Fides manducans intellectum!
#61
(10-26-2012, 12:46 AM)Walty Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:43 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:34 AM)Walty Wrote: It's already packed somewhere in Revelation but if it hasn't been proclaimed de fide yet, one could argue against this point of Revelation without falling into heresy (due to ignorance). 

So one could argue against Christ's co-equality with the Father before Nicea?

One would have been wrong, but one wouldn't have been dissenting and rebelling against Christ's authority on earth in the same way they would be after the Church proclaimed this doctrine de fide.

I can't believe you just admitted that one could be a Christian and deny Christ's divinity before Nicea "defined" it.
Reply
#62
(10-26-2012, 12:48 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:44 AM)Geremia Wrote:
(10-25-2012, 09:34 PM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: What Pius claimed and what the historical facts really are is a different thing altogether. The early Church, not to mention Scripture, is completely silent regarding the Blessed Virgin's departure from this life.

Although Scripture doesn't explicitly support it, it is still a part of Revelation (it is still a Divine Truth). To deny she was bodily assumed "would undermine the revealed truths", as Ott says.

Simply affirming it's part of revelation doesn't cut it. Scripture neither "explicitly" or "implicitly" supports the Assumption: in fact, it's completely silent about it. Epiphanius in the 4th century confessed that no-one knew the Blessed Virgin's end. The first formulation of this belief came about with the backing of apocryphal literature that has no historical value whatsoever. It's untenable to persist in affirming that the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin is a dogma of faith revealed to the Apostles and handed down by them to the Church. The only way to believe so is to believe that the Church herself is the rule of faith so whatever she happens to declare as revelation is, by that very fact, revelation. And that is, sadly, the case with the Assumption.
Your entire argument assumes Revelation is restricted to Scripture (this is the Protestant sola scriptura); Revelation is also found in Tradition.
Reply
#63
(10-26-2012, 12:46 AM)Walty Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:43 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:34 AM)Walty Wrote: It's already packed somewhere in Revelation but if it hasn't been proclaimed de fide yet, one could argue against this point of Revelation without falling into heresy (due to ignorance). 

So one could argue against Christ's co-equality with the Father before Nicea?

One would have been wrong, but one wouldn't have been dissenting and rebelling against Christ's authority on earth in the same way they would be after the Church proclaimed this doctrine de fide.
The whole point of defining dogma is the resolve such disputes.
Reply
#64
(10-26-2012, 12:49 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:46 AM)Walty Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:43 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:34 AM)Walty Wrote: It's already packed somewhere in Revelation but if it hasn't been proclaimed de fide yet, one could argue against this point of Revelation without falling into heresy (due to ignorance). 

So one could argue against Christ's co-equality with the Father before Nicea?

One would have been wrong, but one wouldn't have been dissenting and rebelling against Christ's authority on earth in the same way they would be after the Church proclaimed this doctrine de fide.

I can't believe you just admitted that one could be a Christian and deny Christ's divinity before Nicea "defined" it.

I didn't say that.  I said that one is rebelling to a greater degree if they explicitly reject it even after the Church proclaims it.  And at any rate, that particular example is different than say, the Immaculate Conception.  One is at the very heart of Christianity and is fundamental to it.  While both are truths of the faith, one is much more obvious to the average Christian.
Reply
#65
(10-26-2012, 12:49 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:46 AM)Walty Wrote:
(10-26-2012, 12:43 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: So one could argue against Christ's co-equality with the Father before Nicea?

One would have been wrong, but one wouldn't have been dissenting and rebelling against Christ's authority on earth in the same way they would be after the Church proclaimed this doctrine de fide.

I can't believe you just admitted that one could be a Christian and deny Christ's divinity before Nicea "defined" it.
Before it was defined, it was "de fide divina," the denial of which is a "Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership." After its definition it became "de fide = de fide Catholica = de fide divina et Catholica," the denial of which is heresy and a "Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited." (source).

So, you can see one reason the Church wanted to define it: to purify herself of those who mortally sin against the faith.
Reply
#66
(10-26-2012, 01:30 AM)Geremia Wrote: Your entire argument assumes Revelation is restricted to Scripture (this is the Protestant sola scriptura); Revelation is also found in Tradition.

Tradition has no definite boundaries or content. The Roman magisterium can pull anything off from Tradition and claim it to be divinely revealed even if there's no scriptural or historical backing for it. That's what happened with the Assumption, for instance.
Reply
#67
(10-26-2012, 01:36 AM)Walty Wrote: I didn't say that.  I said that one is rebelling to a greater degree if they explicitly reject it even after the Church proclaims it.  And at any rate, that particular example is different than say, the Immaculate Conception.  One is at the very heart of Christianity and is fundamental to it.  While both are truths of the faith, one is much more obvious to the average Christian.

You're pointing in the right direction, Walty.

Confessing Christ's divinity is at the heart of the gospel which the Apostles proclaimed, which the scriptures teach and the Church confesses. The Immaculate Conception or the Assumption simply aren't there. No-one can be a Christian while denying Christ's divinity, either before or after Nicea. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Reply
#68
(10-26-2012, 01:46 AM)Geremia Wrote: Before it was defined, it was "de fide divina," the denial of which is a "Mortal sin directly against faith, but no loss of Church membership." After its definition it became "de fide = de fide Catholica = de fide divina et Catholica," the denial of which is heresy and a "Mortal sin committed directly against the virtue of faith, and, if the heresy is outwardly professed, excommunication is automatically incurred and membership of the Church forfeited." (source).

So, you can see one reason the Church wanted to define it: to purify herself of those who mortally sin against the faith.

The Arians weren't Christians to begin with. No-one can be a Christian without confessing that Son and the Father are one, that's absurd. The ecclesiastical councils of Nicea and Constantinople, with the backing of Imperial power, defended the scriptural and apostolic truth against the errors of the Arian party but, as St. Athanasius himself said, Holy Scripture is sufficient above all things and it bears testimony with infallible certainty to Christ's divinity.

There was never a time where one could have faith and not believe Christ to be divine.
Reply
#69
I'd like to respond to the original issue tomorrow, but for now, here's a good page which covers the development of the dogma of Our Lady's bodily Assumption into heavenly glory: http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/Assum...iology.htm

As the article reminds us, even the canon of the New Testament wasn't settled until the middle-to-late fourth century, and the Church was also heavily focused on the Christological doctrines at the time (which is probably why the Blessed Virgin's divine maternity and perpetual virginity were also mentioned a lot during this early period, because they were so closely connected to then-disputed doctrines on Christ).
Reply
#70
(10-26-2012, 01:53 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: Confessing Christ's divinity is at the heart of the gospel which the Apostles proclaimed, which the scriptures teach and the Church confesses.
Is there a hierarchy of more important and less important de fide dogmas? Are some more essential than others? Aren't all the articles of the Creed equally important? If you deny any one, you effectively deny them all.
(10-26-2012, 01:53 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: The Immaculate Conception or the Assumption simply aren't there.
But denying them, besides being heretical, makes one more apt to deny Mary's fullness of grace or even to deny Original Sin.
(10-26-2012, 01:53 AM)Vetus Ordo Wrote: No-one can be a Christian while denying Christ's divinity, either before or after Nicea. Let's not pretend otherwise.
Does one cease to be a Christian when he commits a mortal sin?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)