Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Motylos:
The plumb line of doctrine seems to hang over words such as ‘orthodox’, ‘catholic’, and other such descriptions used from the time of the church councils to define who was ‘in’ and who was ‘out’ in terms of belonging to the imperial (Roman) Church. You might well have been ‘in’ on the opening day but be ‘‘out’ a day or so later. I think this was an imperial agenda which harmed the Church, because it defined faith by a set of temporal (chronologically) tenets fixed in a philosophical mindset of the contemporary culture. It meant a legacy that has lasted of Christians condemning Christians. This pursuit of orthodoxy and catholicity has divided and broken the Church century after century and is a far distance spiritually and emotionally from most people’s Christian faith.

---

It could as easily be viewed as a legacy of Christians condemning heresy, and rather than the division and breaking of the Church, the source of its preservation over the centuries. Perhaps someone else can point me to the great growth and cultural influence those churches wield who have abandoned any attempt at orthodoxy. I'll wait patiently.

If orthodoxy is a far distance spiritually and emotionally from most people's Christian faith, then 1) it's a good thing for them that there is grace and 2) they might expend some effort in catching up.

It's not as though the concept of heresy was invented at Nicaea, and the Arian controversy was by no means the first to have disturbed the Church. Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

‘Heresy’ began as concept of difference rather than of fault — so I would want to tease out the meaning of truth by means of dialogue rather than bold statement.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Bauer argued that the early Christian church did not consist of a single orthodoxy from which emerged a variety of competing heretical minorities. Instead, early Christianity, as far back as we can trace our sources, could be found in a number of divergent forms, none of which represented the clear and powerful majority of believers against all others. In some regions of ancient Christendom, what later came to be labelled ‘heresy’ was in fact the earliest and principal form of Christianity. … … … To this extent, ‘orthodoxy’, in the sense of a unified group advocating an apostolic doctrine accepted by the majority of Christians everywhere, simply did not exist in the second and third centuries. … Beliefs that later came to be accepted as orthodox or heretical were competing interpretations of Christianity, and the groups that held them scattered throughout the Empire.
Bart D. Ehrman, (2003: 173), Lost Christianities

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not as though the concept of heresy was invented at Nicaea, and the Arian controversy was by no means the first to have disturbed the Church. Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
That would be the highly cynical view, of course.

---

I think I'd call it the social Darwinism hypothesis.

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Holy Smoke:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
It's not as though the concept of heresy was invented at Nicaea, and the Arian controversy was by no means the first to have disturbed the Church. Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?

---

Truth is indeed important, however the question for me is to what extent is orthodox Christian doctrine actually true - I'll allow the sort of orthodox Christianity you believe in isn't a complete pack of lies, but I suspect that the doctrines which became officially accepted did so because they were best placed to support the church as an institution, rather than because they were true in an absolute sense.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I suspect that the doctrines which became officially accepted did so because they were best placed to support the church as an institution,

