(urth) Silk for calde blog: Wolfe thesis

[brunians at brunians.org]

> The question is, then, whether the Orthodox or the Catholic are orthodox
> as regards the _filioque_ clause.

That part's pretty minor. They can take sacrament from each other's
priests, in an emergency. The Anglicans are also reasonably close: they
should be considered something other than Protestant if you ask me.

It's not like slicing and the dicing and the mixing and the matching of
the theology that Martin and John and their ilk indulged in.

> (Will the filioque clause be coming down your chimney this Christmas?

I'll be enjoying a nice drive on Christmas.

> Have you been a good brunian or a bad brunian?)

I'll do until something better comes along.


.







> On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 10:07 AM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>> The original group is the orthodox group: there was no one before them,
>> they get to say what is orthodox. Any deviation from what that original
>> group says is therefore, by definition, heterodox.
>>
>> QED.
>>
>>
>> .
>>
>>>>>>> Orthodox Christianity (including Catholicism) is Christianity. The
>>>>>>> forms
>>>>>>> of Protestantism are Christianity with various bits sliced off.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, EXCUUUUUUUSE me!   Martin Luther, John Calvin and their
>>>>>>> followers
>>>>>>> would beg to differ.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Heretics all.
>>>>>
>>>>> ....And so Josh got the Christmas party started at the Urth List.
>>>
>>>> Bah! Humbug!
>>>
>>> Now you sound like a Puritan.
>>> :-D
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Urth Mailing List
>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Dan'l Danehy-Oakes
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>