You mean these type of robes?
My grandmother had one much like the one on viewer's the left.
Posted on 01/01/2006 4:48:03 PM PST by HarleyD
Wonderful, Dr. E!
You mean these type of robes?
My grandmother had one much like the one on viewer's the left.
Of course there were reasons for the Reform movement beyond theology. The new era owes its existence to a confluence of three factors, the Black Death epidemic of the 15 century, absolute monarchies replacing feudalism and the Reformation. Both Calvin and Luther were able to form stable comminities of faith that persist to this day, despite the theological weaknesses. This points to the historical necessity of the Reformation, albeit not a theological necessity.
Thank you.
Pelagian heresy was condemned circa 5 century by the Church.
Christ had people thrown in hell for an improper dress, remember?
I was originally going to post something by C.S. Lewis that I wanted all of you to read, which touches on this thread and God's Governance of the world (from A Grief Observed), but then thought I would do it in a separate post later on, and forgot to delete your names from the queue. Sorry!
LOL. The Shadow knows...
No worries, I always enjoy reading your posts.
This is what this thread is about, is it not? No, the Church does not teach Pelagianism, and it sees the error of Luther and Calvin even as it condemns Pelagius. What we have in the Reformation is a crude caricature of Augistinian soteriology, far removed from the Gospel, but that packs tremendous attraction to the middle class bourgeois.
Face it annie, the RC wallows in Pelagianism. The faith of the proud.
It's Alex to you. What is "RC"?
OK. Kolo was kind enough to ping me to another thread whose source article discusses the relationship between scripture and tradition in the Orthodox Church. Would you agree with the following passage from The catholicity of the Church by Archpriest George Florovsky?: (for some reason, for me the link only goes to the bottom of the article, but it is only one page. Sorry.)
"It is quite false to limit the "sources of teaching" to Scripture and tradition, and to separate tradition from Scripture as only an oral testimony or teaching of the Apostles. In the first place, both Scripture and tradition were given only within the Church. Only in the Church have they been received in the fulness of their sacred value and meaning. In them is contained the truth of Divine Revelation, a truth which lives in the Church. This experience of the Church has not been exhausted either in Scripture or in tradition; it is only reflected in them. Therefore, only within the Church does Scripture live and become vivified, only within the Church is it revealed as a whole and not broken up into separate texts, commandments, and aphorisms. This means that Scripture has been given in tradition, but not in the sense that it can be understood only according to the dictates of tradition, or that it is the written record of historical tradition or oral teaching. Scripture needs to be explained. It is revealed in theology. This is possible only through the medium of the living experience of the Church."
1. Sure, whatever.
2. You
By the way, G, I really like your tagline.
We cannot assert that Scripture is self-sufficient; and this not because it is incomplete, or inexact, or has any defects, but because Scripture in its very essence does not lay claim to self-sufficiency. We can say that Scripture is a God-inspired scheme or image (eikón) of truth, but not truth itself. Strange to say, we often limit the freedom of the Church as a whole, for the sake of furthering the freedom of individual Christians. In the name of individual freedom the Catholic, ecumenical freedom of the Church is denied and limited. The liberty of the Church is shackled by an abstract biblical standard for the sake of setting free individual consciousness from the spiritual demands enforced by the experience of the Church. This is a denial of catholicity, a destruction of catholic consciousness; this is the sin of the Reformation. Dean Inge neatly says of the Reformers: "their creed has been described as a return to the Gospel in the spirit of the Koran" (Very Rev. W. R. Igne, The Platonic Tradition in English Religious Thought, 1926, p. 27). If we declare Scripture to be self-sufficient, we only expose it to subjective, arbitrary interpretation, thus cutting it away from its sacred source. Scripture is given to us in tradition. It is the vital, crystallizing centre. The Church, as the Body of Christ, stands mystically first and is fuller than Scripture. This does not limit Scripture, or cast shadows on it. But truth is revealed to us not only historically. Christ appeared and still appears before us not only in the Scriptures; He unchangeably and unceasingly reveals Himself in the Church, in His own Body. In the times of the early Christians the Gospels were not yet written and could not be the sole source of knowledge. The Church acted according to the spirit of the Gospel, and, what is more, the Gospel came to life in the Church, in the Holy Eucharist. In the Christ of the Eucharist Christians learned to know the Christ of the Gospels, and so His image became vivid to them.
This is the link that goes to top: The catholicity of the Church
Gifts of healing, discerning of spirits and miracles are all gifts sovereignly given to members of the church as the Holy Spirit decides, not by the laying on of hands.(1 Cor.12:9,10,28,29. The members themselves are in control of the use of the gifts ("And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets" 1 Cor. 14:32). That being the case how can anyone pass on grace by the laying on of hands when it has already been given to the individual by the Holy Spirit?
"Scripture needs to be explained. It is revealed in theology. This is possible only through the medium of the living experience of the Church."
I doubt, FK, you'll find any disagreement with this comment from Alex. Committed Latin Rite Christians, in much the same way as committed Orthodox Christians, live a life which is completely transformed by the cycle of liturgies, devotions and services of The Church. Indeed, as a liturgical people we progress in theosis within the Eucharistic Community which is defined by +Ignatius of Antioch as the bishop surrounded by his clergy, monastics and laity centered on the Eucharist, in other words, the catholic Church. Everything we are, in an almost genetic sense, is determined and defined by that status. Because of this, we are only in the world, not of it, and consequently our connection and familiarity with the communion of saints in heaven on the one hand and the demons who infect this creation on the other, is very real. In fact it is more than merely real, it is THE reality of our existence here. We are of the Body of Christ. No matter the differences in phronemai between the East and the West, it is precisely this common existence which allows the visible Church to be the sole authoritative arbiter of what is scripture and what it means.
Where does Christ say crimson and gold robes are "proper" attire for anyone?
"And when thou art spoiled, what wilt thou do? Though thou clothest thyself with crimson, though thou deckest thee with ornaments of gold, though thou rentest thy face with painting, in vain shalt thou make thyself fair; thy lovers will despise thee, they will seek thy life." -- Jeremiah 4:30
The new thread can be linked to this one for history and this one can be locked and linked to it.
And thanks to all of you for carrying on a respectful dialogue. This is a very informative discussion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.