Christian unity: Poll

In your opinion what is a good enough reason for Christians to unite into one church?

  • Everyone else needs to agree 100% with my church's theology.

    Votes: 39 50.0%
  • Jesus is the only thing that matters, theology is stupid.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • RC's EO's and OO's should lift the anathemas and let each other co-exist in communion.

    Votes: 14 17.9%
  • A compromised or an agreed upon statement of faith is all that's necessary for all Christians regard

    Votes: 4 5.1%
  • Unity?! I hope those heretics burn in Hell!

    Votes: 3 3.8%
  • Other. EXPLAIN!!!!

    Votes: 18 23.1%

  • Total voters
    78

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles. I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed. 
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
ialmisry said:
Yes, the Arians.
So when it's the Arians getting upset over the doctrinal development of the Trinity, they are heretics, but when doctrinal development doesn't suit the East, they're free to just leave and dub Rome heretical. Double standard much?

ialmisry said:
You have been reading the DaVinci code. Christ didn't become divine at Nicea I.
I never said that that was when Christ became divine. I said that was the Council where the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was defined. Are you asserting that the doctrine of the Trinity was as clear and developed before Nicea as it was after Nicea? If that's the case it begs the question: why have Ecumenical Councils at all if the faith was already given to us and everything was already sown up?

ialmisry said:
The word "Bible" isn't in the scripture either, but the canon wasn't made up when the term was coined.
That's because the Bible didn't exist as a whole whenever the Scriptures were being written. Conversely, the Holy Trinity existed before it was formally recognized by Nicea. As such, there's no excuse for it not being in the New Testament unless.....oh wait for it.............it was a doctrinal development.

ialmisry said:
Depends how you feel about heresy.
Hate the heresy love the heretic.

ialmisry said:
LOL. Your Vatican does it all the time. Pope Leo III puts the original Creed on the doors of saint Peter in Rome, banning the filioque.  Pope Leo IX of Rome sends his delegate to excommunicate the East for refusing to add the filioque. Sorry, those two positions are not compatable.
I would imagine Pope Leo III left out the filioque more because he didn't want to rock the boat with the East. Whether he actually thought it was heretical in and of itself I don't know, but I would imagine he didn't have anything against the filioque personally. He was being a diplomat.

ialmisry said:
Like gnosis?
Was Nicea a gnostic council?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles.
Not at all. Just correcting your error.
I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.
Yes, the monologue with yourself is very amusing. For starters, the first item on your list, have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
Yes, the Arians.
So when it's the Arians getting upset over the doctrinal development of the Trinity, they are heretics, but when doctrinal development doesn't suit the East, they're free to just leave and dub Rome heretical. Double standard much?
No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.

Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
You have been reading the DaVinci code. Christ didn't become divine at Nicea I.
I never said that that was when Christ became divine. I said that was the Council where the doctrine of the Holy Trinity was defined. Are you asserting that the doctrine of the Trinity was as clear and developed before Nicea as it was after Nicea? If that's the case it begs the question: why have Ecumenical Councils at all if the faith was already given to us and everything was already sown up?
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.

Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
The word "Bible" isn't in the scripture either, but the canon wasn't made up when the term was coined.
That's because the Bible didn't exist as a whole whenever the Scriptures were being written. Conversely, the Holy Trinity existed before it was formally recognized by Nicea. As such, there's no excuse for it not being in the New Testament unless.....oh wait for it.............it was a doctrinal development.
Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.

Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
Depends how you feel about heresy.
Hate the heresy love the heretic.
Then do not confirm the heretic in his heresy.

Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. Your Vatican does it all the time. Pope Leo III puts the original Creed on the doors of saint Peter in Rome, banning the filioque.  Pope Leo IX of Rome sends his delegate to excommunicate the East for refusing to add the filioque. Sorry, those two positions are not compatable.
I would imagine
imagining is where problems start.
Pope Leo III left out the filioque more because he didn't want to rock the boat with the East. Whether he actually thought it was heretical in and of itself I don't know, but I would imagine he didn't have anything against the filioque personally. He was being a diplomat.
So was cardinal umberto.

Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
Like gnosis?
Was Nicea a gnostic council?
No, but then it wasn't claiming to "develop" anything, and wasn't enunciating things never heard before.
 

Wyatt

Archon
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
2,465
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Age
32
Location
Illinois, US
ialmisry said:
No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.
It seems you reacted to the West the same way that the Arians reacted to the Church when the doctrine of the Trinity was formally defined.

ialmisry said:
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.
Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.  ;)

ialmisry said:
Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.

ialmisry said:
Then do not confirm the heretic in his heresy.
I agree, which is why I'll stay in Full Communion with the Roman Pontiff, thanks. :D

ialmisry said:
So was cardinal umberto.
You will have to elaborate because I am unfamiliar with him.

ialmisry said:
No, but then it wasn't claiming to "develop" anything, and wasn't enunciating things never heard before.
What was the purpose of the Council then if everything was already fully developed and known beforehand?
 

rakovsky

Toumarches
Joined
Aug 17, 2006
Messages
11,988
Reaction score
1
Points
38
Location
USA
Website
rakovskii.livejournal.com
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Hey Stanley.

I do think the Orthodox Church has changed its practices over the centuries, and you can find similarities between the general development of ideas. However, I think the idea of a single Pope as always infallible whenever he talks ex Cathedra so strongly contradicts basic ideas of man's fallibility, that it's pretty wrong. I think that Catholic church has made big inventions around the time of the schism and after. Orthodox church has changed or made new things, but not nearly as strongly or enough to say that it breaks with the fundamentals of Apostolic teaching.

Main problem is the blind obedience to Pope who is seen as unequal with all other apostles and infallible vicar of Christ. It's leading toward an idea of an "anti-Christ", someone seen as "Christ on earth", but who is not. Problems like original sin, purgatory, ban on contraceptives absolutely, are secondary IMO. And I think that the Catholic Church makes belief in ALL these doctrines absolutes, unlike Orthodox Church. Also, I don't think this is a reflection on Catholics, since probably 80% actually don't believe in all of these things.

Best wishes
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
No, consistent standard. We reject the Vatican's heretical doctrinal development of the Trinity, like we rejected the Arians'.
It seems you reacted to the West the same way that the Arians reacted to the Church when the doctrine of the Trinity was formally defined.
I'm sure you see it that way.

Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
I think you mean sewn up. Look at my post above, about the antibodies.
Yeah, I thought it was sewn after I posted it but wasn't sure. Good thing this is a theological discussion and not grammar class.  ;)

ialmisry said:
Op cit. Viz supra. The inability of the Vatican to see clearly on the issue is a very large part of its problem.
If you mean that the Church is a stagnant organization that has no use for the Holy Spirit because everything has already been revealed and needs no further clarification, of course the Vatican isn't going to "see" that because that notion is false.
Didn't read my post above, did you?

Now I look like my baby picture, despite I'm taller, weight more, right now have a 5 o'clock (actually more) shadow. That's development.

I also have a cross tattoo on my wrist which you will search in vain for on my baby pictures.  You call that developement but its not quite that: no matter how old I got, that tattoo wasn't going to appear until I had them apply it with the needle.

My best friend has four kidnies, from two kidney transplants. Not quite development there either.  He looks like his baby picture, though, too.

I have my doubts about those who have a "sex change," that they resemble their baby picture in specific ways, but I concede that their faces are probably the same.  You would have to get plastic surgery to change that, like Michael Jackosn.

I remember when he married Miss Presley, someone said they would believe it when she had a baby that looked like he used to look. Not like this:


But that's the problem: ya'll at the Vatican can't make a distinction between growing and radical plastic surgery, because it's all change=development.  So you appropriate it as a license to attribute the most outlandish things to the "deposit of Faith."

Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
Then do not confirm the heretic in his heresy.
I agree, which is why I'll stay in Full Communion with the Roman Pontiff, thanks. :D


Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
So was cardinal umberto.
You will have to elaborate because I am unfamiliar with him.
The envoy pope Leo IX sent to impose the filioque on the One, Holy,Catholic and Apostolic Church in the East.

Wyatt said:
ialmisry said:
No, but then it wasn't claiming to "develop" anything, and wasn't enunciating things never heard before.
What was the purpose of the Council then if everything was already fully developed and known beforehand?
http://www.orthodoxchristianity.net/forum/index.php/topic,20719.msg453992/topicseen.html#msg453992
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles.
Not at all. Just correcting your error.
I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.
Yes, the monologue with yourself is very amusing. For starters, the first item on your list, have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Yes. I agree it is a monologue, because you are not responding to the observation that your assumptions are untenable.
 

stanley123

Protokentarchos
Joined
Nov 23, 2007
Messages
3,814
Reaction score
0
Points
0
rakovsky said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Hey Stanley.

I do think the Orthodox Church has changed its practices over the centuries, and you can find similarities between the general development of ideas. However, I think the idea of a single Pope as always infallible whenever he talks ex Cathedra so strongly contradicts basic ideas of man's fallibility, that it's pretty wrong. I think that Catholic church has made big inventions around the time of the schism and after. Orthodox church has changed or made new things, but not nearly as strongly or enough to say that it breaks with the fundamentals of Apostolic teaching.

Main problem is the blind obedience to Pope who is seen as unequal with all other apostles and infallible vicar of Christ. It's leading toward an idea of an "anti-Christ", someone seen as "Christ on earth", but who is not. Problems like original sin, purgatory, ban on contraceptives absolutely, are secondary IMO. And I think that the Catholic Church makes belief in ALL these doctrines absolutes, unlike Orthodox Church. Also, I don't think this is a reflection on Catholics, since probably 80% actually don't believe in all of these things.

Best wishes
I can see this argument, as I have already said before, and yes, it has to be discussed and looked at very seriously,  but it is not the point that I was addressing. The point concerns the objection to the teaching on Purgatory on the basis that it was not explicitly mentioned in the Bible, or that it was not explicitly taught by the Apostles. I would not go with such an argument, since I see developments in Orthodox teaching also.
 

LBK

Toumarches
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
13,641
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Dear Papist

You wrote:

BTW, do the second century Fathers ever mention that icons are windows into heaven?
St Dionysius the Areopagite, baptised into the faith by Apostle Paul in the first century AD, is frequently quoted by St John of Damascus in his treatise On the Divine Images. Here are some of St Dionysius' writings which St John uses as references, which clearly proclaim icons as windows into heaven:

Instead of attaching the common conception to images, we should look upon what they symbolise, and not despise the divine mark and character which they portray, as sensible images of mysterious and heavenly visions.

Sensible images do indeed show forth invisible things.

And, yes, I am quite aware of the attribution by modern scholars of the above to a "pseudo-Dionysius". The point is, that nothing of what St John used as references (and he quoted many other early Fathers, such as Sts John Chrysostom, Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, and others) are contradictory to Orthodox doctrine, theology or thought. Let's not forget that St John of Damascus is, in effect, a patron saint of Orthodox hymnography and iconography. Also, let's not forget that iconography, even in its most primitive form, has existed from the earliest days of Christianity. A surprising amount of catacomb "art" survives to this day.


 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,114
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
41
LBK said:
And, yes, I am quite aware of the attribution by modern scholars of the above to a "pseudo-Dionysius".
Just wanted to point out that the debate concerning the writings attributed to Dionysius goes back at least 1100 years...
 

John Larocque

High Elder
Joined
Jul 27, 2009
Messages
529
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Is there a consensus that St. Dionysius (New Testament personality) was really the author of the Aeropagite corpus? I'm not denigrating the writings (Fr. Meyendorff wasn't that fond of them or "neo-Platonism" in general), it's more a question of authorship.

