so if you condemn their faith they will not listen to you ... But if you were to confirm that they were doing well to believe in God and honour the Mother of God and the Saints; that they are right to go to church, and say their prayers at home, read the Divine word, and so on; and then gently point out their mistakes and show them what they ought to amend, then they would listen to you, and the Lord would rejoice over them. And this way by God’s mercy we shall all find salvation ... God is love, and therefore the preaching of His word must always proceed from love. Then both preacher and listener will profit. But if you do nothing but condemn, the soul of the people will not heed you, and no good will come of it.’

May I have the humility of St. Silouan!

 

[The Liturgist]

By the way, the fundamental difference between Eastern and Western churches is that while not only are there many more schisms in the West, these schisms are recursive, in that taking the Anglican church, the Methodists separated from them, then the Holiness Movement churches separated from the Methodists, then the Pentecostal Churches separated from the Holiness Movement churches, and then these divided and multiplied, and many indirectly related churches like the Calvary Chapel adopted Charismatic practices, and Non Denominational churches organized and separated on the basis of Pentecostal ideologies, so the graph of churches looks like a tree or shattered glass or a leaf, with a recursive geometric pattern expanding outward exponentially, like the reproductive process, only in a manner unhealthy for the church, because the 25,000 or so (conservatively speaking) divisions of which four can be attributed to the Orthodox impede our evangelical unity.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The problem with this idea is Sola Scriptura believers (who make up most Protestants) are 100% correct. Christianity is based on the Bible alone. Calling the Bible a loose stone and saying every other stone must be on the proverbial crown is just telling most Christians they are not Christians.

Ah, but are the Lutherans right? Baptists? Amish? All those groups are looking at the Scriptures from different angles. And all of them argue that THEY are the true interpreters of Sola Scriptura.

For example, both Luther and Zwingli agreed at Marburg except for one point: the Lord's Supper. Luther continued to point to "This is my Body" every time Zwingli tried to deny the Lutheran view of the Real Presence. In 1527, Luther wrote of Ulrich Zwingli that he would “Rather drink pure blood with the Pope than mere wine with the fanatics” (The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ – Against the Fanatics).

 

[Albion]

Ah, but are the Lutherans right? Baptists? Amish? All those groups are looking at the Scriptures from different angles.

And all the Catholic churches--Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Old Catholic, Ethiopian, etc. etc.--look at Tradition and other doctrinal guidance systems including Scripture...and come up with different conclusions.

In other words, there's no difference when it comes to this particular issue.

And all of them argue that THEY are the true interpreters of Sola Scriptura.

As do all the churches that are classified with your own.

For example, both Luther and Zwingli agreed at Marburg except for one point: the Lord's Supper.

For example, the Roman Church believes Christ established a Papacy. Your church does not. But you both read the same books of Scripture and appeal to what you think Tradition said. Surely that's an important issue.

And by the way, you cited Luther and Zwingli as holding different views of the Lord's Supper. Well, the Roman Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox churches hold differing views concerning the nature of the sacrament as well!

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Personal Assent

There are three basic positions that can be taken with respect to personal assent: assent, denial, and indifference. For example, consider the proposition, "It will rain tomorrow." We have three basic options: assent to the proposition and assert that it is true; deny the proposition and assert that it is false; or take up a stance of indifference (or ignorance) and neither assert that it is true nor that it is false.


Ecclesial Assent

There are three basic positions that the Church takes up with respect to corporate assent, and they correlate to the above three positions. They are: dogma, heresy, and theological opinion. Dogmas require assent, heresies require denial, and theological opinions require neither assent nor denial. For example, take the proposition, "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man." We have three basic options: assent, denial, and indifference. Since this proposition is a dogma of Christianity, assent is required, denial is heresy, and indifference is not an option.

A dogma is something that is essential to Christianity, and a heresy is something that is contradictory to Christianity. The logical relation of dogma and heresy to Christianity is as follows:

1. If someone is a Christian, then they must assent to the dogmas.*
2. If someone formally assents to a heresy, then they are no longer Christian.​

*At least implicitly.


Erroneous Modern Tendencies

In modernity there have been two erroneous and common tendencies. The first is religious indifferentism. This is the view that there are no dogmas, there are no heresies, everything is a matter of theological opinion, and people can believe whatever they want while still calling themselves "Christian." The problem with this error at the most general level is that the religion becomes contentless, without form or substance. If people can believe whatever they want while still calling themselves "Christian," then the name "Christian" becomes meaningless. The more specific problem is that the Good News becomes emptied of substance.

The second erroneous modern tendency is a kind of progressive reversal. This is the view that some things which were previously dogmas are now heresies, and some things which were previously heresies are now dogmas. The problem with this error at the most general level is that it constitutes institutional self-contradiction. The more specific problem is that the Good News is undermined and anti-evangelization occurs, where "good is called evil" (Isaiah 5:20). A third problem is that Christianity becomes nothing more than a vehicle for the passing doctrines of the day (Ephesians 4:14).

In order to avoid these erroneous tendencies we must ask ourselves, first, what are our dogmas and heresies? What things are essential to the Christian faith, and what things are incompatible with the Christian faith? Second, we must ask ourselves whether the dogmas and heresies that we hold today are consistent with the dogmas and heresies that our Christian ancestors held. We must ask, ultimately, whether we are part of the same religion that Jesus Christ founded 2000 years ago.

---------------

Spoiler: A Note on Propositions

Some might claim that Christianity, or religion, should not be propositional. I think it should be and needs to be since humans are rational creatures, but that aside, the content of dogmas and heresies need not always be theoretical. Presumably the schema could also be analogously applied to actions, where some actions are required ("love thy neighbor"), some are prohibited ("thou shalt not commit adultery"), and some are indifferent. In the past there were certain grave sins that cut one off from the Church, and which required a formal period of public penance before reconciliation could occur. The two modern errors therefore apply equally to actions, and those who are more action-oriented could recast this OP in light of practical actions which are encouraged or prohibited.

I think one of the main differences between the ancient and modern traditions is how Mary is handled.

Because of the mental acrobatics required to make all the things said about Mary true (especially the things Catholics say but Orthodox don't), all the other doctrines need to be worded in an awkward fashion.

It kind of makes people wonder when it stopped being about Jesus.

Thus we have a trend of "making the gospel about Jesus again" and ignoring Mary .. so it will probably take some centuries to balance out through a new movement.

However, by then, the parallel prophetic ripples of church history and the histories of Israel and Judah will have played out .. and it won't matter.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

The problem with this idea is Sola Scriptura believers (who make up most Protestants) are 100% correct. Christianity is based on the Bible alone. Calling the Bible a loose stone and saying every other stone must be on the proverbial crown is just telling most Christians they are not Christians.

One jot or tittle will not fall from the law, is only one point of the Sermon on the Mount, the foundation of the church.

To rely solely on that concept is like having a toothpick of foundation surrounded by packed down sand.