De asta se aplica regula Sf. Vincentiu.
De pilda, primatul papal putem concluzia(si recentele acorduri ale Comisiei mixte sunt de acord cu aceasta concluzie), ca desi exista antecedente(si secolul in care a inceput Roma sa isi proclame primatul e irelevant, fie ca e vb de 250, sau pe vremea Sf. Fotie) aceasta a fost o evolutie straina rasaritului, deoarece reactia lor pe parcursul secolelor care au succedat Marii Schisme este identica.

My dearest brother, we do not deny to the Roman Church the primacy amongst the five sister Patriarchates; and we recognize her right to the most honourable seat at an Ecumenical Council. But she has separated herself from us by her own deeds, when through pride she assumed a monarchy which does not belong to her office ... How shall we accept decrees from her that have been issued without consulting us and even without our knowledge? If the Roman Pontiff, seated on the lofty throne of his glory wishes to thunder at us and, so to speak, hurl his mandates at us from on high, and if he wishes to judge us and even to rule us and our Churches, not by taking counsel with us but at his own arbitrary pleasure, what kind of brotherhood, or even what kind of parenthood can this be? We should be the slaves, not the sons, of such a Church, and the Roman See would not be the pious mother of sons but a hard and imperious mistress of slaves.'-Nicetas al Nicomediei

Reactii asemanatoare de scarpinat in cap la aflarea eclesiologiei latine, putem observa si in cazul atat al clerului grec, cat si cel armean, cand au intrat cruciatii in Antiohia(care inca se considera in comuniune cu ambele Rome).

In cazul iconografiei, toate Bisericile din vechime le au(mai putin nestorienii indieni, dar ei au in schimb cruci imense de piatra).
Sau in cazul semului crucii, izovarele istorice o consemeneaza ca fiind ceva autentic, fie ca se facea cu 2 degete, 3 degete, 5 degete, dreapta-stanga, stanga-dreapta, si indiferent de simbolistica din spatele fiecarei variatii.
etc.

invataturi gresite au fost in sanul Bisericii (adica unii membrii ai au promovat invataturi gresite. Ei au facut parte din Biserica, dar ei NU sunt Biserica), dar Biserica nu a recunoscut acele invataturi

Ce este regula Sf. Vincentiu?
Se tot aduce argumentul asta in discutie.
Insa nici eu si nici altcineva nu a afirmat ca Biserica ar fi recunoscut, ar fi asimilat, ar fi adoptat ceva.

Eu afirm doar ca Biserica a PROPOVADUIT primatul papal. Tu ai spus ca inca din secolul al treilea un episcop a inceput sa propovaduiască erezia. Apoi a mai fost un alt episcop. Si inca unul. Si apoi un sinod intreg a declarat public, in scris, aceasta invatatura.

Unii episcopi nu au fost de acord, e drept.
E corect, unii episcopi nu au adoptat ca dogma invatatura cu pricina.
Insa nici NU au condamnat-o ca erezie. Episcopii care au propovaduit NU au fost excomunicati. Decat dupa sute de ani.

Acum, daca vii cu scuza: "s-a propovaduit erezia timp de sute de ani insa rasaritenii nu au proclamat-o drept dogma; asta inseamna ca Biserica nu a adoptat-o, deci e foarte OK", mie mi se pare ca totusi, ceva e putred.

Biserica NICIODATA NU a propovaduit primatul papal, decat atunci cand a luat fiinta Biserica Romano-Catolica.Faptul ca unii episcopi ai Romei au inceput sa se creada "urmasii printului apostolilor" nu dovedeste ca Biserica ar fi propovaduit o asemenea invatatura. Ei erau madulare ale Bisericii (chiar daca importante) dar NU Biserica. La inceput acesta "invatatura" nu consta decat in acest rang (de urmas al apostolului Petru) pur administrativ (primul dintre episcopi, primul dintre cei egali). Primatul papal asa cum il stim noi in forma actuala, a apatut muuult mai tarziu

Amice, cand te-am intrebat mai alaltaieri aveai alta opinie:
OK, inteleg ca te-ai razgandit.
Nu prea iti convine ce ai spus prima data.
E dreptul tau.

Da? Bun.
Primatul papal, in forma actuala, e erezie.
Dar asa cum l-au formulat episcopii Romei in secolul al treilea, era invatatura apostolica? Era invatatura Bisericii ce spuneau ei? Sau erezie?

se pare ca niciunul dintre voi nu intelege ca "primatul" romei sau al papei nu este erezie, tine de administratie, este o functie. d'abia "infailibilitatea papala" ar putea fi, dar este vorba despre ceva din sec 19.

biserica din ierusalim, i-am pomenit cate ceva lui catalin, dar a refuzat sa intre in discutie ;), a fratelui lui Iisus, iacov, nu spunea nimic despre fecioria mariei; oricat si oricum ar fi privite lucrurile asta este o chestie importanta. daca ne uitam in urma doua mii de ani si apoi ne raportam la ce este astazi ar trebui ca teologii crestini contemporani sa intre in panica, pentru ca habar n-avem cum va fi crestinismul peste 50 de ani, peste 500 de ani doar ne putem inchipui scenarii.

Regula Sf. Vincentiu(n. ?, d. cca.  445), cunoscuta de multi sub numele de Canonul Vincentian, este o regula scrisa de Vincentiu de Lerins, in cartea sa Commonitorium, pt stabilirea dogmei adevarate, in caz de impas:

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty. What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men. But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning, provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church; and let them be teachers approved and outstanding. And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.

Acum, recunosc ca anumite probleme tot vor aparea(ca ne-am tinut de mana cu sustinutatori ai suprematismului papal sau al altor erori timp de secole e o critica valida), dar consider ca in linii mari, va arata forma generala a Bisericii.

asta e:

semper, ubique, et ab omnibus

adica ce este crezut intotdeauna, pretutindeni si de catre toti.

Discutia pornise de la Biserica - stalp si temelie a adevarului si ce cred protestantii.
Acest pastor (baptist, cred) spune ceea ce am spus si eu, ca acest pasaj se refera la invatatura de credinta, care este temelia Bisericii. De asemenea, mai spune ca unele biserici au alterat aceasta invatatura (probabil se refera la catolici si la Biserica Ortodoxa) si ca, astfel, nu mai erau biserici. Exact ce am spus si eu, protestantii (mai ales neoprotestantii) spun ca pana la ei nu a mai exista Biserica, dupa primele trei secole. https://moldovacrestina.md/biserica-...ia-adevarului/
Sunt o pierdere de timp discutiile cu penticostalul, numai neadevaruri spune, apoi ii acuza pe altii ca ar minti.

cei 2 episcopi NU sunt Biserica, ci membrii ai Bisericii. Ti s-a mai spus de MULTE ori acest lucru


nu m-am razgandit. Argumentul l-am spus mai sus


era doar o pretentie de ordin administrativ, nu dogmatic