7:29 PM
@Mr.Bultitude excellent question. I addressed that in "the lapsed in the OT." You can click that link and read my argument on the sixth paragraph. If you want we can go through one by one. With non-Ephesian St. John Paul II and Catholicos Mar Dinkha IV already annulled anathemas from both sides. Christotokos is as Orthodox as Theotokos because each refer to the person and not to nature.
@Mr.Bultitude With non-Chalcedonian Pope Towadros II has visited Rome and recently Pope Francis does two things: Give Mass for the 21 Libyan martyrs and canonized St. Gregory of Narek a Miaphysite as a Doctor of the Church. These two events mark a remarkable process of reconciliation, eg. Formula of Union 433.
@Mr.Bultitude Bl. Paul VI and Patriarch Athenagoras in 1965 annulled 1054 anathemas. In the future once the whole EO jurisdiction accept this then formal reconciliation will take place. The Church has power to bind and to loose. Reconciliation is one of them.
@Mr.Bultitude How do we know which one is correct? I'd refer back to my article, "the lapsed in the OT." Paragraph six will clarify my position. If you read St. Irenaeus or Tertullian or St. Cyprian you'll see a recurrence to refer back to the Church in Rome many times. The Church is established as communion of churches with the See of Rome. We see this explicitly in the writings of St. Leo when he rejected Canon 28 of Chalcedon.
@fredsbend never for once I categorized both LDS and JW together as restorationist. I grouped them together for their consistency that the Church lapsed. No Mormon argues that the Church lapsed abruptly, even in their Great Apostasy, the Church always existed until the fulness blossom under Joseph Smith Jr.
@fredsbend none of the Fathers were infallible, they contradict one another and sometimes contradict themselves. The argument is not all or nothing. I challenge you that you'd not be able to quote me on that :D
@fredsbend the argument is flawlessly built by Bryan Cross in his analysis of Al Mohler's defense against Mormonism.
Ecclesial Deism
The argument is not truth argument: Catholic is true because it is historical. No. But it's historical argument: Catholic is consistent with historical Christianity. There is no truth argument here. It's brute fact. See my answer on the
prayer to saints.
Does that mean prayer to saint is Biblical? Not necessary. Protestant (myself included when I was a Calvinist) argues that the Church Fathers teach some errors, Mariolatry is one of them. When I was a Calvinist my norming norm is the Bible as read in lieu with Three Forms of Unity and Westminster. In this sense I bypassed the Fathers' errors and follow Scripture alone.
In that answer I stated neutrally that Protestants see no problem in reconciling their differences with the Fathers. The Fathers made mistakes and Protestants don't follow them. Mariolatry is an example. So in this case Protestants can rightly argue that the Church simply lapsed much earlier than Nicaea.
The above is my personal view when I was a Calvinist. So I see no contradiction in following the Fathers as long they're in lieu with Scriptures. When they departed I stop following them and stay with Scriptures. In this sense Protestant is still consistent.
The problem comes not from the above. But much more fundamental as Bryan Cross explained in Ecclesial Deism. Protestantism assumed something. There is presuppositional differences between RC, EO, OO, CE, with Protestantism.
The later assumed the Church lapsed and hence need correction.
The first four see themselves as the rightful lineage preserving the faith of the Apostles through succession of Bishops.
Two different presuppositional approaches.
It's on this that I say LDS and JW are consistent. They abandon historic Christianity altogether. There is no need for them to quote early Christian writers. They're assumed to be Pagans from the get go.
No need to refer to Athanasius to support Nicene consubstantiation, just reject Trinity completely.
RC, EO, OO, and CE see themselves as the rightful Church preserving the faith of the Apostles through succession of Bishops.
Protestants see the Church gradually lapsed and in need of reformation in a sense. This way they can still quote the Fathers as long they agree with their reading of Scriptures.
LDS and JW see the Church gradually lapsed and there is no need to refer to the early Christians because they were Pagans from the start. They just go straight to Scripture.
So one can say that if RC still use tradition extensively, Protestant see tradition as important but not infallible as RC does. LDS and JW discard traditions altogether.
There is no truth claim just pure historical claim. The Fathers weren't Protestants. Everyone agree on this including J N D Kelly a prominent anglican scholar. The question is only one: On what extend the Fathers is to be followed?
