RE: A Little Clarification is DEFINATELY Needed

[InquisitorKind]

The fruits of "no IDD" begin to bear themselves.

An OP in the OBOB forum contained the following:

Somewhere, sometime you may see someone use the following quote as an argument against the Catholic position and claim of doctrinal unity.

http://www.christianforums.com/t91654

In case the reader can't utilize the abundance of clues to identify who the "someone" is, I used the quote here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t90788&page=1

It wasn't raised against the claim of Catholic unity today. It was raised against the historical claim that the Church was unified until Protestantism arrived on the scene. This isn't the only confusion that makes Carly's response nonsensical:

Basil was writing during the period in which Arianism was wildly popular. I don't know if this particular passage refers specifically to Arianism, but for the sake of illustrative purposes, I am going to expound a bit on Arianism. For those who do not know, Arianism was a heresy named for its founder Arius, a Libyan priest. Arianism falsely asserted that Jesus could not have been fully God since there was only one eternal God (the Father). Arianism denied the Trinity.

If your answer is based on speculation--whether or not it refers to Arianism--how probable is your response? Even if the passage was referring to Arianism, how does that counter my argument against the claim that the body of Christ was united until Protestantism? Here is what Basil says again about division within the "Church of God" during this time:

while in the Church of God alone, for
which Christ died and upon which He poured out in
abundance the Holy Spirit, I noticed that many disagree
violently with one another

The point is, Church leaders can, do, and have disagreed over points of doctrine. In the past, some such disagreements were over heresies so large they denied the truth of the Trinity. Were it not for the authoritative voice of the Pope, it is possible that the Truth of the Trinity could have disappeared from Christian doctrine. Church leaders may in fact disagree- THAT is why we have a Pope.

What you've asserted here doesn't address what I've posted in a way that demonstrates an understanding of my position. If church leaders can differ with one another, are you arguing that the church wasn't unified at sometime before the Reformation? If that's your position, what are you objecting to?

~Matt

 

[Lotar]

All you have to do is read a little history and you will see that the so called unity did not exist. There were debates, breaking of communions, and excommunications all over the place.

 

[JVAC]

Yeah, the biggest ones;

451 the Chalcedonian Schism
1054 The filioque Schism
1521 The Reformation Schism

Not to mention all of the smaller ones. Got to get myself to a Church, see ya.

 

[Greeter]

I am familiar with the 1054 and 1521 Schisms but am clueless on 451. What is that all about?

 

[Lotar]

That's when they excommunicated the Church of Alexandria, which is called the Coptic church today.

 

[OrthodoxTexan]

I am familiar with the 1054 and 1521 Schisms but am clueless on 451. What is that all about?

Eutychianism/Monophysitism and Nestorianism provoked the anathemas at Chalcedon. These were heresies that misrepresented the person and nature of Christ. The Eutychians taught that Christ had only one nature, as his Divine nature "swallowed up" His human nature. The Nestorians taught, and it can be debated whether Nestorius actually supported the Christology that bares his name, that Christ's body possessed two persons, one that possessed the human nature and the other the human nature. Nestorianism and Monophysitism are opposed to the Orthodox view reaffirmed at Chalcedon. That view is that Christ unites two natures, fully divine and fully human, "without confusion, without change, without division, and without separation" in one person.

As we understand it now, the separation of the Oriental Orthodox (Copts, Ethiopians, Armenians, etc) from the rest of the Church was due more to confusion caused by the explanation of complex Christological terms in different languages, than it was due to any real theological differences. With continuing dialogue, the Oriental Orthodox have affirmed a rejection of the heresy of Eutyches and Nestorius, and there are great strides being made in reunification of the Eastern Orthodox churches and the Oriental Orthodox churches. It is a witness to the dedication of the EO and the OO to maintaining the Faith entrusted to them that even after 1500 years of separation over this one issue, the balance of their Faith is unchanged and completely compatible, and reunification is imminent.

 

[InquisitorKind]

It doesn't really matter because Arianism isn't my point. My point was merely to show that within the Church, there have always been disagreements about doctrine and other matters, and that Catholics do not debate this.

http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=1714592#post1714592

You might not debate it with fellow Catholics, but often the claim is made, against Protestants by Roman Catholics, that the dawn of Protestantism was also the dawn of division within Christianity. As I have clearly expressed, that is what I was responding to. Your post is still "nonsensical."

~Matt

 

[racer]

Yeah, the biggest ones;

451 the Chalcedonian Schism
1054 The filioque Schism
1521 The Reformation Schism

Not to mention all of the smaller ones. Got to get myself to a Church, see ya.

I'm a little slow this morning and may be wrong, but I don't think one of those are the schism from which the Old Catholic Church split from the Catholic Church. The reason for that split? The Infallible declaration of "Papal Infallibility."

 

[Lotar]

There were two splits, one over papal infallibility, and one over Vatican II.