Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: Forest Keeper; Kolokotronis; xzins; blue-duncan; kosta50; Blogger; bornacatholic; jo kus; ...
My advice came in response to 7,198:
Perhaps WAY back in the day, the context would have better understood by the average layman. I'm just saying that today, I don't think it is.

Are you now saying that the printing press made the understanding of the Councils more difficult?

the distribution of the Bible has far surpassed the Apostolic Church's ability to personally explain it

One evident result was growth in Protestant denominations. As you yourself admit, there has been no corresponding growth in understanding.

7,556 posted on 01/26/2007 3:08:08 PM PST by annalex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7553 | View Replies ]


To: annalex; Forest Keeper
...growth in understanding....

The issue is not "growth of understanding." It is communication through the words used.

"Mary mother of Jesus the Christ" is simply more clear than is "Mary mother of God."

Anytime one speaks clearly, then understanding is enhanced. "Mary mother of Jesus the Christ" would have been more understandable then, too.

7,586 posted on 01/26/2007 5:23:00 PM PST by xzins (Retired Army Chaplain and proud of it! Supporting our troops means praying for them to WIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7556 | View Replies ]

To: annalex; Kolokotronis; xzins; blue-duncan; kosta50; Blogger; bornacatholic; jo kus; FormerLib
Are you now saying that the printing press made the understanding of the Councils more difficult?

The printing press obviously led to more people knowing what exactly was in the Bible. So, to any extent the Councils were inconsistent with what was in the Bible, a greater number of people had difficulty. The historical "trust us" of the Church began to weaken.

But what I was really getting at is word and phrase usage over time. Apparently, there was a time in the Church when "Mother of Christ" only referred to Nestorianism and heresy. Given the normal use of those words today, that conclusion is counter intuitive. It wouldn't occur to anyone outside the Apostolic Church to take offense at that title today, as no one would use it in the Nestorian sense. At least I think that's safe to say in America.

FK: "... the distribution of the Bible has far surpassed the Apostolic Church's ability to personally explain it."

One evident result was growth in Protestant denominations. As you yourself admit, there has been no corresponding growth in understanding.

Actually, I would say there has been a huge growth in understanding. I don't think it's any accident that the Reformation happened soon after the advent of the printing press. Whenever the Bible is allowed to speak for itself, there is greater understanding. I thank God for the gift of the invention.

8,102 posted on 01/30/2007 11:30:31 AM PST by Forest Keeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7556 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson