How Do Orthodox Know What is Dogma?

[@dogma_ena_kenona_media]

God bless you bro. You are a man of God really!

[@sethl7078]

Thank you therealMedWhite very cool

[@Tommy-wq4ow]

Looking forward to this

[@OrthodoxChristianTheology]

St Gregroy of Nyssa *does not* believe in universalism. ;) Met. Hierotheos makes this case.

[@JesGabBreMar]

Sedes make a decision to disregard Francis and the post-V2 popes based on their private interpretation of papal teachings, no different from people like Siscoe who disregard Francis' teachings while considering him pope. Trads are the least qualified to criticise the Orthodox.

[@JesGabBreMar]

@OrthodoxyChloroQuine It was Pontrello's arguments which prompted my inquiring into Orthodoxy from Sedevacantism. I made a video review of it on Amazon and on my channel (in Spanish). Amazing book!

[@Val.Kyrie.]

@OrthodoxyChloroQuine I’m converting from sedevacantism/RC to orthodoxy and that book was the first one I read. I was originally questioning but was looking to support my position so I didn’t have to convert, and was going to debunk the book... and just the forward was converting me; it was like reading what I was going through. It was definitely a good starter especially as sedes and trads are harder to convert - they don’t have a lot of the easy Vatican II targets I hear a lot from other orthodox. There isn’t rampant divorce, there isn’t irreverence, there isn’t gay marriage, there isn’t even all the scandals... there have to be other approaches with all trads, and they know their dogma, they know their documents. But they only know their own history and what has been permitted by the church. There was a load of stuff I had never heard of (even as a history buff) and it’s so much worse than Vatican II...

[@vanyaivanov6577]

Your content is great, I wish more people knew about your channel. God bless

[@greekflower3600]

☦️ orthodoxy alone☦️

[@Cobruh_Commander]

I'm glad someone else pronounces "caesaropapism" as it's supposed to be.

[@david_porthouse]

There's some remarkably abusive language in your blurb. Is that what Orthodoxy is like?

[@severianmonk7394]

Revisiting the broadcast two years later. In the meantime I think the RCs have soured on the 'You can't get anything done' accusation since the historians among them have discovered from the wider opening of the kremlin archives precisely how much the Churches have endured and survived under atheistic threat and pressure. Moreover, anyone can see the rate at which Orthodoxy has been growing even in the disaffected west, although perhaps it cannot equal the rate at which RCism has been shrinking in its homelands. (When they do get something done it's more or less a horror, but the less said on that topic, the better.) Still, the Church in Russia has converted tens of millions of new believers in merely decades which no other jurisdiction has done. Not nearly. Not ever. I'm not boasting. I am merely recognising.

[@self-improvement5387]

David, what's your take on "theologoumenon"? I'm fairly skeptical of it due to its history & implications for Orthodox teaching, and I thought of it because you brought up the tollhouses and people typically dismiss them by labeling them "theologoumena"

[@mynameisjeff6516]

This is what Staniloae said on the subject: "There has often been talk of a distinction between dogmas· and theologoumena. In this view dogmas would be the formulae established by the church while theologoumena would refer to various theological explanations which have not yet received an official ecclesiasticai formulation, but which arise from the dogmas. This implies, however, alongside the distinction between dogmas and theobgoumena a further distinction between those explanations which are taken as theobgoumena and other kinds of explanations, these latter depending organically on the dogmas. In such a case, however, why would the theobgoumena not also depend organically on the dogmas if they arose from them? In fact, all the explanations of dogmas, so long as they remain within the framework of the dogmatic formulae, depend organically on the dogmas. Moreover, if they do not remain within the framework of those formulae, they cannot be considered as theobgoumena either, nor can they hope to be invested with the character of dogmatic formulae at some undetermined point in the future. They are explanations which the Church does not make her own in the explanation of her dogmas and so in time they become obsolete." - Dogmatics Vol. 1, pgs 82-83.

[@mynameisjeff6516]

Great work as always!

[@punishedwhirligig3353]

star threatened me with a water gun if i didnt upvote

[@nathancurtis9779]

Based.

[@supercoolbrian]

John Anthony McGuckin says in Chapter 2 of his book, "The Eastern Orthodox Church: A New History" that there are 4 criteria from St. Irenaeus of Lyons for Dogma. I'm not sure if the same criteria is the same as outlined by St. Vincent of Lerins. Whadya'll think? 1. Correspondence with the apostolic tradition set out in the New Testament and through it to the Old 2. That this should be recognized in shorthand in the Baptismal Creed that each one had professed at Baptism. That perceived rule of faith, that was clear to the simple-hearted as well as the sophisticated. 3. That a given set of teachings should confirm to the preaching established in the Church by the collective of Bishops, who's conformity with the tradition and with each other demonstrated their Apostolic succession. 4. That the entire Christian tradition of Orthodoxy should demonstrate a fundamental scole post or tendency, what we might call a giveaway character or genetic imprint, and that was how it all co-inhered in Christ, ran to Christ from every point.

[@shiningdiamond5046]

Makes sense

[@traditionalfascists3303]

Ads made it nearly unwatchable man

[@4gone39]

Dave ever considered posting the audio for your videos on a streaming platform like PodOmatic?

[@tonyfauci9963]

Not just a pope, but Catholicism has a magisterium