Tweet
Recently in another thread several of us were amazed to see the following contribution:
I will be using "New Advent" (a Romish source) throughout because I'd like to know how catholicism views its current theological position. If it did not exist as a distinct body of dogma prior to various schisms, why did it take so long for truths (as they see them) to emerge? Whence did they arise? This will be quite a short post; excessive verbosity is available in the links. Here is the first quote:
That covers the first millennium during which various groups regarded one another as heretics. Rome, in considering itself custodian of the original message, describes all the splinter groups as falling away but equally the splinter groups regard Rome as having fallen away. This comes through very well in "New Advent" even though it's written from a Romish perspective, which is why I'm using it. Here is the second quote:
.....Cyril accuses Nestorius (a rival bishop) of heresy
....Nestorius reckons Cyril "a dangerous theologian" who was reviving some other heresy
...Each group consider the other(s) to be heretics
..Every schism produced splinter groups regarding themselves as correct
.It's heretics all 'round
All of the above regard themselves as custodians of correct dogma, with all but themselves sloughing off from whatever grouping they were a part of following the previous schism. In every case it was some new or slightly different idea that triggered the dispute, prior to which the dispute had not existed. As mentioned in "New Advent" disputes could have developed slowly over several years (centuries, even) or arisen very quickly but the fact remains that once there was agreement and later there was not. This raises a very interesting point. First however I'll collate just four of many such disagreements here:
OK, that's enough background. Now back to saints
with dogs' heads. Romeo Rovagnati indicates that he does not regard Christopher as ½ dog ½ man. He suggests that true dogma is preserved in Rome and that everyone else is following heresy. And yet before schism the orthodox and catholic doctrine had been the same, otherwise the schism would have been sooner. Where was the true teaching across that millennium? Where did the new teaching come from? The canine-headed image is well enough described in orthodox rationale as associated with crossing rivers, the Anubis in other words, so if it was preserved back then (and is still preserved in orthodox iconography) where did the "truth" come from and how was it preserved? Rome and the Eastern tradition were in harmony and the dog saint was current then. It's a question worth considering.
1. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14413a.htm
2. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm
3. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm
4. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06744a.htm
5. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
6. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
7. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of...and_Modern_Era
8. https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-...t-christopher/
Originally posted by Romeo Rovagnati
View Post
Orthodox Churches may be more tolerant … since they believe that Saint Christopher was a Dog-man.
I will be using "New Advent" (a Romish source) throughout because I'd like to know how catholicism views its current theological position. If it did not exist as a distinct body of dogma prior to various schisms, why did it take so long for truths (as they see them) to emerge? Whence did they arise? This will be quite a short post; excessive verbosity is available in the links. Here is the first quote:
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm—• An accident of political development has made it possible to divide the Christian world, in the first place, into two great halves, Eastern and Western. The root of this division is, roughly and broadly speaking, the division of the Roman Empire made first by Diocletian (284-305), and again by the sons of Theodosius I (Arcadius in the East, 395-408; and Honorius in the West, 395-423), then finally made permanent by the establishment of a rival empire in the West (Charlemagne, 800). The division of Eastern and Western Churches, then, in its origin corresponds to that of the empire. Western Churches are those that either gravitate around Rome or broke away from her at the Reformation. Eastern Churches depend originally on the Eastern Empire at Constantinople
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm—• St. Cyril, Patriarch of Alexandria, had accused [Nestorius] to Pope St. Celestine of heresy, and the pope had replied on 11 August, 430, by charging St. Cyril to assume his authority and give notice in his name to Nestorius that, unless he recanted within ten days of receiving this ultimatum, he was to consider himself excommunicated and deposed. The summons was served on Nestorius on a Sunday, 30 November, or 7 December, by four bishops sent by Cyril. But Nestorius was evidently well informed of what he was to expect. He regarded himself as having been calumniated to the pope, and he did not choose to be given over into the hands of Cyril. The latter was, in his opinion, not merely a personal enemy, but a dangerous theologian, who was reviving to some extent the errors of Apollinarius.
....Nestorius reckons Cyril "a dangerous theologian" who was reviving some other heresy
...Each group consider the other(s) to be heretics
..Every schism produced splinter groups regarding themselves as correct
.It's heretics all 'round
Church of the East | Persian etc. | sloughed off 431 |
| Oriental Orthodox | Copts (Egypt, Ethiopa) Indian Armenian (Caucasus) | splintered 451 |
| Eastern Orthodox | Greek Orthodox Russian Orthodox etc. | following The Great Schism |
| Western (catholic) | Roman Catholic Greek Catholic  (Carpathians)etc. | Rome calls this The Eastern Schism |
| EVENT | EFFECT. .date |
|---|---|
| Ephesus | 431 |
| Chalcedon | 451 |
Great Schism | 1054 |
Florence | repudiation  1472 |
with dogs' heads. Romeo Rovagnati indicates that he does not regard Christopher as ½ dog ½ man. He suggests that true dogma is preserved in Rome and that everyone else is following heresy. And yet before schism the orthodox and catholic doctrine had been the same, otherwise the schism would have been sooner. Where was the true teaching across that millennium? Where did the new teaching come from? The canine-headed image is well enough described in orthodox rationale as associated with crossing rivers, the Anubis in other words, so if it was preserved back then (and is still preserved in orthodox iconography) where did the "truth" come from and how was it preserved? Rome and the Eastern tradition were in harmony and the dog saint was current then. It's a question worth considering. 1. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14413a.htm
2. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05491a.htm
3. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03555a.htm
4. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06744a.htm
5. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm
6. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm
7. https://orthodoxwiki.org/Timeline_of...and_Modern_Era
8. https://orthodoxartsjournal.org/the-...t-christopher/
Which is ridiculous, as we all know, dragons went extinct during the Flood because they were late to the Ark of Noah. So a Catholic saint fighting dragons, that's really not too far from believing in saints with animal heads like some pagan deities.
Comment