tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post8751274593190808287..comments2023-10-25T14:20:11.408-05:00Comments on RHOBLOGY: Some notes from the Council of HieriaRhologyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comBlogger74125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-8084664652987699772010-04-27T13:52:15.732-05:002010-04-27T13:52:15.732-05:00Interesting article on this topic.<a href="http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3874" rel="nofollow">Interesting article on this topic.</a>Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-15253221416666339892010-04-21T10:23:09.101-05:002010-04-21T10:23:09.101-05:00What about the Waldenses?<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=OiMRAxZMqyMC&lpg=PP1&dq=baptist%20successionism&pg=PA70#v=onepage&q&f=false" rel="nofollow">What about the Waldenses?</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63440277721842916012010-04-21T09:31:15.226-05:002010-04-21T09:31:15.226-05:00I am not a fan of pseudo-science. (I just thought ...I am not a fan of pseudo-science. (I just thought I should mention that). The Waldensians, as a religious movement, did not pre-exist Waldo. <br /><br />And the Catholics' phobias are their own.The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-77050479450860071862010-04-21T08:17:24.000-05:002010-04-21T08:17:24.000-05:00From the link that Lucian provided:
http://en.wik...From the link that Lucian provided:<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians#Ancient_origins_asserted_and_disputed<br /><br />"The supporters of the ancient origin claim the Waldenses' name did not in fact come from Peter Waldo, as modern scholars contend, but from the area in which they lived. [8] They claim Peter Waldo in fact got his name by association with the Waldenses. This thought was current in the early 19th century:<br /><br />"Some Protestants, on this occasion, have fallen into the snare that was set for them...It is absolutely false, that these churches were ever found by Peter Waldo...it is a pure forgery."[9]<br /><br />"It is not true, that Waldo gave this name to the inhabitants of the valleys: they were called Waldenses, or Vaudes, before his time, from the valleys in which they dwelt." [9]<br /><br />"On the other hand, he "was called Valdus, or Waldo, because he received his religious notions from the inhabitants of the valleys." [10]<br /><br /><br />As for the Gallicans, in the eyes of Ultramontanists their position was indeed just a step or two away from Protestantism, only little better than Anglicanism.<br /><br />Nonjuror Anglican writer Charles Leslie explained back in 1713:<br /><br />http://www.archive.org/details/MN5106ucmf_2<br /><br />p. 50<br /><br />"Gentleman King James's fate was very hard. He was abdicated in England because he was a Papist. And the Pope wrought his deposition because he was too much a Protestant. And such Protestants are the French reckoned at Rome, they are called there Haeretici Tolerati, "tolerated heretics.""Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-9569871206843864762010-04-21T08:01:01.186-05:002010-04-21T08:01:01.186-05:00They surely were seen as heretical enough by RC in...<i>They surely were seen as heretical enough by RC inquisitors to be bloodily persecuted.</i><br /><br /><br />So were the Orthodox. (Are we small-"p"-Protestants also?)<br /><br /><br />Waldo was a French Catholic guy who gave his riches to the poor, and his followers were unhappy with clerical corruption (as are most Orthodox also). The Pope wouldn't let him preach because, though a saintly guy, he didn't earn a theology-degree (unlike all the great Reformers, who were thoroughly well-schooled, and were masters or doctors of philosophy, religion, or law, etc). <br /><br /><br />France (Gaul) has a historical problem of (Catholic) disobedience to the Pope (which is cool, 'cause he wasn't then what he now thinks he always was): from the Gallican priests who refused to deny their lawfully wedded wives after Roman custom, to the Gallican priests who countered the ultra-montanist position at Vatican I -- are you willing to say that these guys are or were small-"p"-protestants also?The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-38540629889897413232010-04-21T04:41:11.166-05:002010-04-21T04:41:11.166-05:00They most certainly were "protestants" w...They most certainly were "protestants" with small "p" at least. A good example of "half-Catholics" that I mentioned, that were finally forced to give up all hope on the Roman church and officially separate from it.<br /><br />They surely were seen as heretical enough by RC inquisitors to be bloodily persecuted.<br /><br /><br />Waldensians happened to flourish just around the same area that a noted iconoclastic Frankish bishop (Agobard of Lyons) had ruled over.