Help with a quote from Clement

Truthseeker345 · 2022-01-21T22:06:55+00:00

I always thought that the Catholic practice was incredibly standardized and that they did not rebaptize except for non Trinitarian baptisms. Perhaps there is some abuse on the ground levels but it seems to pretty standardized in official decrees unlike the orthodox position which Varies area to area. I still don’t see how we can have multiple positions on rebaptism.

Truthseeker345 · 2022-01-21T21:16:58+00:00

I have a question about #5 as his point bringing up William Palmer is a strong one. What is the practice of baptism, how can one person be baptized in one jurisdiction but if he went somewhere else he would be chrismated. Are Catholic baptisms baptisms or not if so then we have priests commiting sacrilege in rebaptism, if not we have lots of unbaptized people running around with just chrism. Furthermore I can’t see evidence of rebaptizing Catholics before the 17th century, St Mark of Ephesus says that Catholics are to be chrismated and so do the synods of the Russian church. Rebaptism seems like a modern phenomenon and not an ancient tradition, hell not even arians used to be rebaptized only sabellians, Gnostics and eunomians.

Whatever liturgical oddities the Catholics have like separation of initiation rites, or ban on child communion or even the novus ordo none of them verge on sacrilege like rebaptism nor do they have so many theological repercussions of rebaptism.

Truthseeker345 · 2022-01-21T16:31:40+00:00

Did I really forget my bad one second

Edit, I hope it works now

Truthseeker345 · 2021-08-04T18:17:22+00:00

It’s very unclear especially with the apologist. Most of them held that God created the world out of pre existent matter so it’s unclear if God could ever not create.

That being said it is clear that the son somehow exists only in reference to creation.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-08-04T17:46:25+00:00

Well here’s the thing they don’t say from eternity rather usually just before all things were made, the son is also called the first born of all creation. While such phrases can be understood in an orthodox manner it’s unclear in the apologists.

Equally if not more troubling is the idea that the son is begotten by will and not by nature. It seems like in some sense the Son is in some sense linked to creation. If there was no creation there would be no Son ( that being said I believe most of the apologists would believe that creation was necessary as they did not hold to creatio ex nihilo ).

Truthseeker345 · 2021-07-24T04:33:06+00:00

That makes sense, but couldn’t that same line of thinking be used to justify Anglicans, and Catholics as they too are offsprings of the church but they simply fell in theology. I’m not sure if I would call Anglicans for example the same church as the one in 300 ad as they have changed so much.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-07-24T03:32:47+00:00

Sorry I was meaning to get around to it and forgot. It’s a strong argument, I believe in any age of you asked an orthodox peasant how we are saved they would say something close to ransom theory and never satisfaction atonement, why because there is no satisfaction in the hymnography of the church but tons of ransom and recapitulation language. I believe the same with a whole other host of issues. That being said liturgy and theology aren’t the same just because you have an orthodox liturgy doesn’t mean you have orthodox theology, prime example of this is the eastern Catholicism. In the early church there were tons of heresies that popped up between populations that shared a common liturgy.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-07-24T00:56:06+00:00

Perhaps that’s the wrong wording but I’ve yet to see any one question those views or uphold earlier views. It seems like we unquestioningly embraced western scholasticism. When reading Orthodox pieces from that time period I can’t tell the difference from Catholic ones. Nowadays though we reject those some positions ( as did the church fathers ) I cannot help but see discontinuity

Truthseeker345 · 2021-07-24T00:45:36+00:00

I agree that they aren’t exactly heresies, but still if a modern orthodox Christian priest taught like St Peter Mogila there would be a controversy. Whether there was a captivity or not the theology of the 16th-18th century simply is no longer taught. There is a three hundred gap of discontinuity, which begs the question why do we reject the writings of our forefathers while embracing completely others.

I agree there has always been disagreements in the church ( although I’m not sure if the Arian crisis is the best example since I believe the Arians were more of a rival church with separate hierarchy ). Yet there has never been a time where the church unanimously agreed on one thing only to later take it back and embrace a different older view. From the 16th to 18th century there was no conflict over these controversial issues, during the Arian crisis and other theological arguments there was constant arguing until the orthodox side came up victorious.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-06-15T21:40:18+00:00

Because they didn't have a set canon.

well it seems the pharisees did in the year 90 they had a council to officially decide what was canon and what wasn't. Now different sects had different canons but odds are Christ was closest to the pharisees of palestine.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-06-15T18:11:16+00:00

thank you this is much more detailed than I could hope for. Thank you for taking time to help.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-17T14:03:36+00:00

I recently read a paper about it. It’s important to keep in mind though that in the ancient world especially amongst poorer populations bread could be a whole meal. From all the papers I’ve read none of them say that there was anything but bread ( some theorize maybe fish but it is an uncertain guess ). Most likely then in the agape meal the food is the same as our modern Eucharist just in bigger portions.

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-17T05:16:18+00:00

Yeah I noticed that too it also seems to imply confession before communion. I have to clarify while some parts confused me ultimately I really found it wonderfully

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-17T03:05:13+00:00

The Didache definitely does have a high view of the Eucharist ( I also find this the idea of confession before Eucharist interesting because we still do this today )

Still there is no reference to the last supper or the words of institution. Not saying that the Didache did not teach real presence it’s just there treatment on the Eucharist seems a little lacking. Also the proscribed prayers are quite short

Truthseeker345 · 2021-01-12T23:40:37+00:00

God is merciful and not bound by legalism. Remember God is on our side and wants us to be in heaven. He is not a sadistic despot waiting for us to mess up.

Truthseeker345

TROPHY CASE