Lutherans: The King and the Royal Steward

[SteveVH]

The bold text was not even intimated by my post. It seems like you wish to invent reasons to call us petty

This is the post to which I was responding:

Originally Posted by prodromos
This is one area where so called “development of doctrine” goes south. According to Catholics, the beliefs of the Church are made more clear, yet regarding the Assumption of Mary, Catholics have gone from having a clear understanding that Mary died and was buried and within three days was bodily assumed into heaven, to a vague “she may have died or she might not have died” before her Assumption. It has taken what was handed down and declared that it is now optional.

I don’t think I have called anyone “petty”. I am just amazed at the things that seem so important as to be a cause for division when they need not be. I am not talking about doctrinal issues, but rather practices and disciplines. But even the Filioque, with or without it we all believe in the same exact doctrine of the divinity of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, yet it is used as a cause for division. It just seems that we should be trying to heal the wounds to unity, not keep them open.

If you were not giving this as another example of why the EO cannot accept Catholicism then please forgive me. Are you then saying that you would not consider differences such as this as a hindrance to unity?

God bless.

Steve

 

[prodromos]

If you were not giving this as another example of why the EO cannot accept Catholicism then please forgive me. Are you then saying that you would not consider differences such as this as a hindrance to unity?

I consider the so called “development of doctrine” to be in error. My thoughts don’t go much beyond that since far greater issues separate us.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I consider the so called “development of doctrine” to be in error.

That’s unfortunate. Vincent of Lerins would disagree with you.

Vincent of Lerins

[54.] But some one will say, perhaps, Shall there, then, be no progress in Christ’s Church? Certainly; all possible progress. For what being is there, so envious of men, so full of hatred to God, who would seek to forbid it? Yet on condition that it be real progress, not alteration of the faith. For progress requires that the subject be enlarged [in] itself, alteration, that it be transformed into something else. The intelligence, then, the knowledge, the wisdom, as well of individuals as of all, as well of one man as of the whole Church, ought, in the course of ages and centuries, to increase and make much and vigorous progress; but yet only in its own kind; that is to say, in the same doctrine, in the same sense, and in the same meaning.

 

[prodromos]

I just did.

And another petty, vacuous Orthodox argument goes down in flames.

Hey Randy, this petty, vacuuos argument seems to have legs. Some more of your fellow Catholics are in need of your correction.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=923638

 

[Randy_Carson]

Hey Randy, this petty, vacuuos argument seems to have legs. Some more of your fellow Catholics are in need of your correction.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=923638

I’m only too happy to help. Thanks.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Allen Willoughby – Anglican

“He who held the keys would have power within it, power to admit, power to exclude. In Rev. 3 this power is held by Christ Himself: ‘he that hath the key of David, that openeth and none shall shut, and that shutteth and none shall open.’ The words are modeled on Isaiah 22, and express supreme authority. To hold the keys is to have absolute right, which can be contest by none….To ‘bind’ and to ‘loose’ in Jewish legal terminology are equivalent to ‘forbid’ and ‘allow,’ to ‘declare forbidden’ and to ‘declare allowed.’” (C. Allen Willoughby, The International Critical Commentary: St. Matthew, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1977), 177.)