<br /><br />The un-Romanist mountain-area population that later adopted Peter Waldo's ideas had existed well before his times:<br /><br />http://www.stempublishing.com/authors/darby/ECCLESIA/20028E.html<br /><br />"As to the antiquity of the Vaudois themselves, some remarks may be useful. Waldo's history is well known. He appeared about 1170, was at first well received by the Pope, but forbidden to preach; he did however and was driven from Lyons. He had nearly all, if not all, the Bible translated, and was very active, having given away all his fortune. The upholders of popery have taken great pains to shew that the Vaudois were in many points conformed to the followers of the Pope. Now there were many points as to which they were in the dark. The infamy of the clergy, degraded by species of vice which none can call in question, had roused the conscience of many, and more as to practice and the acts by which they made money than as to dogma. But purgatory, consecration to the priesthood and indulgences, confession to priests, prayers for the dead, were all rejected. <br />...<br /><br />It is well known that Claude of Turin resisted what they resisted. He was archbishop of those very valleys. This was in the ninth century. But it is certain that before that the same opposition to superstition was found there. In Jerome's famous letter to Vigilantius, in which he rages with his accustomed abuse and violence against him for resisting superstitions then coming in, he refers to these very districts and states in the most insolent language (the custom of ritualists when opposed, however they fawn on superiors when it suits them), that the bishops there sustained Vigilantius in his opposition to the growing superstition. Thus from 406 and then in the middle of the ninth century the same opposition continues there; and then we find 300 years after the same opposition still, and them and their adversaries tracing it to some seventy years before we find it established there, as proved by Jerome's letter. It was a protest, not there only, but which survived there against the corruption of the professing church after Constantine, when it borrowed the rites and doctrines of Paganism and thus supplanted it. With the testimony we have from Reinerius Saccho and others, it is utterly impossible to think the Vaudois commenced with Waldo of Lyons, though it be very likely their tenets received a very great extension through his means. Reinerius Saccho's inquisitorial activity was sixty years after Waldo's activity began, and he states there were three reasons why the Waldenses or Vaudois whom he was sent to reduce to the obedience of the Roman Church. The first was they were a great deal older (diuturnior) than all other sects; adding, some say from the time of Pope Sylvester, others from the apostles. It has been attempted to say this is merely "some say," but it is Reinerius who says they were older than sects; and it is important to see that it was they themselves who thus held it to be from Sylvester at least, soon after whose time we find traces of it in these districts, the evil having really begun in his time by the christianizing of the emperor. Next, that they were more universally spread, there was scarce any land where it was not received. This could not have been in some fifty years. The third was that they lived justly, and held soundly all the articles of the creed."Viisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-44743869837064443912010-04-21T03:44:45.684-05:002010-04-21T03:44:45.684-05:00Waldensians weren't Protestants, V.
there is ...Waldensians weren't Protestants, V.<br /><br /><i>there is evidence early Waldensians affirmed doctrines like transubstantiation, prayers for the dead, and infant baptism<br /><br /><br />the Waldensian absorption into Protestantism led to their transformation from a group on the edge of Catholicism that shared many Catholic beliefs into a Protestant church adhering to the theology of John Calvin, which differed much from the beliefs of Peter Waldo. </i><br /><br />(<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waldensians" rel="nofollow">Source</a>)<br /><br /><br />Wycliffe and Huss lived in the 14th century. <br /><br /><br />And yes, we're sympathetic to the beginnings of the Protestant Reformation (why do you think I like Luther so much?), but how this is relevant, I don't know. (The same goes for our obvious sympathy for Rome).Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-77462322388225332242010-04-21T00:10:46.210-05:002010-04-21T00:10:46.210-05:00Moreover, traditional EOs would be practically com...Moreover, traditional EOs would be practically compelled to "side with Protestants" on the issue of believing that Rome has seriously deviated from true faith.<br /><br />Even they would be forced to agree that during the medieval era, there was a huge "falling away", in which majority of people calling themselves Christians began to follow a false prophet, namely the pope, who declared that all who were not in communion with him were damned (Unam Sanctam 1303).<br /><br /> <br />I know that many modern EOs believe or would like to believe that their differences with the Vatican are not all that essential. But such EOs are being untrue to their own traditions.