E-mail address to contact Admin direct is admin@religionethics followed by .co.uk.
You'll need to explain yourself then.
Eh? The Monophysites and others like them ceased to be Orthodox when the rejected the faith of the Chalcedonian fathers.
.........according to ONE branch of Orthodoxy........
The ecumenical councils are the mark of orthodoxy. Reject the councils or even part of them and one ceases to be orthodox. It's as simple as that.
Once again......you are confusing interpretation with Bowdlerisation.
The issue is yours and your inability to discriminate.
-Nope.Rejecting the 'Councils' is simply rejecting the 'Councils'.It's as simple as that.
Spoken like a true heretic. The holy ecumenical councils are the work of the Holy Spirit in the Church. They articulate the apostolic and orthodox faith in response to heresy. To reject them is to reject the Holy Spirit.
Zzzzz!
In your opinion.Please be aware that other opinions are available.
No, not in my opinion. It is the belief of historical Christianity.
In your opinion.Other opinions are available, including plenty who think your position is wrong and their view on Christianity is correct.
No, not just my opinion. The councils themselves and their anathemas are proof of this, that they are the mark of orthodoxy.
Hmm - self validation - not really very robust I'm sure you will agree.So effectively your argument is that you are right because the hierarchy in your denomination says they are right. Well guess what chum, all denominations think they are right and their hierarchies also adopt self validation to 'prove' they are right. But of course all are merely opinions.
We'll the Proddies broke off from the Roman Catholics who broke off from Orthodoxy. They both ended up falling under the anathemas of the councils which they too, until they broke away, used as the mark of orthodoxy. They chose whim instead of collegiality.
Eh? What is 'heretical' in accepting the God given Scripture and letting Him work through it, rather than wasting time with a shower of flawed men in funny costumes, who were often as corrupt as the rulers they served (and sometimes appointed)?
And ...Sure I understand the history, but this is completely irrelevant to the point, which is who (if any) are right. No doubt the groups that broke away did so because, in their opinion, the more established denomination has moved away from what they felt was the true path of Christianity. So just because one organisation is older is no guarantee of greater veracity.
No visible link to the Apostles means they cannot be the Church.
The proof that your approach has little or nothing to do with the Holy Spirit is in the fact that protestantism fragmented almost immediately into divers sects. Why? Because they all feel they can interpret the holy scriptures on their own whim. The Apostles gave us the example at Jerusalem: collegiality.
I would suggest that this is an indication that the said 'Holy Spirit' is non-existent. In the former case, the structure of the Church was held in place by hierarchical structures adumbrated in the Pastoral Epistles: in other words the apparent unity was maintained by power. In the case of Protestantism, the rapid fragmentation occurred not so much because everyone felt free to obey their 'whims', but because they thought that each individual could gain the ear of the deity. Still, I suppose the 'priesthood of all believers' is scriptural - but that's a good recipe for a free-for-all in the first place
Nowhere does it say in the NT that all believers are priets. That is a protestant invention.
