tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post7246055502210490416..comments2023-04-02T07:03:21.099-05:00Comments on Principium Unitatis: Two ParadigmsBryan Crosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-85010989438055539272011-06-02T15:59:13.618-05:002011-06-02T15:59:13.618-05:00Thanks very much, DCF, for your note. Today, Chris...Thanks very much, DCF, for your note. Today, Christ took our humanity into heaven. May God continue to lead us all into full communion with Him, and with each other.<br /><br />In the peace of Christ,<br /><br />- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-49581028109803775842011-06-02T15:47:20.166-05:002011-06-02T15:47:20.166-05:00Mr. Cross,
This is an old post and you might not ...Mr. Cross,<br /><br />This is an old post and you might not even check the comments (hopefully you do), but I have been reading your blog and CTC (and others) for a while now and I wanted to let you know how much I appreciate your writing and Christ-like attitude. I am a reformed protestant becoming Orthodox and much of my thinking on Sola Scriptura, authority, etc, has been shaped by your writings. Thanks and God Bless. Oh, and this article wasn't bad either ;)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-50305762535544581452008-06-25T10:55:00.000-05:002008-06-25T10:55:00.000-05:00I was introduced to your blog through a discussion...I was introduced to your blog through a discussion on "You are Cephas," and I'm thankful for the forum and gentle spirit here.<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your explanations.<BR/><BR/>More dialogue later -- I'm still in process of much self-examination and study and prayer.<BR/><BR/>Praying with Christ as He did in John 17.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-44890396793761530632007-08-22T14:19:00.000-05:002007-08-22T14:19:00.000-05:00PU,The fact that both the RCC and the Orthodox hol...PU,<BR/><BR/>The fact that both the RCC and the Orthodox hold to the ecumenical councils, and that their split is not based on those councils, is telling. Also, neither denies the validity of the other. These two facts do not apply wrt arianism, Nestorianism etc.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I'm no Hussite, rest assured. And most heresies today can be tracked back to heresies, especially Christological heresies, that were addresed in the first 3 councils anyway. <BR/><BR/>BTW, I'm offering the hypothesis as a working model. I deem it not infallible, and would welcome further discussion.Magotty Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039164409659890130noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-76814206104404604072007-08-22T08:33:00.000-05:002007-08-22T08:33:00.000-05:00Scylding,Thanks for your comments. It seems on you...Scylding,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for your comments. It seems on your hypothesis, if I am understanding you correctly, the first schism in the history of Church would take away a power from the Church's magisterium. But there were schisms even in the times of the Apostles. But the Apostles would not have lost power or authority when some members of the Church fell into schism. And it does not seem right that a power of the Church would be so susceptible to removal, by the schism of one bishop, for example. If unanimity were necessary, Arianism would still be 'legitimate option' in Christianity.<BR/><BR/>Who would authoritatively determine whether the whole Church is in fact "speaking with a united voice"? And who would authoritatively determine whether infallibility resides in the Church when the whole Church "speaks with a united voice"? No Ecumenical Council ever ruled that only when the whole Church speaks with a united voice does the Church speak infallibly. And the difficulties I raised in the preceding paragraph imply that there could never be an infallible ecumenical council, if unanimity were a prerequisite for infallibility. Therefore, it seems to me that your hypothesis would entail that nothing the Church says (at least since the time of the Apostles) is protected from error. And that is Hussism. It entails that even the canon of Scripture is not protected from error. I mean, Hussism even undermines the possibility of certainty with respect to the contents of Scripture. So it seems to me that if the Church is protected from error in any way, that protection cannot be contingent upon whether or not there is a schism. The Church must therefore have a visible principle of unity, as I argued in <A HREF="http://principiumunitatis.blogspot.com/2007/06/has-christ-been-divided.html" REL="nofollow">Has Christ Been Divided?</A>.<BR/><BR/>Thanks again for your comments.<BR/><BR/>- BryanBryan Crosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13269970389157868131noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1938983304459855111.post-67746437758120793342007-08-21T12:59:00.000-05:002007-08-21T12:59:00.000-05:00Of course, there is the other option, namely that ...Of course, there is the other option, namely that infallibility resides in the church when she speaks with a united voice. This has been impossible for nigh on a 1000 years now. The development of papal infallibility as a derivative of ecclesial (in toto) infallibility could be questioned - by both Protestants and the East. And we need to discuss that just as much as we discuss sola (or solo as Leithart terms it)Scriptura.Magotty Manhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06039164409659890130noreply@blogger.com