Monarchy Forum
Sign up Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 8     «   Prev   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   Next
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi

It's not a matter of size. It's a matter of orthodoxy. I'm willing to accept the Miaphysite Orthodox Church being the fourth branch of the universal church, in spite of my dislike of Miaphysitism, because the Miaphysite Orthodox Church after all affirms Jesus Christ being fully human and fully divine. 


You know who else affirm that Christ is fully human and fully divine?

I'll give you a clue

It begins with "almost all"
And ends with "self-identifying Protestants"

__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #62 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman


But when people talk of the fundamentals of Christianity believe or mere Christianity or something like that, they tend to mean some basic, inclusive set of principles that can apply to most traditional Christians. They don't mean the kind of more restrictive notions of orthodoxy that apply to particular denominations alone. It wouldn't make much sense, for example, to try to come up with a mere Christianity that includes the Catholic understanding of Papal infallibility. Someone doing that might as well just openly equate true Christianity with Catholicism. You seem to be building your idea of orthodoxy on your own denomination's doctrines, rather than something broader. That seems a waste of time to me.

The aim of my list of fundamentals of Christianity is showing, that the Christian denominations, which predate the Protestant Reformation, are far more similar to each other than to Protestantism. It's not based solely on Nestorian doctrines. None of the doctrines on my list are unacceptable to a Chalcedonian Orthodox Christian, and according to the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity, filioque doesn't mean the Son being an origin of the Holy Spirit. I have replaced Dyophysitism with Jesus Christ being fully divine and fully human on my list in order to make my list of fundamentals of Christianity acceptable to Miaphysites.
According to Pope Benedict XVI, the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church, the Miaphysite Orthodox Church and the Nestorian Church are true, but deficient churches, while the Protestant churches are not true churches. But he won't rule out Protestants being saved. I don't consider the Eastern churches to be deficient, but Benedict XVI is right about Protestantism. The Catholic Church, the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church and the Nestorian Church are the three branches of the true church. The Miaphysite Orthodox Church affirms an erroneous Christology, but is otherwise similar to the true church.



Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #63 
You didn't make it clear that it was your own ideas (I see you have started again claiming an intermediate status for the Oriental Orthodox) about what constitutes pre-reformation Christianity.

I'm sceptical that the Filioque division has been so easily bridged. Certainly, many modern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox see this as the main theological (if we call the role of a the Pope a ecclesiological issue) difference between themselves:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
https://londinoupolis.blogspot.com/2015/02/metropolitan-kallistos-on-filioque.html?m=1
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
You didn't make it clear that it was your own ideas (I see you have started again claiming an intermediate status for the Oriental Orthodox) about what constitutes pre-reformation Christianity.

I'm sceptical that the Filioque division has been so easily bridged. Certainly, many modern Catholics and Eastern Orthodox see this as the main theological (if we call the role of a the Pope a ecclesiological issue) difference between themselves:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06073a.htm
https://londinoupolis.blogspot.com/2015/02/metropolitan-kallistos-on-filioque.html?m=1

Miaphysitism is an error, but not a heresy. The Christian churches, which predate the Protestant Reformation, being far more similar to each other than to Protestantism is a fact. 
I agree with Maximus the Confessor on filioque. The Father is the sole origin of the Holy Spirit, but the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son in time. I'm opposed to filioque, because it can easily be misunderstood, but I don't consider it to be heretical. Why do you ignore the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity affirming, that the Catholic Church doesn't claim, that the Son is an origin of the Holy Spirit?
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #65 
I don't know. There has been an attempt to overcome past divisions in recent decades. There are a multitude of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox positions on the Filioque and what is at stake. The question seems to be whether the Son is to be regarded as the cause of the Spirit, and what construction can be put in the words of the Filioque. The East denies that the Son is a cause of the Spirit. It seems the Pontifical Council's statement could be seen as moving towards an acceptance of this position, but it isn't clear if this is so.
MatthewJTaylor

