You have not answered my previous post in which I gave the example of the development and the declaration of the Trinitarian formulation which departed from earlier beliefs of the Church which were largely subordinationist. If the Trinity is valid, then why not this?Certainly the Trinity can be wholly found in scripture and was. The Marian nonesense is totally absent from the original church writings for HUDNREDS OF YEARS.
You don't find this to be monumental?
The Gospel was given once and for all to the saints in the 1st century. The Roman church commands belief in "doctrines" unheard of by Christians for centuries and with the penalty of loss of salvation!
The Roman church has abandoned the Vincentian prescription of "hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,'"
The Roman church even binds mens souls to any future novelties it might see fit to proclaim! The Roman Canon of revelation is still open!
Subordinationist writings completely dominate Scripture in the NT and Trinitarian prose is largely absent. Look at the Synoptic Gospels and Paul's writings, especially.
One of the reasons for Nicea was to button down the Trinitarian formula. A consequence was that Origen's writings were declared heretical by the Council and he was turfed out in disgrace. And he was one of the great Doctors of the Church.
The Marian nonesense is totally absent from the original church writings for HUDNREDS OF YEARS.
When was the Protoevangelium of James written? Hint: not hundreds of years later. The first prayer that we have a parchment of is the Sub Tuum Praesidium from 250 AD or earlier. The term Theotokos was in widespread use not only in Egypt, but around the Christian world.
You don't find this to be monumental?
Indeed I do.
The Gospel was given once and for all to the saints in the 1st century. The Roman church commands belief in "doctrines" unheard of by Christians for centuries and with the penalty of loss of salvation!
The "Roman church" whatever it is invented nothing about Mary. It appears to have developed or at least been in common use in the Egyptian area and spread to the other areas. During the fourth century, the term was already quite popular in the area of Alexandria (St. Alexander of Alexandria, St. Athanasius, St. Serapion of Thmuis, Didymus the Blind), and also in Arabia (Tite of Bostra), in Palestine (Eusebius of Caesarea, St. Cyril of Jerusalem), Cappadocia (St. Basil of Caesarea, Gregory Nazianzen, Severian of Gabala) and even among the Arians (Asterius the Sophist) (from http://www.newliturgicalmovement.org/2011/02/sub-tuum-praesidium.html)
The Roman church has abandoned the Vincentian prescription of "hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,'"
This little diatribe does not do your post well. The only Latin theologian of note listed above is St. Athenasius.
The Roman church even binds mens souls to any future novelties it might see fit to proclaim! The Roman Canon of revelation is still open!
More diatribe? At what point do you want to nail things down? 100 AD? If so, you don't have the Trinity. And you have Hermas and Barnabas in your Scripture. You don't have Jude or 2 Peter. You have subordinationist preaching and a wholesale jettisoning of the OT. Sure you want to go there?