<br /> <br />This militant EO site (which we might see as representing an Eastern Orthodox equivalent of sedevacantism) accuses mainstream Orthodoxy of liberal-ecumenical apostasy - and not the least because of its friendly relations with Rome:<br /><br />http://www.trueorthodoxy.org/heretics_world_orthodoxy.shtmlViisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-30806550990922842372010-04-20T20:44:43.789-05:002010-04-20T20:44:43.789-05:00Protestants would argue that throughout the Middle...Protestants would argue that throughout the Middle Ages, there were many blessedly inconsistent "cafeteria Catholics" (as well as cafeteria EOs) who held onto the vital kernel of the Gospel, and more or less ignored the superstitious and/or idolatrous additions that the mainstream church kept adding to Christian faith.<br /><br />(In pre-modern times, it was hard for central authorities to efficiently enforce rigid conformity, especially in remote areas like French Alps that had loads of Waldensian dissidents.)<br /><br />With the coming of Reformation, already from Wycliffe and Huss onwards (and with the outrageous corruption of Renaissance papacy), all these half-Catholic, half-Biblical people finally became aware that they could no longer continue like this, but would have to separate themselves in a clear-cut manner from the Roman apostasy. <br /><br /><br />See this piece, it's rather relevant to the topic:<br /><br />"The only good Catholic is a bad Catholic"<br /><br />http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2009/12/only-good-catholic-is-bad-catholic.htmlViisaushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02682159289133730565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-5017722708267261822010-04-20T10:30:48.164-05:002010-04-20T10:30:48.164-05:00Rho,
I didn't ask you for the social securit...Rho, <br /><br />I didn't ask you for the social security number of every non-existent Arian or Iconoclast between 1,000 AD and 1,500 AD... the idea is that they simply ceised existing, and are still dead, leaving NO traces whatsoever in the historical record past a given date (unlike St. Elijah and the 7,000 men, to whose existence various OT books attest).The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-64051180211979333922010-04-20T08:57:16.479-05:002010-04-20T08:57:16.479-05:00It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a here...<i>It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic</i><br /><br />that's nothing compared to the cognitive dissonance from being an EO or RC and claiming to respect the BIble as God's Word and yet be stared in the face by obviously contradictory teachings all the time. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Just because you think Tradition and Scripture are opposed doesn't mean everyone else does. </i><br /><br />Just because you think Tradition and Scripture are opposed doesn't mean everyone else does. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>is that Nicaea was widely understood to be authoritative after it was held: later semi-Arian councils frequently tried to work around it and find Arian-friendly wording, rather than straightforwardly repeal and contradict it.</i><br /><br />This sounds like individual, private, fallible interpretation. Why are you breaking away from your claimed-authority when you're arguing for it?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>It got you to state what Protestant (well, SolScrip) standards for a binding council are, and agree with me that Hieria does not meet them.</i><br /><br />I'm sorry you got lost; this has never been about whether *I* accept Hieria as a binding council. It's why EOx DON'T, and on what grounds.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Orthodox have a standard on what councils are binding; Hieria does not meet it.</i><br /><br />Yes, and that standard begs the very question. that's what I'm saying. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>What standard would you propose under which Hieria is binding?</i><br /><br />Any standard except for "the modern EOC doesn't think it is binding". And yet we're talking about whether the modern EOC is competent and authoritative to make those kinds of decisions while also appealing back to "church history" (as EOC has chosen it) to ground its authority. With a little patience, we'll get there. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>And conceded, that the "believed everywhere, at all times" thing is true only with some degree of quality control (ecumenical councils)</i><br /><br />Which, as I'm sure you're aware, is actually NOT EVERYwhere, at ALL times, by EVERYone. When "all, every", means "some", we have a serious problem. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>by "epic" I mean "really interesting, but so very long I kinda just skipped to the closing statements"</i><br /><br />LOL. It was that. :-DRhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-72668257762103239502010-04-20T08:57:13.566-05:002010-04-20T08:57:13.566-05:00james,
