Posted on 02/01/2007 5:52:17 PM PST by AlbionGirl
These were all genuine heresies because they did not focus on a truth, somewhat out of proportion, but invented or denied fundamental doctrines and then asserted their inventions to be the true doctrine of the Church. They did not plan on going off on their own; they wanted to impose their doctrine throughout the Church, and in a couple of cases, they very nearly did so.
Classical Protestants, on the other hand, are a little more pragmatic, if one may say that, often rejecting something that was perhaps an overemphasis in the first place and rejecting practices or structural things. And, of course, they separate themselves and set off on their own, which, paradoxically, is why it is easier to reconcile them with the fullness of the Faith when they decide to come back.
The danger, of course, is that once Protestants are "launched" on their own little splinters, even the splinters splinter, and in some cases, they are left with a fragment that is no longer even recognizable as the truth. Non-Trinitarian Protestants and those groups that that have devolved into vague deist sects would be an example of this. And then there is also the risk of the development of personal "revelations" based on their fragment of the truth, such as Joseph Smith's "revelations" that led to the founding of the Mormons, a group that I think is trying to work its way back to orthodox Christianity but certainly was initially very far from it.
I don't see how the "every man his own church" system has anything in common with the Orthodox understanding of the Church, btw!
As it well should...There are folks on both sides who look at it as one big disgruntled family...And in the case of many Protestant groups, that may be correct...
But as in the case of Southern Baptists for example, the gulf is too wide...Your side and their side teach and believe in different roads to salvation...And they are NOT both correct or acceptable...One side is going to be sorely disappointed at the Judgement...
I've been called a heretic by Catholics...And after researching both sides, I'll wear that 'heretic' moniker proudly...
I hope so.
It's actually best for all concerned if we are considered heretics.
LOLOL! And, you're probably right.
I agree from the other side of the fence. And we don't have too many nice words talking about your side either: ;-) From our side, those of the more more-spoken people classify you as "Aberrational, Heretical, Heterodox, Suborthodox or Unorthodox" which is the same classifications the Roman Catholics get.
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/o06.html
http://www.namb.net/evangelism/iev/PDF/BB_E_Orthodox_Manual.pdf
Some of the more extreme words from our camp would be along these lines:
http://www.wayoflife.org/fbns/eastern.htm
"...From these quotes it is obvious that the Orthodox Church is entirely apostate. It holds the same basic set of false beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church from which it broke away in the ninth century."
Just a different perspective from "our side". ;-)
""...From these quotes it is obvious that the Orthodox Church is entirely apostate. It holds the same basic set of false beliefs as the Roman Catholic Church from which it broke away in the ninth century."
Just a different perspective from "our side". ;-)"
Well, its good to see that these folks have the courage of their convictions, I suppose. I do note that they don't speak of "heresy", however. I suppose that makes sense since the author has no established and widely agreed upon body of doctrine from which one could measure whether what The Church teaches is "heresy" or not. :)
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.