Some of us are wondering what will be done with a critter who dons ecumenical garb, while tempting a thread war (hidden behind a ecumenical wall, at that)
Posted on 01/09/2012 10:38:02 PM PST by rzman21
The first use of the word “pagan” on this thread was by you, the original poster, at post 113. As the OP, you set the tone for your own threads.
I agree. Old heresies never die they just get better PR men.
Yes, I was aware if that. Still, to see Nestorianism in every objection to "the Mother of God" usage is to stare too intently upon past squabbles, imputing the two natures (but then what?) controversy, worked out centuries ago now, onto people whom are totally innocent of such things, not seeking "to divide Christ" as it is commonly put, in rhetorical fashion.
Then very insistence of the sole usage of the "of GOD!" and not anything else, instead of "of the Christ our Lord and Savior" , can be seen to be pushed most strenuously by the most fervent Marianists, although you yourself may have other primary motivations.
The Marianists too claim they do so for other reasons, but just as the usage of "mother of Christ" sets off alarm bells concerning an ancient schism, the insistence of the only proper usage being "mother of God" reminds many now, of the PRESENT DAY, ongoing hyper-inflated Mariology which seemingly engulfs the Catholic Church, today, not centuries ago. Certainly not from the very beginnings, and on much more muted terms when at all, in the first couple of centuries.
The Marianists too claim they do so for other reasons, but just as the usage of “mother of Christ” sets off alarm bells concerning an ancient schism, the insistence of the only proper usage being “mother of God” reminds many now, of the PRESENT DAY, ongoing hyper-inflated Mariology which seemingly engulfs the Catholic Church, today, not centuries ago. Certainly not from the very beginnings, and on much more muted terms when at all, in the first couple of centuries.
>>And that’s why the Protestant Reformers universally accepted the title of “Mother of God” or Theotokos.
Some of us are wondering what will be done with a critter who dons ecumenical garb, while tempting a thread war (hidden behind a ecumenical wall, at that)
Not to worry about it being ecumenical...the RM just removed it.
I submit that it was more part of their own acceptance of traditional views, than it was any reflection upon the underlying reasons for a schism which had occurred a millennium previous.
LOL
You got some scripture to back that up??? If not, it is meaningless drivel...
That would be me, and all other born again Christians on the planet...
and that He gave His authority to teach and baptize?
You got the wrong Jesus...And you got the wrong religion...
Luk 22:24 And there was also a strife among them, which of them should be accounted the greatest.
Luk 22:25 And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors.
Luk 22:26 But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve.
Jesus didn't give us OR YOU the authority to teach and baptize...Jesus gave us Power to teach and baptize...
Pick up a bible...It will show you the right Jesus and the right church...
The Dominican School and Extreme Aristotelianism
by Dr. C. Matthew McMahon
The Dominican School
Those monks that upheld the Aristotelian philosophies, and believed they should not be discarded, were the Dominicans. They would give way to the new theological view found in Thomas Aquinas...
Note however that the OP is a Greek Catholic, part of Eastern Catholic Churches, autonomous, self-governing particular churches in full communion with the Bishop of Rome, but which are allowed to differ in such things as the allowance of married clergy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Catholic_Churches
Read the article. It was written by a Georgetown University professor discussing the role of Aristotelianism in the School of Antioch and in Nestorius’s thinking.
I’d submit that Evangelicalism’s apparent embrace of Nestorianism and Apollinarianism is rooted in pure anti-Catholicism and not in scripture.
No, it wouldn't be antagonistic, but the throwing all these points in one place proves one has no clue what Lutherans believe. Stick with E Catholicism, unless there is another purpose for these postings?
What do you mean re “apparent embrace,” as by whom, as re distinctive historical beliefs, seeing as Evangelicalism upholds the Hypostatic Union? Or at you referring to the a variant view in current theological laxity, which also exists in Catholicism?
What do you mean re “apparent embrace,” as by whom, as re distinctive historical beliefs, seeing as Evangelicalism upholds the Hypostatic Union? Or at you referring to the a variant view in current theological laxity, which also exists in Catholicism?
>>There’s a difference between lazy Catholics and Evangelicals who have embraced ancient heresies.
Catholics have a defined teaching authority, while Evangelical doctrine is up to the individual Evangelical believer.
What the denomination or pastor teaches is not binding on the consciences of lay Evangelicals.
I’d say you raise a false analogy.
What the denomination or pastor teaches is not binding on the consciences of lay Evangelicals.