Yeah, I hate the character limit thing too....james,<br />Yeah, I hate the character limit thing too. It's lame. Almost makes me want to move to Wordpress. <br /><br /><br /><i>(1) EO/RC care about disunity more, in my experience - schism is viewed as a serious sin, </i><br /><br />Then you haven't been to a conservative SBC or RefBap church - we exercise church discipline, and it is itself a serious sin and serious undertaking, to be performed BECAUSE OF serious sin. 1 Cor 5, Matt 18. <br />So this doesn't help you.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Not perfectly, obviously, but there isn't the tendency towards fracturing that there sometimes is among the more hotheaded regions of Protestantism</i><br /><br />So one can identify The True Church® b/c it's less bad than "Protestants". Great, I'll keep that in mind.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>(3) neither RC nor EO claim perfect unity anyway</i><br /><br />You need to argue with RCs and EOx more; many do claim that exactly as an argument against Sola Scriptura. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>I've seldom heard of Protestants who're bothered about the disunity of Christendom</i><br /><br />1) You've now met one - me. And all my friends. <br />2) Yet at the same time we recognise that it's a necessity and expected by God, for a reason: 1 Cor 11:17 But in giving this instruction, I do not praise you, because you come together not for the better but for the worse. 18 For, in the first place, when you come together as a church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and in part I believe it. 19 For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>You're assuming that the EO refuse to judge everyone in the light of Scripture</i><br /><br />DavidW is on record saying that he does not do so. Disunity. Now, are you concerned?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i> Nicaea II was replete with scriptural quotations</i><br /><br />Really? And to what extend did they interact with the Scriptural arguments against iconolatry?<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>but you can't prove that the Scriptures that the Church proclaims are true with total certainty.</i><br /><br />Sure I can. SPeak for yourself, you who tolerate rank liberals and errantists within your own ranks. Give me an argument why I can't. I'd suggest, BTW, that you check it first to see whether it accurately reflects your worldview or whether it's borrowed from God-hating atheists.<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>But they WERE supported by councils beforehand.<br />...actually, I've been trying to check, and I think I was wrong - the Arian councils were all after Nicaea. Could be wrong.</i><br /><br />Yes, I think you're right. It doesn't matter, though. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>What if Joshua and Caleb hadn't won against the Canaanites? What if God had just sat back and let Pharaoh massacre the Israelites? What if Jesus had died and done the obvious thing - stayed dead? </i><br /><br />Then I'd have to change my worldview. Of course, that didn't happen.<br />But we both accept all that. We both don't accept the post facto recognition of Ecum Councils' infallibility, so I need you to give some arguments for why I should accept them.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-68380779446980226412010-04-20T08:56:56.914-05:002010-04-20T08:56:56.914-05:00Nathan,
To start, I suggest you ascertain the mea...Nathan,<br /><br /><i>To start, I suggest you ascertain the meaning of the word "catholic," and secondly, the word "conciliar." </i><br /><br />I know what they mean. I'm questioning how justifiable they are, and how authoritative they are, given that they're based on question-begging assertions. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Your overriding implication seems to be that the EO equivalent of the Pope is a Council; this is simply and unequivocally false.</i><br /><br />No, they're not the same, I know, but at one level they are. Neither can be identified a priori; both are recognised to be ex cathedra/infallible/ecumenical after the fact. Both, if they're ex cathedra/one of the 7 ecumenical councils, are infallible. So at the level I mean, they are not really very different at all. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Nicea II was also "well-attended:"</i><br /><br />Yes, I know that. THe fact that Hieria was too is an anticipatory defeater for the common argument that one can recognise Ecum Councils partly thru their high attendance.