Overly idealized individualism?

[Darron Steele]

The Monophysites and Nestorians did not deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. They are not the same thing as Arianism. I think the only reason you place them "in the same camp" is because the people you agree with centuries ago treated them the same.

Matt: a split is a split. It is irrelevant what caused it. The 1054 split was in response to disagreement. So were the others that I brought up -- which you insist on treating differently on subjective grounds.

The fact is, you have no empirical grounds for the 1054 cutoff date. It is reasonable, but still subjective. My point is, and has been, that the "Apostolic Tradition" model is subjective. So far, defining "Apostolic Tradition" has been based on level of agreement with you and those you have decided to agree with. You have helped me make my point: the "Apostolic Tradition" model is a subjective, non-empirical idea that has no empirically-verifiable existence.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

1054 is the year when Pope Leo IX and Patriarch Michael Cerularius excommunicated each other…So this is the yearly date most people give in regard to the Great Schism. On an interesting side note, as I’ve learned in our History Catechesis class, Pope Leo IX was dead as Cardinal Humbertus was traveling to Constantinople, therefore, he being the Pope’s legate had ceased and his excommunication wasn’t legit.

Anyway, even after 1054 the dialog between the East and the West was good, the two were still looking to work things out, but that all ceased in 1204 when the Crusaders of the Latin West engaged in a military assault against Constantinople and sacked the Church of the Holy Wisdom.

In XC
-

 

[Matt Black]

The Monophysites and Nestorians did not deny the Deity of Jesus Christ. They are not the same thing as Arianism. I think the only reason you place them "in the same camp" is because the people you agree with centuries ago treated them the same.

All three groups denied orthodox Christology.

Matt: a split is a split. It is irrelevant what caused it. The 1054 split was in response to disagreement. So were the others that I brought up -- which you insist on treating differently on subjective grounds.

No, it's entirely relevant as to whether it was to do with authority or doctrine, which are not subjective grounds at all but objectively different criteria

The fact is, you have no empirical grounds for the 1054 cutoff date. It is reasonable, but still subjective. My point is, and has been, that the "Apostolic Tradition" model is subjective. So far, defining "Apostolic Tradition" has been based on level of agreement with you and those you have decided to agree with. You have helped me make my point: the "Apostolic Tradition" model is a subjective, non-empirical idea that has no empirically-verifiable existence.

Technically, the same can be said about the divine inspiration of Scripture. Yet you and I both believe it to be divinely inspired.