The J. D. Vance Thread

once again I must ask:

The first 1000 years of Church history are undisputed. The next 1000 get tricky. This forum focuses on what is in common between denominations and codifies it into the rules.

The Orthodox Church considers it foolish, if not heretical, to enforce celibacy for Priests, for example. But Catholics have been doing it for nearly 1000 years and this forum isn't going to make a rule about it. This is an example of where it is fine to disagree.

But things that have been in agreement for an extremely long time, such as the Eucharist and Baptism being a part of salvation, or why worship is on Sundays, or why there are hierarchies, aren't up for debate. Homosexuality is obviously included in this - and so is race.

Is there a grey zone where one man's dogma is another man's opinion? Certainly, and I do my best to avoid that. There is no perfect system to judge but I do my best with feedback from other members here, and prayer to God.

It is certainly better to create boundaries on dogma the best we can, and err here and there, rather than not try at all and have a Pagan forum.
 
But things that have been in agreement for an extremely long time, such as the Eucharist and Baptism being a part of salvation, or why worship is on Sundays, or why there are hierarchies, aren't up for debate.
Protestants have a different view on Soteriology, so that isn’t allowed, or not allowed in regards to what the Orthodox/Catholic churches teach?

Not at all, why do you ask? I asked him not to lump all us Catholics in together just as I wouldn't lump all Protestants in together.
I was merely saying I don’t think he was talking about you he was focused on other Catholics, which he confirmed in the next post.
 
Protestants have a different view on Soteriology, so that isn’t allowed, or not allowed in regards to what the Orthodox/Catholic churches teach?

Anyone can have whatever view they want, but as soon as they start asserting it to be true and above all others is when it falls under the jurisdiction of the rules.

Confessions of faith are fine, even if one is an Atheist, for example. But to assert the Eucharist isn't part of Salvation despite it being in Scripture or Cannon law is breaking the rules.

There is a difference between stating,

"I do not believe in taking Eucharist," and "There is no need to take the Eucharist." The former is a personal confession, while the latter is an assertion of truth over others. The former is allowed on the forum, the latter is banworthy.
 
The first 1000 years of Church history are undisputed.
The doctrine of the Papacy alone proves this is false. Not to mention the other controversies that precipitated the schism between East and West. According to the West, the doctrine of the Papacy has always been universally understood by the Church since Matthew 16. According to the East, it hasn't. The non-anachronistic reality is that church history is more convoluted than people give it credit for.
 
Last edited:
The doctrine of the Papacy alone proves this is false. Not to mention the other controversies that precipitated the schism between East and West. According to the West, the doctrine of the Papacy has always been universally understood by the Church since Matthew 16. According to the East, it hasn't. The non-anachronistic reality is that church history is more convoluted than people give it credit for.

This is demonstrably false given the many Ecumenical councils which have stated otherwise (especially the 8th one).
 
Back
Top