Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: DungeonMaster; bornacatholic; Blogger; kosta50
The RCC is not The Church.

No objection from us Orthodox on that assertion. The problem is, on all the contentious issues on this thread (until bornacatholic had the bad grace to start invoking the Latin understanding of St. Peter's confession and related matters), any understanding of the Church held by Christians prior to the 1500's, East or West (unless you're going to invoke the Assyrians on behalf of Blogger's Nestorianism), speaks against the protestant positions expressed here.

kosta50, a bit up thread, gave a nice description of the praxis of the Fathers, who fixed the canon of Scripture (in an ironic tone in a post of 'if you want to believe. . .that's fine' negations of the actual description). East or West doesn't matter, and you can read the Ante-Nicean Fathers to see that the same praxis was part of the Church's life prior to, and during the persecutions--it was not, as some falsely claim, 'pagan' innovations introduced by St. Constantine when first tolerance, then Imperial favor, was extended to the Church.

4,872 posted on 01/10/2007 9:18:29 AM PST by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4867 | View Replies ]


To: The_Reader_David

FTR, Blogger is NOT Nestorian. However, man's attempts at explaining what God did not reveal in Scripture should not be taken as means to declare one a heretic. The trinity can be found in Scripture. The deity of Christ can be found in Scripture. Exactly HOW, the precise steps of what occurred in the incarnation can not.

Blogger is no more Nestorian than the Catholic church is which also refers to Mary as Mother of Christ.


4,883 posted on 01/10/2007 9:52:48 AM PST by Blogger (In nullo gloriandum quando nostrum nihil sit- Cyprian)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4872 | View Replies ]

To: The_Reader_David
No objection from us Orthodox on that assertion. The problem is, on all the contentious issues on this thread (until bornacatholic had the bad grace to start invoking the Latin understanding of St. Peter's confession and related matters), any understanding of the Church held by Christians prior to the 1500's, East or West (unless you're going to invoke the Assyrians on behalf of Blogger's Nestorianism), speaks against the protestant positions expressed here.

Fundies like myself are particularly disinterested in the history of Christian beliefs. We are always left frustrated because to us the pertinent discussion is what the bible says right here and now. There is no real reason to even believe what we hear that such and such group believed in such and such century. If it's not biblical history it's not reliable history. Catholics are so quick to drop names and say who believed what, when. I only wish they were as familiar with the actual bible.

So what we hear is name dropping rather than scripture dropping. Obviously two very different beliefs as to what is of value and what is worthy of our study time.

4,885 posted on 01/10/2007 9:58:47 AM PST by DungeonMaster (Acts 17:11 also known as sola scriptura.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4872 | View Replies ]

To: The_Reader_David
. The problem is, on all the contentious issues on this thread (until bornacatholic had the bad grace to start invoking the Latin understanding of St. Peter's confession and related matters),..

*Brother, David, sometimes I just can't help myself :)

Don't worry, Lent is not that far off... I can repent in leisure :)

4,903 posted on 01/10/2007 11:50:04 AM PST by bornacatholic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4872 | 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