<br />As you said: this criteri(on) seems totally arbitrary, so why should I accept it? That's a great question - why don't you ask your EO friends? <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>Next, all sorts of people make "serious theological statements;" even (especially?) the heretics do this, so again, why does this matter? </i><br /><br />Which was another anticipatory defeater for arguments I've heard before to the effect of identifying when a council is an Ecum Council. Again, you're doing my job for me, and I appreciate it! Now we'll see how consistent you're willing to be. <br /><br /><br /><br /><i>A lot of people agreed with Arius, Donatus, Marcion, Nestorius, Mani, Novatian, Eutyches, Apollinaris, Eunomius, on and on. A lot of people didn't. Again, why the seemingly arbitrary criteria?</i><br /><br />PRECISELY my point! Thanks!<br /><br /><br /><br /><i>This was my point about Hieria's Christology: it and their Eucharistic doctrine both violate the law of non-contradiction.</i><br /><br />Please be specific how they do so.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-41234199299225030482010-04-20T08:35:03.714-05:002010-04-20T08:35:03.714-05:00Lvka,
Why the need (to be specific about the loca...Lvka,<br /><br /><i>Why the need (to be specific about the location of the remnant)?</i><br /><br /><a href="http://rhoblogy.blogspot.com/2010/04/some-notes-from-council-of-hieria.html?showComment=1271589681976#c6333096012210094218" rel="nofollow">Lvka said:</a><br /><br /><i>Since in most cases "the losers" died out, thus proving themselves by biblical standards to NOT be the Church</i> (Sun Apr 18, 06:21:00 AM CDT)<br /><br /><br />I guess I don't need to be specific about the remnant of the true church during the middle ages, then. Thanks for disemboweling your own argument! With a little patience, we finally get there.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-63050100683842748102010-04-20T00:03:42.919-05:002010-04-20T00:03:42.919-05:00we have to consider what recourse the guy living D...<i>we have to consider what recourse the guy living DURING those conflicts would have... he can't appeal to the Scriptures (since this is an internal critique of EO epistemology).</i><br /><br />Of course he can. Look to the Bible and trust in God. Just because <i>you</i> think Tradition and Scripture are opposed doesn't mean everyone else does. <br /><br />Also, the impression I get - again, correct me, anyone who knows (preferably in a separate post!) - is that Nicaea was widely understood to be authoritative after it was held: later semi-Arian councils frequently tried to work around it and find Arian-friendly wording, rather than straightforwardly repeal and contradict it. For Arians, Nicaea I was an obstacle, a stumbling block, something that needed negotiating away or explaining away or ignoring or accommodating; the Homoousians looked at the Arian councils and condemned them, or contradicted them, or pointed out their omissions. It looks to me suspiciously like one side was rooted on rock and the other on sand.<br /><br />(And it's not as if it was a hard argument to get into... Gregory of Nyssa famously complained about everyone and their dog having an opinion.)<br /><br /><i>And the only binding apostolic council on Sola Scripturist standards is the Acts 15 Council of Jerusalem. The other councils are subservient to the ultimate standard of Scr.</i><br /><br />Yes, I know this. <br /><br /><i>So there's really no value in this statement.</i><br /><br />There's plenty. It got you to state what Protestant (well, SolScrip) standards for a binding council are, and agree with me that Hieria does not meet them.<br /><br /><i>OK, fine, and let's say I do [take Hieria as authoritative]. How are you going to prove me wrong?</i><br /><br />Ask you what standards you're assuming, for a start.<br /><br />Sola Scripturists have a standard on what councils are binding; Hieria does not meet it. Orthodox have a standard on what councils are binding; Hieria does not meet it. Catholics have a standard on what councils are binding; Hieria does not meet it. What standard would you propose under which Hieria <i>is</i> binding? Which other councils would this standard affirm? What justification can you offer for this standard?<br /><br /><i>Witness, however, DavidW quoting me "blvd everywhere, by everyone, at all times" for his rule of faith. And then he wants to go so far as to tell me that ECFs didn't ever differ on these things. Here, your example of heckling is precisely the point that is in question. Either they had consensus or they didn't.</i><br /><br />Depends if you think "consensus" means "unanimity" or just "overwhelming majority". And conceded, that the "believed everywhere, at all times" thing is true only with some degree of quality control (ecumenical councils), so as to deal with the problem when someone somewhere decides they <i>don't</i> want to believe it. Which no-one denies has happened...<br /><br />[to whether picking a standard is cherry-picking:] <i>Precisely.