Saint Basil’s first canonical epistle gives an example to the contrary, as he speaks of when it is permissible for a man to put his wife away and take another. It seems the East just always understood the issue differently.
I’ve not seen traction for married bishops. I’m almost positive that the first bishops were married. I would have to dig around to find a bit of research on the topic. We do know that tradition holds that many of the Apostles, St. Peter among them, were married. It would makes sense if the Assyrian Church of the East allowed for married bishops (I’m not sure how true this particular claim made by the poster I responded to is, however).
My skepticism is in that I’m not so convinced that some of the definitions made by the Catholic Church in the second millennium were necessary for the salvation of mankind. The logic behind making iconoclasm an impediment to salvation is already a hard sell enough.
I am not sure which specific point that you are contesting. But what I wrote is true.
I don’t think that there is anything to gained by seeking to test church teachings for being necessary to salvation.
It is interesting to look at history in this fashion.
It reminds me of the widespread low-church Evangelical notion of “essential” vs. “secondary” doctrines. On what basis would Eastern Orthodox posters here determine whether or not a teaching is “necessary for salvation”?
There is, actually.
If you look at the fathers, they were always clear, in combating heresy, on why holding a certain position to be true would jeopardize human salvation. The Church did not on some arbitrary authority decide that the Word was of the same nature as the Father, that the Holy Spirit is also of the same nature as the Father, that the Word was hypostatically united to human nature without confusion, that Christ is known in two natures, or that images should not be destroyed. I simply do not see the same deliberative process in regards to certain Catholic dogmas.
Of course there is a hierarchy of truth. We can go tho the extreme of the Trinitarian and Christological doctrines vs 2+2 = 4.
I think that everyone would agree that dogmas should be considered with due deliberation and not be decided on “some arbitrary authority”. I don’t think that the CC can be fairly suggested as departing from this.
Whatever reality we are seeing today, it is, of course, long after the explosion of the Protestant reformation - so it is difficult to follow your line of thinking. And the idea “its own willful separation” is not consistent with historical facts.
Nothing, very much the contrary as we see in the states and West. A total break from the the Three Mysteries of the Early Church…Christ. Mary and the Eucharist. Nothing new in regards to Mary, its all very old teaching.
Interesting fantasy you have created in your mind. Are the Churchs in the middle east bearing the fruit of their seperation? Or is the Cross just the Cross.
It isn’t a matter of questioning the fact of it being taught. The question is why raise it to the level of dogma, which then implies it necessary for salvation? I merely used the Dormition/Assumption teaching as an example of this. If a teaching is to be held necessary for salvation, then it should have a good and clear precedent.
Sorry, I still don’t understand what the questions raised here have to do with my question.
I am not exactly sure of what GT was alluding to: did he specify the current, ongoing genocide? In my post , I was referring to the break up into EO, OO, Jacobite, Nestorian, etc. groups. The conjecture about the Latin church is a bit mind boggling.
I am obviously not communicating my thoughts well enough. Please pardon me.
It’s OK. My questions was very specifically crafted. Yours is a good question, it just wasn’t what I was getting at.I am obviously not communicating my thoughts well enough. Please pardon me.
Back to regular programming.