I would say you raise a false analogy, as while Catholics have a defined teaching authority, this is effectively only over their own particular flock, as it can only discipline its own insofar as they want to be formally part of it. The EOs may subscribe to most of what Rome teaches, but critically differs on such a prime doctrine as papal infallibility and jurisdiction, and thus they are held to be in schism by the Roman (or Latin) church, though they are substantially unified enough to be called Catholic, due to A.S.
And while RCs must give assent of faith to some core teaching, and lesser degrees on others, they can and do differ on a great many things, including how many teachings require assent of faith, while such rarely see no real discipline on a number of things they are not sppsd to differ on.
While there is a great variation in Protestantism, that is not a church, but like Rome particular Protestant denoms or churches likewise typically have a supreme teaching office, and contrary to your statement, they, or evangelical denoms that best hold to classic salvific essentials, are bound to hold to certain core teachings and morality for membership or least for pastoral duties. You will not get far in a S. Baptist, Calvary chapel, if you deny the Deity of Christ, etc. or practice adultery.
This overall commitment is shown in a common front against cults who deny such core teachings, as well as against Catholic Traditions of men, as both are product of sola eccelesia, that of the church magisterium being effectively supreme over Scripture, and another source being held as equal to it.
Thus both Catholic "denominations" (being self governing) and Protestant ones have their own magisteriums, requiring assent to certain core essentials if one will be recognized as a member of such, though in Rome that can be quite liberal as Ted Kennedy exampled, as it can be in esp. liberal Protestant ones.
Below is an illustration from two different sources (the first seems Orthodox) of both variety of Catholics and this effectively limited jurisdiction, even if there can be substantial agreement.
The first Council called by a Pope was the Lateran Council I in 1123. To resolve the Great Schism, the Council of Constance, 1414-1418, was called by the Emperor Sigismund; but once a single line of Popes was secure in Rome again, they denied that the Emperor had any authority to call Councils. The last Emperor in any position, and with any need, to call a Council, Charles V, deferred to the Pope -- who then was the one to call the Council of Trent, 1545-1563. At the time of Justinian, the Pope was regarded as primus inter pares, first among equals of the Patriarchs, but that was all. The Patriarch of Constantinople was made second in rank, although this was a bit resented by the other, older Patriarchates.
The diagram at right gives some impression of how the One Catholic Church has broken up -- setting aside the Protestant fragmention of the See of Rome in the West, which of course would require a complex diagram in its own right. The convention of calling the Latin Church "Catholic" and the Eastern Churches "Orthodox" obscures the circumstance that katholikê, "universal," signifies the Church of the Roman Empire, whose Emperor and Patriarch in Constantinople the Bishop of Rome excommunicated in 1054 AD. The Greek Church therefore still uses katholikê, while the Churches that fell out over one of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the Nestorians and Monophysites, would be heterodox, not "Orthodox," to both the Latin and Greek branches of the Catholica Ecclesia. While the Coptic and Syrian Churches broke away over the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, there remained a continuous line of Greek Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, even as the Patriarch of Constantinople proselytized Bulgaria, Russia, and other states in the Balkans. Beginning with the Crusades, the Church of Rome sought converts over the same territory; and so we see Latin/Catholic churches and counter-churches swarming around the older, Orthodox ones. The counter-churches double up with the existing Orthodox churches, but sometimes a Catholic church exists, e.g. in the Ukraine or Ruthenia, where a separate Orthodox one doesn't. The Popes claim doctrinal authority, while the doctrine of Constantinople is based on the Church Councils.
Source: http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#popes
The diagram at right gives some impression of how the One Catholic Church has broken up -- setting aside the Protestant fragmention of the See of Rome in the West, which of course would require a complex diagram in its own right. The convention of calling the Latin Church "Catholic" and the Eastern Churches "Orthodox" obscures the circumstance that katholikê, "universal," signifies the Church of the Roman Empire, whose Emperor and Patriarch in Constantinople the Bishop of Rome excommunicated in 1054 AD. The Greek Church therefore still uses katholikê, while the Churches that fell out over one of the Ecumenical Councils, especially the Nestorians and Monophysites, would be heterodox, not "Orthodox," to both the Latin and Greek branches of the Catholica Ecclesia. While the Coptic and Syrian Churches broke away over the Fourth Ecumenical Council at Chalcedon, there remained a continuous line of Greek Patriarchs in Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, even as the Patriarch of Constantinople proselytized Bulgaria, Russia, and other states in the Balkans. Beginning with the Crusades, the Church of Rome sought converts over the same territory; and so we see Latin/Catholic churches and counter-churches swarming around the older, Orthodox ones. The counter-churches double up with the existing Orthodox churches, but sometimes a Catholic church exists, e.g. in the Ukraine or Ruthenia, where a separate Orthodox one doesn't. The Popes claim doctrinal authority, while the doctrine of Constantinople is based on the Church Councils.