<br />and the only response I've been getting to that is, "Oh yeah? Well you appeal to the Scr and THAT'S circular too!" as if the EO himself doesn't do the same thing... Whether [Hieria] SHOULD BE binding under EO/RC epistemology is the very question at hand</i><br /><br />Right. It's a question of "who's to say?", or, more to the point in this thread, "what's the yardstick to use?" The EO/RC yardstick(s) reject Hieria, but are they the right yardstick(s) to use? And at this point, we have to go back to your (rather epic) discussion with David over sola scriptura (and by "epic" I mean "really interesting, but so very long I kinda just skipped to the closing statements" >.>). I don't hold to sola scriptura, for the usual reasons, although I do respect it - it's a testament to the power of the Scriptures that anyone <i>can</i> subscribe to sola scriptura - but I've commented about 10k words tonight already, so I'm going to avoid going into that and rehashing your throwdown with David.godescalchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02517093505437411930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-67364229862974026442010-04-19T23:38:26.902-05:002010-04-19T23:38:26.902-05:00The thread moves faster than I can reply! And answ...The thread moves faster than I can reply! And answering it goes over the 2^12 character limit pretty quickly...<br /><br /><i>Just remember that EO and RC disunity is also a problem... the claims and common arguments for the truthfulness of their claims is their unity, which is demonstrably false.</i><br /><br />(1) EO/RC care about disunity more, in my experience - schism is viewed as a serious sin, whereas in Protestantism schism happens more often and isn't such a big deal. (2) As a result, the EO and RC have done a lot better at keeping things together. Not perfectly, obviously, but there isn't the tendency towards fracturing that there sometimes is among the more hotheaded regions of Protestantism; and (3) neither RC nor EO claim perfect unity anyway; both are quite happy to admit the existence of heretics, schismatics, &c. I've seldom heard of Protestants who're bothered about the disunity of Christendom; but there are Catholics and Orthodox aplenty who grieve over the Great Schism.<br /><br /><i>Yes, but who's to say that the true church wasn't the one who got kicked out? (If we take EO presuppositions and refuse to judge everyone in the light of Scripture, I mean.)</i><br /><br />You're assuming that the EO refuse to judge everyone in the light of Scripture, just because they don't judge everyone in the light of Scripture-divorced-from-apostolic-tradition as you do. I don't buy it; last I checked, Nicaea II was replete with scriptural quotations, and the Arian thing was all about whether "equality with God" (quoth Paul) or "I and the Father are one" (quoth Jesus) were meant seriously.<br /><br />But that aside... as Luka said (well, quoting someone slightly more authoritative!): the gates of Hell shall not prevail, &c. The Church, praying and trusting in God and poring over the Scriptures and the writings of the early Christians, trusts that Christ will lead us into the fulness of truth (as He promised) and not throw His flock to the wolves. You can't prove it with total certainty, but you can't prove that the Scriptures that the Church proclaims are true with total certainty. At a certain point, you've gotta walk by faith and not by sight - assume Jesus meant what He said, and assume He's trustworthy.<br /><br /><i>But they WERE supported by councils beforehand.</i><br /><br />...actually, I've been trying to check, and I think I was wrong - the Arian councils were all after Nicaea. Could be wrong.<br /><br /><i>And POST FACTO the WINNERS decided Nicæa was "An Ecumenical Council" and the other ones and the Smyrnæan Creed were wrong. But what if the 'orthodox/catholic' party hadn't won?</i><br /><br />What if Joshua and Caleb hadn't won against the Canaanites? What if God had just sat back and let Pharaoh massacre the Israelites? What if Jesus had died and done the obvious thing - stayed dead? Quoth Chesterton:<br /><br />"It would have been easier to have accepted the earthly power of the Arians. It would have been easy, in the Calvinistic seventeenth century, to fall into the bottomless pit of predestination. It is easy to be a madman: it is easy to be a heretic... To have fallen into any one of the fads from Gnosticism to Christian Science would indeed have been obvious and tame. But to have avoided them all has been one whirling adventure; and in my vision the heavenly chariot flies thundering through the ages, the dull heresies sprawling and prostrate, the wild truth<br />reeling but erect." (Orthodoxy, ch. 6)godescalchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02517093505437411930noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-43211533090093703022010-04-19T21:58:34.217-05:002010-04-19T21:58:34.217-05:00To start, I suggest you ascertain the meaning of t...To start, I suggest you ascertain the meaning of the word "catholic," and secondly, the word "conciliar." Your overriding implication seems to be that the EO equivalent of the Pope is a Council; this is simply and unequivocally false.