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 275
Reply with quote  #66 
Shouldn't this list be called "The Fundamentals of Pre-Reformatiomn Christianity except Augustine of Hippo" rather than "The Fundamentals of Christianity" given your eagerness to show divide between pre and post reformation doctrine
__________________
ceterum censeo caetum europaeum delendum esse
The Scottish Tory - https://sites.google.com/view/scottishtory
Scots for a French Royal Restoration - https://sites.google.com/view/sfrr
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #67 
I apologize for claiming, that sola fide is a heresy, because Luther affirmed, that faith ought to be followed by good works, and I have never claimed otherwise. But I consider sola fide to be an error. I apologize for not distinguishing between errors and heresies. Miaphysitism and sola fide are errors, but not heresies. But Monophysitism, making images of God the Father, claiming, that the Son is an origin of the Holy Spirit and double predestination are heresies. 
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #68 
The Church of the East doesn't accept the Council of Chalcedon, because the Council of Chalcedon affirmed Theotokos and condemned Nestorius, while the Church of the East rejects Theotokos and venerates Nestorius as a saint. But the Church of the East accept the Chalcedonian Definition. Claiming, that the Christology of the Church of the East and the Christology of the Miaphysite Orthodox Church are equidistant from the Christology of the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church is wrong, because the Miaphysite Orthodox Church rejects the Chalcedonian Definition.


azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #69 
I consider the Seventh Ecumenical Council to be a robber council, because it banned aniconism, despite the Second Commandment endorsing aniconism. The Ten Commandments were written by God himself on the tablets of stone, which were received by Moses. No ecumenical council is allowed to overturn, what God himself has written.
I don't affirm sola scriptura. I consider Christian tradition to be authoritative, unlike the Protestants, but Christian tradition must not contradict scripture. Opponents of sola scriptura often claim, that the Biblical canon is defined by Christian tradition. The canon of the New Testament is indeed defined by Christian tradition, but the canon of the Old Testament is defined by Jewish tradition. The Jews consider the Torah (the five books of Moses) to be far more important than the rest of the Hebrew Bible. The Ten Commandments are mentioned in the Torah. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #70 
Why do you so often seem to make concessions when refuted, but then return to the refuted point later?

The second commandment is not about icons and certainly doesn't endorse aniconism. It's about idols, which are entirely distinct. As I said St. John of Damascus so entirely refuted such nonsense that even the early iconoclasts abandoned such a position. As St. John, the idea that we cannot portray the corporeal form of Christ endangers the incarnation itself. It suggests Docetism:

"In former times, God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake."
- St. John of Damascus.



The iconoclasts moved to the position that the Eucharist should be the only icon of Christ.

I won't say that aniconism is a heresy per se, if it is a preference, but as a doctrine it endangers the Orthodox are correct that it conflicts with the incarnation itself. This is why the Eastern Orthodox celebrate the anniversary of the restoration of the icons as the Triumph of Orthodoxy. Iconoclasm is seen in its connections to the Great christological heresies going back to Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches. It's defeat is seen as the final triumph of Orthodoxy. As they say on that Sunday:

"To those who reject the Councils of the Holy Fathers, and their traditions which are agreeable to divine revelation, and which the Orthodox Catholic Church piously maintains, anathema! anathema! anathema!"
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by azadi
The Church of the East doesn't accept the Council of Chalcedon, because the Council of Chalcedon affirmed Theotokos and condemned Nestorius, while the Church of the East rejects Theotokos and venerates Nestorius as a saint. But the Church of the East accept the Chalcedonian Definition. Claiming, that the Christology of the Church of the East and the Christology of the Miaphysite Orthodox Church are equidistant from the Christology of the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church is wrong, because the Miaphysite Orthodox Church rejects the Chalcedonian Definition.




Why are you reviving points you have already been refuted on?

It isn't clear that the Church of the East fully accepts Chalcedon, not what such an affirmation means for its past Christology. It isn't clear that it would be entirely in line with what Nestorius or Babai the Great taught. As you say, the Church of the East still rejects the name of the Theotokos.

What's more, yet again, the Oriental Orthodox Christology is based upon St. Cyril of Alexandria's. He, unlike Nestorius or Babai, is revered also by the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox, and for his Christology. He is even considered, not a just a Saint and Father by the Catholic Church, but a Doctor of the Church, which is a relatively rare. He is known as the Doctor of the Incarnation. So the fount of Oriental Orthodox Christology is revered as the Doctor of the Incarnation by the Catholic Church! That's a closer relationship than to the Church of the East.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
Why do you so often seem to make concessions when refuted, but then return to the refuted point later?

The second commandment is not about icons and certainly doesn't endorse aniconism. It's about idols, which are entirely distinct. As I said St. John of Damascus so entirely refuted such nonsense that even the early iconoclasts abandoned such a position. As St. John, the idea that we cannot portray the corporeal form of Christ endangers the incarnation itself. It suggests Docetism:

"In former times, God, who is without form or body, could never be depicted. But now when God is seen in the flesh conversing with men, I make an image of the God whom I see. I do not worship matter; I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake."
- St. John of Damascus.



The iconoclasts moved to the position that the Eucharist should be the only icon of Christ.