(http://www.friesian.com/popes.htm#popes)
A favored argument against Sola Scriptura frequently used by our friends in the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church is "Just look at Protestantism! It's a mess, of 22,000 25,000 30,000 33,000 58 gazillion denominations!"
What are they saying? Mostly that Sola Scriptura as a rule of faith is insufficient to bring about institutional, organisational unity to the church of Jesus Christ. And of course, Christ would obviously want His church to have institutional, organisational unity! Evidently, setting the 
Scripture alone up as the sole infallible final rule of faith for the church doesn't accomplish what it's supposed to. Ergo, Sola Scriptura is false.
I've created this crude and very maladroit drawing to illustrate.
Let's analyse, then, the alternatives of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy.
Now, we of course like to accuse them of Sola Ecclesia; that is, we contend that their sole infallible final rule of faith is Whatever The Church® Says. But they don't like it when we say that, so let's be conciliatory and lay the contention aside. Their "real" rule of faith is Apostolic Tradition, which includes written and unwritten tradition from the apostles, both in Scripture and in other places such as the lived-out faith of the church, the liturgies, the writings of church fathers down through the years, etc.
Notice that, like the Scripture, this too forms a corpus with limits. The Da Vinci Code is not part of Apostolic Tradition. Neither is the Qur'an, nor is The Audacity of Hope (though, depending on which Roman or EO priest you ask, that last one might be close). We and others have contended many times, rightly, that the limits to the Roman and EO Canons of Scripture are not only poorly defined but actually non-existent. It is also indisputable that one's presupposition of an infallible interpreter (whether she be Rome or EOC) will govern which little-t traditions are actually accepted, promoted if you will, to Big-T Sacred Apostolic Tradition, thus forming the basis for Roman or Orthodox dogma, leaving the little-t traditions to rot by the wayside, relegated to "Well, he was just speaking as a private theologian" or "That was just his opinion" status.
But let's leave all of that aside and grant that there is one big and awe-inspiring God-given Verbum Dei corpus of Scripture and Tradition that is the proper rule of faith for the church of Jesus Christ.
The problem is obvious - Rome, sedevacantists, traditionalist Catholics, Pope Michael-ists, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic Orthodox, and various other churches with incompatible teachings all appeal to this set and limited corpus of Scripture and Tradition. It would appear that the criticism against Sola Scriptura of multiple denominations applies to the Roman and EO rule of faith as well.
The Romanist or Orthodox might object: "But we're not in communion with those schismatics/heterodox/heretics!" Now, what if I were to reply, as a member of a Southern Baptist church, that, have no fear my non-Sola Scripturist friends, my church holds that everyone who's not a member of a Southern Baptist church is a schismatic/heterodox/heretic too? Would that make our Romanist or Orthodox friends feel better?
Or would that make them criticise us even more strongly: "See? You Sola Scripturists can't even hold communion with each other!"? Yep, my money's on that one, too. We're darned if we do and darned if we don't, but somehow if the Romanists or Orthodox don't hold communion with these other churches, that's just fine. Such special pleading is just...special.
So let me break this down as clearly as I can. "The Protestant Church" does not exist. Self-named "Protestant churches" vary so widely in doctrine and authority as to make points of comparison impossible to ascertain. If you want to compare unity and disunity, compare the adherences to the competing rules of faith. Or compare churches, like the Roman Church to the Southern Baptist Convention or the Pope Michael Catholic Church to the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. What do we find, if we do this? How different from each other are the churches that hold to Scripture alone as rule of faith, and how different from each other are the churches that hold to "Sacred Apostolic Tradition" as rule of faith? Answer that and you'll know one reason why we consider all this talk about how Tradition and Magisterium make for superior church unity to be just that - talk.
What was the result at Ephesus but a synthesis of Apollinarian thesis, and the dyophysite anti-thesis or position, which in the mouth of Nestorious (who's Eastern Church had had it's own long fight with the Apollinarians, independent of Alexandrian contentions with the same) was seen to have inherent flaws of it's own, thus chopped off, as was the monophysite school of thought, much adjusted?
Two competing theories, one arising as much in opposition to the first, then a careful blend of two, separating out unwanted elements of each of them, while otherwise keeping intact much else preexisting (as revealed in the Word) which needed to remain. Quite brilliant, actually, when one looks at it all.