<br /><br /><i>On EO grounds: B/c it was well-attended. B/c they made serious theological statements. B/c alot of ppl agreed with them.</i><br /><br />Nicea II was also "well-attended:" this criteria seems totally arbitrary, so why should I accept it? Next, all sorts of people make "serious theological statements;" even (especially?) the heretics do this, so again, why does this matter? A lot of people agreed with Arius, Donatus, Marcion, Nestorius, Mani, Novatian, Eutyches, Apollinaris, Eunomius, on and on. A lot of people didn't. Again, why the seemingly arbitrary criteria?<br /><br /><i>On my grounds and EO grounds, I'd throw in: B/c their conclusion about iconoclasm matches what the Scripture says.</i><br /><br />It makes no sense to put it on EO grounds, since they explicitly reject iconoclasm as being unscriptural. Now, you like the conclusion (iconoclasm) but they reached that conclusion by being self-contradictory, so I'm not sure how you can support the use of logical contradiction to achieve the correct scriptural interpretation. This was my point about Hieria's Christology: it and their Eucharistic doctrine both violate the law of non-contradiction.<br /><br />So if I haven't made it abundantly clear by now: you're trying to accept Hieria's conclusion while ignoring the logical contradictions needed to reach that conclusion. If the EO rejected Hieria on no other grounds than inconsistency, I don't see how that's a problem for anyone who accepts the law of non-contradiction. If you're fine with getting the right conclusion by using flawed argumentation, there's little point in debating anything, because you don't care about correct reasoning.Nathannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-51559498841431874202010-04-19T15:13:36.698-05:002010-04-19T15:13:36.698-05:00Be specific.
Why the need?<i>Be specific. </i><br /><br /><br />Why the need?Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-69669484328951744262010-04-19T15:01:55.207-05:002010-04-19T15:01:55.207-05:001) I think you're right, yes. That only furth...1) I think you're right, yes. That only furthers my point - there weren't that many left. <br /><br />Where in Israel? Be specific. <br /><br /><br />Also, <a href="http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2010/02/apostolic-succession-part-1.html#3419161412229227618" rel="nofollow">you've been answered on this before</a>. Pity you rarely if ever learn from your corrections.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-36886315209720683242010-04-19T14:55:46.673-05:002010-04-19T14:55:46.673-05:00The 7,000 were in Israel.The 7,000 were in Israel.Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-90576395096628044702010-04-19T14:50:16.822-05:002010-04-19T14:50:16.822-05:001) I may have a (false?) memory of Ahab killing Te...1) I may have a (false?) memory of Ahab killing Temple-priests before Elijah killed the 400 priests of Baal (revenging the blood of those previosuly slain by the evil king)<br /><br /><br /><i>I've asked you at least 4 times to tell me where the 7,000 were, and all you do is bluster.</i><br /><br />In Israel.Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-29888709387098308742010-04-19T14:34:28.468-05:002010-04-19T14:34:28.468-05:001) You have the timeline confused. Elijah's c...1) You have the timeline confused. Elijah's convo with God on that topic occurred AFTER he had the _00 prophets of Baal killed.<br /><br />2) Now you're begging the question by assuming that the remnants after the NT was written were silent. You don't know that. Maybe their writings didn't survive to this day. Maybe they were a bit off the beaten path, outside of the more well-known geographical areas. <br /><br />3) I've asked you at least 4 times to tell me where the 7000 were, and all you do is bluster. Your challenge is dead. Get another one.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-38116242249809383202010-04-19T14:32:05.897-05:002010-04-19T14:32:05.897-05:00Minorities aren't invisible, Rho. Elijah (retu...Minorities aren't invisible, Rho. Elijah (returning now to his period) was anything but "silent" and "invisible". The hundreds of Temple-Priests that the idolatrous king had to slaughter in order to better promote his religion weren't exactly "invisible" either.Luciannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-89007677694933761442010-04-19T14:19:04.972-05:002010-04-19T14:19:04.972-05:00Any time that a small minority remnant exists of t...Any time that a small minority remnant exists of true ppl of God (ie, invisible church) is sufficient to disprove your position.Rhologyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14245825667079220242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-13358611.post-57193909859536851692010-04-19T13:24:23.260-05:002010-04-19T13:24:23.260-05:00We were talking about the Babylonian exile...We were talking about the Babylonian exile...The Blogger Formerly Known As Lvkahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09663692507774640889noreply@blogger.com