3 ms·

There is additional doctrine, beyond question. It is a church that is open to further revelation equal to that which came from biblical apostles. There is, how

by mrkstu 3y ago

There is additional doctrine, beyond question. It is a church that is open to further revelation equal to that which came from biblical apostles. There is, however, nothing incompatible with Christian worship prior to the Nicean creed. Definitely post-Nicean it is a heretical sect vs mainline Christianity, but so is all of non-Catholic/Orthodox Christianity on some point or another if you cite the Catholics as the authority, if only on the issue of who's in charge. There is plenty in the Bible to support a henotheistic view of Godhood, so it isn't extra-Biblical/Christian, just not the enforced POV post-Nicea.

wl 3y ago
Yes, you can find hints of henotheism in certain parts of the Hebrew scriptures. However, henotheism in Judaism had died out by the time Christianity developed. It's not something found in the New Testament.
pseudalopex 3y ago
Catholic dogma classifies Protestants heretical Christians and Mormons not Christians. The Council of Nicaea codified already dominant rejection of henotheism.
- NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
  > Catholic dogma classifies Protestants heretical Christians No, it actually does nothing of the kind.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    Teaching which was not dogma once did, though the current teaching is more nuanced (and not just in the negative sense of recognizing that some Protestants are not validly baptised and therefore cannot be heretics regardless of their beliefs.)
    - pseudalopex 3y ago
      I forgot dogma has a more specific meaning in Catholicism. My understanding of current teaching is Protestant beliefs are material heresy but not formal heresy. Please correct if I am mistaken.
      - dragonwriter 3y ago
        > My understanding of current teaching is Protestant beliefs are material heresy but not formal heresy. Beliefs, as such, cannot be distinguished as formal or material heresy, because if a belief contradicts a necessary belief of the Catholic faith, whether a person holding it engages in formal or material heresy depends on other aspects of the individual heretics relationship with the belief, not the content of the belief. And the Church doesn’t hold that “Protestant beliefs” as a class are heretical for the baptized to hold. There are beliefs within the Protestant community that the Church holds to contradict necessary elements of the Catholic faith so as to be capable of being heresies when held in the requisite circumstances, sure. Also, there’s an evolving view both theologically – which kind of follows on practical treatment – that the doctrinal divisions between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches, as well as those between the Catholic Church and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are, in general, as relates to (even validly baptized) members of the respective communities of a distinct theological character from heresy (which is essentially the religious equivalent of “treason”), even if heresy was the right frame early in the respective splits. This provides a theological reinforcement for (and in some respects follows from) efforts focusing on dialogue, clarification, and resolution of disputes rather than condemnation, which have made some progress in (in the case of the Protestant direction) both the Anglican-Catholic and Lutheran-Catholic dialogues.
        pseudalopex 3y ago
        > Beliefs, as such, cannot be distinguished as formal or material heresy, because if a belief contradicts a necessary belief of the Catholic faith, whether a person holding it engages in formal or material heresy depends on other aspects of the individual heretics relationship with the belief, not the content of the belief. My understanding is the individual heretic's relationship with the belief separates material heresy from formal heresy. What aspects of the individual's relationship with the belief separate material heresy from not heresy? > Also, there’s an evolving view both theologically – which kind of follows on practical treatment – that the doctrinal divisions between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches, as well as those between the Catholic Church and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are, in general, as relates to (even validly baptized) members of the respective communities of a distinct theological character from heresy (which is essentially the religious equivalent of “treason”), even if heresy was the right frame early in the respective splits. This provides a theological reinforcement for (and in some respects follows from) efforts focusing on dialogue, clarification, and resolution of disputes rather than condemnation, which have made some progress in (in the case of the Protestant direction) both the Anglican-Catholic and Lutheran-Catholic dialogues. I know of the desire to avoid the word heresy. Has this evolving view yet produced a new preferred term?

by mrkstu 3y ago

wl 3y ago

Yes, you can find hints of henotheism in certain parts of the Hebrew scriptures. However, henotheism in Judaism had died out by the time Christianity developed. It's not something found in the New Testament.

pseudalopex 3y ago

Catholic dogma classifies Protestants heretical Christians and Mormons not Christians. The Council of Nicaea codified already dominant rejection of henotheism.

NoZebra120vClip 3y ago
> Catholic dogma classifies Protestants heretical Christians No, it actually does nothing of the kind.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  Teaching which was not dogma once did, though the current teaching is more nuanced (and not just in the negative sense of recognizing that some Protestants are not validly baptised and therefore cannot be heretics regardless of their beliefs.)
  - pseudalopex 3y ago
    I forgot dogma has a more specific meaning in Catholicism. My understanding of current teaching is Protestant beliefs are material heresy but not formal heresy. Please correct if I am mistaken.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > My understanding of current teaching is Protestant beliefs are material heresy but not formal heresy. Beliefs, as such, cannot be distinguished as formal or material heresy, because if a belief contradicts a necessary belief of the Catholic faith, whether a person holding it engages in formal or material heresy depends on other aspects of the individual heretics relationship with the belief, not the content of the belief. And the Church doesn’t hold that “Protestant beliefs” as a class are heretical for the baptized to hold. There are beliefs within the Protestant community that the Church holds to contradict necessary elements of the Catholic faith so as to be capable of being heresies when held in the requisite circumstances, sure. Also, there’s an evolving view both theologically – which kind of follows on practical treatment – that the doctrinal divisions between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches, as well as those between the Catholic Church and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are, in general, as relates to (even validly baptized) members of the respective communities of a distinct theological character from heresy (which is essentially the religious equivalent of “treason”), even if heresy was the right frame early in the respective splits. This provides a theological reinforcement for (and in some respects follows from) efforts focusing on dialogue, clarification, and resolution of disputes rather than condemnation, which have made some progress in (in the case of the Protestant direction) both the Anglican-Catholic and Lutheran-Catholic dialogues.
      - pseudalopex 3y ago
        > Beliefs, as such, cannot be distinguished as formal or material heresy, because if a belief contradicts a necessary belief of the Catholic faith, whether a person holding it engages in formal or material heresy depends on other aspects of the individual heretics relationship with the belief, not the content of the belief. My understanding is the individual heretic's relationship with the belief separates material heresy from formal heresy. What aspects of the individual's relationship with the belief separate material heresy from not heresy? > Also, there’s an evolving view both theologically – which kind of follows on practical treatment – that the doctrinal divisions between the Catholic Church and the Protestant Churches, as well as those between the Catholic Church and Eastern and Oriental Orthodox are, in general, as relates to (even validly baptized) members of the respective communities of a distinct theological character from heresy (which is essentially the religious equivalent of “treason”), even if heresy was the right frame early in the respective splits. This provides a theological reinforcement for (and in some respects follows from) efforts focusing on dialogue, clarification, and resolution of disputes rather than condemnation, which have made some progress in (in the case of the Protestant direction) both the Anglican-Catholic and Lutheran-Catholic dialogues. I know of the desire to avoid the word heresy. Has this evolving view yet produced a new preferred term?