It seems apparent to me that among other things, this sort of casual flinging about of such charges as Nestorian and Apollinarian not only is inaccurate, but invokes also the personal spirit or style of Cyril, in his own rather deceitful underhanded dealings with Nestorious, in hopes of invoking a replay of Nestorious' own hastiness for which he was anathematized. That's the nasty downside of the business. 1500 years of schism was the result. It was not all Nestorious' fault, although he did do enough to have the whole deal hung on him. A failed anathema was just icing on the cake...
From one of the very links provided by yourself elsewhere;
In light of the above, and also in view of how the Alexandrian usage of "hypostasis" differed in subtle yet not insignificant ways to how the term was also used, and understood to mean by those of the Eastern Church in regards to the particularly mentioned Christological controversies prior to the councils at Epheses, to continue with attempts to apply such labels as Nestorian and Apollinarian broadly, shows not only some backwardness as to understanding, but can also been seen as yet more of the objectionable tactics employed by Cyril, which helped much guarantee that the outcome would be divisive in nature.
They employed a different definition of a key word. Then Nestorious was hit with (a pronouncement equaling) verdict already decided upon before he got there. All that was left was the formality of a hearing. With the differing definitions, how was he to know that Alexandrian hypostasis meant "underlying" as in foundational, while his own contingent had long used hypostasis more as an understanding of the union of body and soul -- more precisely the "complete being". What the Alexandrians did upon short notice (no notice, in actuality) is to take the 'two natures' position, and put it atop an undergirding, "one being" idea. All the while the Nestorians saw the "one being" of hypostasis as being the complete being, so the two natures idea which amongst themselves had been developed to the point of overdevelopment, left this strange blending of the ideas indecipherable to them at the time. It all moved too fast.
Then, the reapproachment went far too slow. 1500 years it took for them to re-visit the controversy, after which it can be seen that Nestorius was not treated as a brother, but got the bums rush. He perhaps should stand now to be partially rehabilitated, and in the very least should be much forgiven. He remained a Catholic at heart to the very end, devout in his own faith to the Lord.
Those seeing Nestorians or Apollinarians under every bush not in their own yard, are showing their own pride and prejudice (with not a little ignorance themselves) by not recognizing what portions of the two extremes went into the natural planting, and later cultivation of one of the shrubs in their very own hedgerow.
For struggle with Apollinarians, in putting down the extreme positions by those in Alexandria, and somewhat independently by those in Assyria, and the stylized development of the "two natures" descriptive use, in which the Eastern church took the lead, is part of the background needed to be taken into account as part of the setting and leading up to the subsequent events. Ignoring such now is rather inexcusable.
It is needlessly confrontational to continue to insist upon demonizing Protestants in general with these ancient controversies, as they by and large accept and hold as their own view, a very similar, albeit abbreviated when not nearly identical synthesis of the opposing monophysite and dyophysite positions which eventually coalesced (became synthesized) into that which was proclaimed by the councils at Epheses, later objections to the process itself, notwithstanding.
"Fully man, yet fully God, in one and the same person", as it is often taught in other than formally accepted as "Catholic" settings.
The current fashion among many here to see all sorts of heresy inherit in others by way of assumed implication as to what the "other" is up to, reminds us of the human limitations, passions and pride so much in evidence at the goings-on at Ephesus, and the divisions which resulted.
Should we seek to replay those needless divisions, to gain control of language which we may beat others over the head with? Could we imagine one of the Apostles yanking the bread from Christ's hand, then beating one of his brethren over the head with it? What would Jesus say to that, even if it had been Judas taking the beating?
The fact that those historical events [Ephesus] took place over disputation over the Bread Of Life himself, is most regrettable if not grievous. To celebrate and renew the acrimony which was brought to this breaking of the bread amongst themselves, risks precluding one from being able to fully take part in the uncorrupted meal itself, as was reminded to earlier generations of Christians, in the Didache. For the sacrifice becomes polluted by the lack of forgiveness and the continuation of offenses, making the eating of it (particularly the forced eating of it) poisonous to the partakers thereof.
Or did Jesus plainly say, "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees" just because those with him at the time had no bread?
Enlightening research.
Jesus is the Lord. God manifest in the flesh. (1Tim. 3:16) http://peacebyjesus.witnesstoday.org/DEITYofCHRIST.html
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.” (John 1:1-3)
“And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.” (John 1:14)
“Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:” (Philippians 2:6-7)
“How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.” (Acts 10:38)
“Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.” (Hebrews 1:3-4
“Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.” (Hebrews 13:8)
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.