Livindesert
Well-Known Member
In short we all are our own "Pope" as we pick and choose who to follow and who to believe. Some of us even blaze our own path.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
In short we all are our own "Pope" as we pick and choose who to follow and who to believe. Some of us even blaze our own path.
Well. with the exception of the Oriental Orthodox, they all accept 7 Councils. They don't pick and choose which dogmas they accept (not sure what you meant by that, so I may have misunderstood you).To be fair so dose the early church. They pick and choose which councils they want to follow. They do not take the church fathers letters in whole but only accept bits and pieces of thier dogmas. Bascially early Christianity was mixed up and what got pulled out of the hat became the apostolic church.
Well. with the exception of the Oriental Orthodox, they all accept 7 Councils. They don't pick and choose which dogmas they accept (not sure what you meant by that, so I may have misunderstood you).
There is no real sign the early Church was 'mixed up'. There were fierce fights when orthodoxy was threatened; that would not have been so had there been a pick 'nmix attitude, would it?
peace,
Anglian
Well, that is certainly one way of looking at it. But all the Churches bar the OO accept the 7, and the OO do not receive Chalcedon and weren't invited to the others and so regard them as local councils.The Catholics did not stop at seven councils. The Oriental Orthodox stopped really early.Plus there was no clear church teachings like the trinity and even Jesus divinity was not set in stone up until the councils. Accounts about Joseph's age and his possible children differ between churches.
Do you think so, given our fallen nature? Is it not rather that there were many things the early Church took for granted all believed and that it was only when someone said: 'I think this passage means x, and I am as entitled to my view as you are' that the Church started to have to define some of the things it thought everyone agreed on?If there had been one consistent teaching there would have been no need for councils and schisms but there was not. Church dogma grew over time and in the view of some in this process it became corrupted.
-snip-
There is no evidence of corruption on doctrine and dogma. We are sinners and we err; but dogma and doctrine are protected by the Creeds.
peace,
Anglian
I disagree. The more I learn the more mixed up I see the history of the church. I wish I had your faith and family connection to a old church. But I do not and I have to treat church history as I would treat Islamic or Buddhist history. In the end I make my own decision who or what God is no matter how many creeds I read I make the decision in the end.
When will the OO and EO rejoin the ongoing dogma/doctrine protected by the creeds?
Or did that protected dogma stop about 451 and they (EO, RC, P) need to get back on board?
No corruption? Let's see, corruption stopped at 451 or those apart from further revelation are corrupted?
Hello Standing Up,
Can you please clarify your first question and second how is your first question relevant to the topic?
On your second question, as far as I know, the EOC and OOC dogma on Mary is generally the same. With the RCC there are differences. Unfortunately, there isn't a dogma or Creed that all of Protestantism agree's to. So it is very difficult to put Protestantism in the same "group" as the EOC, RCC or OOC in the context of the Theotokos.
On your third question can you please be a little more specific.
Thank you.
When will the OO and EO rejoin the ongoing dogma/doctrine protected by the creeds?
Or did that protected dogma stop about 451 and they (EO, RC, P) need to get back on board?
No corruption? Let's see, corruption stopped at 451 or those apart from further revelation are corrupted?
I must have missed the Creed where this is stated.Someone said, " There is no evidence of corruption on doctrine and dogma. We are sinners and we err; but dogma and doctrine are protected by the Creeds. "
Which doctrines are protected? RC will say, EO and OO are not protecting the doctrines. You folks split off too early; you missed the proteced one about Papal Infallibility and Mary's assumption.
Not at all. At meetings between our theologians it has long ago been decided that we were saying the same things in different ways in different languages. To appreciate the theological differences you need a PhD in ancient theology; to experience the differences caused by 1600 years of separation, you need only to be human. No one has ever healed a breach lasting that long; it will not happen in a few decades. That does not mean there are substantive differences between EO and OO.OO will say, you guys ran off away from the protected doctrines; they stopped c451. Nestorianism or whatever it was.
I am not aware of any Creed established after that date. I am aware of dogma decared - the two are not the same.EO will say, neither of you are right. OO split off before the creeds were finally established; and RC ran off into something else.