I won't say that aniconism is a heresy per se, if it is a preference, but as a doctrine it endangers the Orthodox are correct that it conflicts with the incarnation itself. This is why the Eastern Orthodox celebrate the anniversary of the restoration of the icons as the Triumph of Orthodoxy. Iconoclasm is seen in its connections to the Great christological heresies going back to Arius, Nestorius, and Eutyches. It's defeat is seen as the final triumph of Orthodoxy. As they say on that Sunday:

"To those who reject the Councils of the Holy Fathers, and their traditions which are agreeable to divine revelation, and which the Orthodox Catholic Church piously maintains, anathema! anathema! anathema!"

I have never claimed, that iconophilia is a heresy. Claiming, that making images of Jesus is allowed, because he was a human being, is a legitimate interpretation of the Second Commandment. But condemning aniconism is wrong, because a literal interpretation of the Second Commandment endorses aniconism.
Comparing Nestorius to Arius and Eutyches is unacceptable, because Nestorius didn't claim, that Jesus Christ is divided into two persons. Arius actually claimed, that Jesus Christ is subordinate to God the Father, and Eutyches actually claimed, that the divine nature of Jesus Christ consumed his human nature, as the ocean consumes a drop of vinegar. 
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman


Why are you reviving points you have already been refuted on?

It isn't clear that the Church of the East fully accepts Chalcedon, not what such an affirmation means for its past Christology. It isn't clear that it would be entirely in line with what Nestorius or Babai the Great taught. As you say, the Church of the East still rejects the name of the Theotokos.

What's more, yet again, the Oriental Orthodox Christology is based upon St. Cyril of Alexandria's. He, unlike Nestorius or Babai, is revered also by the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox, and for his Christology. He is even considered, not a just a Saint and Father by the Catholic Church, but a Doctor of the Church, which is a relatively rare. He is known as the Doctor of the Incarnation. So the fount of Oriental Orthodox Christology is revered as the Doctor of the Incarnation by the Catholic Church! That's a closer relationship than to the Church of the East.

The Church of the East doesn't reject the Chalcedonian Definition. The Chalcedonian Definition is distinct from the Council of Chalcedon. According to the Chalcedonian Definition, Jesus Christ is one person with two natures, which are united in a hypostatic union. Nestorius and Babai the Great both affirmed, that Jesus Christ is one person with two natures. A qnoma is more individuated than a nature, but it's not a separate being, unlike a hypostasis.
The Miaphysite Orthodox Church rejects the Chalcedonian Definition. Cyril of Alexandria being venerated as a saint by the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church doesn't change the fact, that the Chalcedonian Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church affirm the Chalcedonian Definition, while the Miaphysite Orthodox Church reject the Chalcedonian Definition. 
Wessexman

Registered:
Posts: 1,843
Reply with quote  #74 
You are equivocating on the word aniconism. The second commandment is about idols, not icons. It's not relevant to an aniconism aimed at icons rather than idols. There are, in fact, scriptural passages that affirm the use of holy images, understood as icons and not images; for example, Exodus 36:35-37:9.

The current Church of the East may accept the Chalcedonian definition, though it is not completely certain they understand it as the Eastern Orthodox and Catholics do, and the Oriental Orthodox don't. But that doesn't mean that historically the Church of the East was closer to the Eastern Orthodox or the Catholic Church than the Oriental Orthodox Church was. Anyway, what we are dealing here is words, and words hard to interpret precisely. The fact is that the Roman Church and the Eastern Orthodox have held and do hold the Christology of St. Cyril is truer expression than that of Nestorius or Babai the Great. If we take both the Fathers of Chalcedon and St. Cyril to be fundamentally orthodox, as the Catholic and Eastern Orthodox do, then the dispute between the Oriental Orthodox and the Chalcedonian definition must be purely verbal (unless we have reason to think that the Oriental Orthodox have deviated from St. Cyril's teaching) or one of emphasis. And the Oriental Orthodox would say that the fact the Nestorian Church can subscribe to the Chalcedonian definition suggests it's flawed.
azadi

Avatar / Picture

Registered:
Posts: 1,474
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wessexman
You are equivocating on the word aniconism. The second commandment is about idols, not icons. It's not relevant to an aniconism aimed at icons rather than idols. There are, in fact, scriptural passages that affirm the use of holy images, understood as icons and not images; for example, Exodus 36:35-37:9.

Judaism is aniconist. Allowing making icons (except of God the Father) because of the incarnation of Jesus Christ is a legitimate interpretation of the Second Commandment, but claiming, that aniconism is a heresy is wrong. 
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.