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

[/QThe struggle between pro- and anti-Chal- cedonian elements continued to be fought out at many levels in the East. Various attempts were made to re-unite the Church. There were meetings with anti-Chalcedonians in Constantinople in 532 (the “Conversations with Syriac Orthodoxy”), Justinian’s efforts in the next decade to have the “Three Chapters” condemned and then the Second (Fifth Ecumenical) Council of Constantinople in 553 (which recognised the hypostatic union of Christ as two natures, one divine and one human, united in one person with neither confusion nor division) by which Justinian hoped to reunite Chalcedonians and Monophysites in the East, but which really only gave rise to yet another group, the so-called “neo-Chalcedonians” (which emphasised the synthesis of natures in Christ). Increasingly the matter became more and more confused as various parties denied or shared communion with others and competing bishops were ordained. Justin ii and the empress Sophia also attempted to bridge the theological differences unsuccessfully at Callinicium. Heraclius twice promoted a compromise: firstly advocating Sergius’ doctrine of Mono- energetism 153 discussed first at the Synod of Garin in 622. Although this. proposal initially seemed to gain wide acceptance, it was officially denounced by staunchly Chalcedonian Sophronius after he became Patriarch of Jeru- salem in 634. He saw this compromise as a threat to Chalcedonian Orthodoxy and as promoting Dyothelitism–the doctrine of the two wills of Christ. Sergius and Heraclius too abandoned Monoenergetism. In 638, they released a slightly amended formula, called the Ἔκθεσις. In this revision, the question of the energy of Christ was not relevant; instead, it promoted the belief that while Christ possessed two natures, he had only a single will, the teaching of Monotheletism. The “Doctrine of the Single Will” as proscribed in the Ecthesis was sent as an edict to all four eastern metropolitan sees and when Sergius died in December 638, it looked as if Heraclius might actually achieve his goal of ecclesiastical unity. However, in the same year Pope Honorius I, who had seemed to support the new formulation, also died. His successor Pope Severinus condemned the Ecthesis outright (and was thus denied his seat until 640). His successor Pope John IV also rejected the doc- trine completely, leading to a major schism between the eastern and western halves of the Catholic Church at the moment Heraclius was dying. Subsequently, Heraclius’ grandson Constans II, who rejected the doctrine of Monotheletism was determined to end the dispute with the West. Conse- quently, he ordered that all discussion about the Monothelite doctrine was to cease and that all theological positions were to reflect the status quo ante of Chalcedon, issuing his Tύπος in 648 to this effect. Ignored in the West, the Ecthesis was condemned by the Lateran Council of 649. This infuriated em- peror Constans who ordered the abduction and trials of Pope Martin I and Maximus the Confessor. In 668 Constans died, and Monothelitism was con- demned once and for all at the Third Council of Constantinople (the Sixth Ecumenical Council, 680–681) in favour of Dyothelitism.

Rober Kerr, ‘Aramaisma in the Qur’an and Their Significance’, pp. 198-199 in Ibn Warraq (2014), Christmas in the Koran

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
So Bart Ehrman cites a person named Bauer who believes that the development of what we now call orthodoxy was a historical accident. Color me underwhelmed.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
That's like a family feuding over a will. The deceased required his room to be painted a specific shade of blue-grey-green with sparkly bits, and on the completion of which the family would receive a billion pounds in gold. Now they just fight over the exact shade of blue and how many sparkly bits per square inch. The room remains largely unpainted.

---

This ‘family feuding’ cost people lives, livelihoods and livings, itsarumdo. It also allowed the total collapse of the church and Christianity across most of the Middle East. Dogma, dogmatism, doctrine created this vacuum. Rearranging deckchairs on the Titanic. It was also an Imperial Church imposing itself as the safeguard of all truth and understanding about Christianity!


--------------------
“Too often we assume that the light on the wall is god, but the light is not the goal of the search, it is the result of the search.”
G’Kar, ‘Meditations on the Abyss’

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Motylos:
This ‘family feuding’ cost people lives, livelihoods and livings, itsarumdo. It also allowed the total collapse of the church and Christianity across most of the Middle East.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
Either truth is important, or it isn't; in the latter case, why are we bothering with anything that doesn't give us all warm fuzzies?

---

If you believe classical logic, then yes. If on the other hand you lve in the real world, then you can acknowledge that some truths are important, some are unimportant, and some are important in some circumstances and not others.

---

quote:

---

I lack sympathy for the viewpoint that a vague appeal to platonic Truth is sufficient justification for ramming one's own views down one's neighbours throat. And have heard variants of this viewpoint enough times to be suspicious of those who go on about truth in religious matters.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by itsarumdo:
When I have these conversations I always end up asking what Christianity was before it was institutionalised.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ad Orientem:
I've said it before and I'll say it again: "Did you hear that? That was the sound of St. Athanasius turning in his grave"!

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Russ:

I lack sympathy for the viewpoint that a vague appeal to platonic Truth is sufficient justification for ramming one's own views down one's neighbours throat. And have heard variants of this viewpoint enough times to be suspicious of those who go on about truth in religious matters.

If in your case such suspicion is misplaced, I apologise for misreading what you wrote.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone. The church, however, has the right to define its doctrine. It also has the right (I would even say the responsibility) to suspend communion with those who choose to believe differently.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone. The church, however, has the right to define its doctrine. It also has the right (I would even say the responsibility) to suspend communion with those who choose to believe differently.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fr Weber:
I have no interest in forcing my views on anyone. The church, however, has the right to define its doctrine.

---