This might be difficult to understand from your pov. We are not Protestants, we don;t just decide on our own inspiration, that we are right and our Church wrong and then go choose a new one. We are where God placed us and we work for closer contact and unity. We have not received the notion of the developing understanding of doctrine, but discussions with our separated brothers and sisters helps us to understand how there is nothing in the Marian dogma with which we need disagree. Since we hold a different perspective on what constitutes Original Sin, we express the Immaculate conception in different ways.The point is that to say something about the Creeds from councils keeping doctrine from corruption is meaningless. If not, then why aren't you EO or RCC? Or are they corrupted since they carried on?
I would suggest this is what is meaningless - rhetoric designed to express one's own superior vantage point/irritation.Oh, no; they didn't invite us, wah. It's been 1600 years. Give us a break.
Meaningless.
But what I do know is apostolics say one thing and canon says another. I realize now that apostolics do not care what canon says on its own but only care how it fits into thier oral traditions. Which vary from apostolic church to church.
By taking what is being taught and practiced to the cannon of scripture. For we know that the scripture is breathed of God.What test do you use? Explain how you go about this.
John
By taking what is taught and practiced to the full context of the scriptures..Except this ignores the question of how we know what is written is their word. There is only the evidence offered by the tradition of the Church. Believe that for the Bible and there is then no reason not to believe the Church on all the rest of tradition.
Evidence is in the Holy Spirit. For the annointing in us teaches us this. We follow the teaching of the Apostles that we have recorded and the Holy Spirit bears witness to what has been inspired by Him..
Read St. John's epistles and see what he thought of those who claimed to be able to interpret the Gospel according to their own light.
You will have to expound more on this for me to know what you are speaking of here.. The entrance of Gods word brings light. For His word is a light unto my path.
As far back as when the Church gives us the Bible - if we didn't, you would have nothing at all. That Church practised intercessory prayer and Marian veneration and saw no contradiction - it it you and the man maede late tradition which sees a problem where no one else ever has.
So then why do you call it the early church? For the early Church is from the point of the Gospel. This is where I have my teaching from is the written cannon of the earliest of the church. I sometimes wonder if this Marian veneration did not come from the greeks way of doing things since we see no mention of it in the written scriptures.
Which ignores the point - which was how do you know these are the Gospels - St. Paul never mentions them in his letters. You know because the early Church tells you; it also tells you that Marian veneration is fine; you selectively choose which bits of tradition you use.
The scriptures were not written by the ones who put the cannon together. So therefore I follow the teachings of the Apostles that are recorded..
As John asked, how do you 'test' the spirit?
peace,
Anglian
There isn't, it is nothing to do with the Creeds. It is a practice of the same Church which canonised Scripture. If it was good enough for St. Cyril it is good enough for me. All these new-fangled ideas ..." There is no evidence of corruption on doctrine and dogma. We are sinners and we err; but dogma and doctrine are protected by the Creeds.
peace,
Anglian "
Where is the creed about venerating Mary, praying to the deceased, etc?
The teachings of the Apostles were not only recorded in writing in the Bible, they were recorded in the liturgies of the Church, the writings of the Fathers and the Creeds - you receive only a part of what was taught because you do not receive as the Apostles did.Evidence is in the Holy Spirit. For the annointing in us teaches us this. We follow the teaching of the Apostles that we have recorded and the Holy Spirit bears witness to what has been inspired by Him..
Because the Apostles did not have all the Gospels and the epistles, indeed none of the first Christians did. It was not until the fourth century that this was possible. It was the Church which collected the books - the same Church which practised Marian veneration. It is illogical to suppose that the Church which was inspired to know the Gospels was not also inspired to practice Marian veneration. In Christ there is neither Jew nor Gentile, so whether it came from the Greeks, the Jews or someone else, it was the Christian practice then, as it still is for most of us now. You are in a minority following a man-made tradition unknown in the Christian world before the sixteenth century. So, to tell the rest of us we are somehow wrong takes a good deal of chutzpah.So then why do you call it the early church? For the early Church is from the point of the Gospel. This is where I have my teaching from is the written cannon of the earliest of the church. I sometimes wonder if this Marian veneration did not come from the greeks way of doing things since we see no mention of it in the written scriptures.
Indeed, but the ones who put them together were inspired to know the genuine books from the fake. How can you think they were not equally inspired about Marian veneration? Where, in Scripture, is it written that everything we do is in written Scripture?The scriptures were not written by the ones who put the cannon together. So therefore I follow the teachings of the Apostles that are recorded..
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?