Comments on: Et Erravit Ecclesia http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/07/08/et-erravit-ecclesia/ We are Flesh-and-Spirit on a journey to Integral Unity with God. Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:29:18 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Fr. Ernesto http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/07/08/et-erravit-ecclesia/comment-page-1/#comment-6029 Fr. Ernesto Wed, 09 Jul 2008 13:01:53 +0000 http://raphael.doxos.com/?p=2838#comment-6029 Interesting reading of the 39 Articles. I think that, back when they were written, they were intended to be a somewhat more moderate document that would allow a type of Catholic/Protestant church to grow in England. I will say that they were clearly anti-Roman, but not necessarily anti-Catholic. Interesting reading of the 39 Articles. I think that, back when they were written, they were intended to be a somewhat more moderate document that would allow a type of Catholic/Protestant church to grow in England. I will say that they were clearly anti-Roman, but not necessarily anti-Catholic.

]]> By: Gregory Orloff http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/07/08/et-erravit-ecclesia/comment-page-1/#comment-6027 Gregory Orloff Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:38:16 +0000 http://raphael.doxos.com/?p=2838#comment-6027 That's a very curious reading of the 39 Articles of Religion. Reading through the whole document, it was obviously written in the spirit of "they're wrong, we're right, thank God we came along to recover the truth and set things right, so listen up, everybody." It a very doctrinal (and doctrinaire) document, setting doctrine, against which you see to inveigh, as to what is necessary for salvation (i.e., "salvific"). That’s a very curious reading of the 39 Articles of Religion. Reading through the whole document, it was obviously written in the spirit of “they’re wrong, we’re right, thank God we came along to recover the truth and set things right, so listen up, everybody.” It a very doctrinal (and doctrinaire) document, setting doctrine, against which you see to inveigh, as to what is necessary for salvation (i.e., “salvific”).

]]> By: Huw http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/07/08/et-erravit-ecclesia/comment-page-1/#comment-6025 Huw Wed, 09 Jul 2008 12:33:35 +0000 http://raphael.doxos.com/?p=2838#comment-6025 I didn't say there wasn't Doctrine (qua Dogma): I said some might be in error. What I did say was the the Protestant reformers said no church was error-free and that some take that to mean "there is no church" which claim I reject. Imperfection is not a denial of church: as long as the church has in it humans being saved, there will be imperfections. If there were something perfect, infallible, etc, there wouldn't be any humans in it, at all. I didn’t say there wasn’t Doctrine (qua Dogma): I said some might be in error. What I did say was the the Protestant reformers said no church was error-free and that some take that to mean “there is no church” which claim I reject.

Imperfection is not a denial of church: as long as the church has in it humans being saved, there will be imperfections. If there were something perfect, infallible, etc, there wouldn’t be any humans in it, at all.

]]> By: Fr. Ernesto http://raphael.doxos.com/2008/07/08/et-erravit-ecclesia/comment-page-1/#comment-6022 Fr. Ernesto Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:05:05 +0000 http://raphael.doxos.com/?p=2838#comment-6022 Hmmm, You keep insisting that no "Church" really has the right to set doctrine. I don't meant set doctrine as a disciplinary internal matter, but set doctrine as a dogmatic matter. But, that reminds me somewhat of those who used to claim that Christianity is a psychological crutch. The obvious counter-claim is that it is Atheism that is a psychological crutch. Methinks you protest too much on this issue of the Church setting doctrine. Hmmm,

You keep insisting that no “Church” really has the right to set doctrine. I don’t meant set doctrine as a disciplinary internal matter, but set doctrine as a dogmatic matter. But, that reminds me somewhat of those who used to claim that Christianity is a psychological crutch. The obvious counter-claim is that it is Atheism that is a psychological crutch. Methinks you protest too much on this issue of the Church setting doctrine.

]]>