Edit: never mind, I just scanned some aditional sentences. It's an old debate.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
stanley123 said:
ialmisry said:
No, it's wrong because God (who alone knows) revealed no such thing, and the Apostles (upon whom we must depend for our information) taught no such thing.
Is your claim then that there is nothing which the Orthodox Church teaches, except that which is directly revealed in Scripture? This seems to me like it is a serious error.
Who claimed that?
I thought it was asserted that the belief in Purgatory was wrong because God  revealed no such thing, and the Apostles  taught no such thing.
Wouldn't this then imply that according to your belief, one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles?
Of course.
Where was it revealed that a bishop should not marry, but priests may marry?
Have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Where was it revealed that you should use either the Julian calendar or the revised Julian calendar, but not the Gregorian calendar?
Where was it revealed that you are allowed to divorce twice, but not three times?
Where was it revealed that you should not have organ music in Church services?
Where was it revealed that artificial birth control was wrong before 1960, but that after 1960 the teaching was loosened somewhat?
Also, did the Apostles specifically write down and teach that Mary had one and only one child, or was this something that was clarified a little later?
Where was it revealed that baptism by pouring on the forehead is wrong?
Also it was revealed that women should cover their heads in Church, and yet I see in the Orthodox churches in the USA, that this teaching has developed to the extent that very few women do so.
Straining gnats so we can swallow camels, are we?

You still seem to be accusing me of sola scriptura, when I haven't (nor do I) appealed to sola scriptura.
I see you are backtracking on this idea that one should not believe anything which was not either revealed by God or was not taught by the Apostles.
Not at all. Just correcting your error.
I gave a list of several examples, where this is not strictly followed.
Yes, the monologue with yourself is very amusing. For starters, the first item on your list, have you read the Epistles of St. Paul?
Yes. I agree it is a monologue, because you are not responding to the observation that your assumptions are untenable.
I observed a lot of assertions to that, but, with the failure demonstrated to distinguish normal growth from radical plastic surgery or even the attachment of an extra head, there really isn't anything to respond to the assertion of developement as giving license to change, any change.
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Asteriktos said:
LBK said:
And, yes, I am quite aware of the attribution by modern scholars of the above to a "pseudo-Dionysius".
Just wanted to point out that the debate concerning the writings attributed to Dionysius goes back at least 1100 years...
LOL. Which means its attribution to St. Dionysius is older, and the writings older still.  Btw, the debate goes back further: the authorship was debated by Severus before Justinian I in 532. They can't be much older, at least as a corpus, as he refers to the recitation of the Creed in the DL, something not introduced until 475 by Patriarch Peter (the OO: note well, EO opposed to OO and their ways).
http://books.google.com/books?id=Es8IUlpYMGAC&pg=PA85&dq=Peter+the+fuller+Creed+liturgy&hl=en&ei=R78_TOi7CMGCnQeX37jOBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Peter%20the%20fuller%20Creed%20liturgy&f=false
Our Vatican friends, no doubt, will now rejoice that the IC, filioque, papal infallibility and supremacy and all the rest of its innovations have now been vindicated. ::)
 

Asteriktos

Hypatos
Joined
Oct 4, 2002
Messages
39,114
Reaction score
34
Points
48
Age
41
ialmisry said:
LOL. Which means its attribution to St. Dionysius is older, and the writings older still.  Btw, the debate goes back further...
Ok... were you under the impression that I thought differently?  :)
 

ialmisry

Strategos
Joined
Aug 17, 2007
Messages
41,794
Reaction score
0
Points
36
Location
Chicago
Asteriktos said:
ialmisry said:
LOL. Which means its attribution to St. Dionysius is older, and the writings older still.  Btw, the debate goes back further...
Ok... were you under the impression that I thought differently?  :)
Just making sure.
 
Top