"Origination and sending without begetting or procession or spiration": Yeah, it's over semantics. For a couple people it wasn't and they were heretics, and God knows who they are. For the rest, I won't argue the size of hypernormative connection. (And my larger point is that all schisms that remain might well be over semantics, as there will be a final resolution for each and it will be either semantics or one size being defined out forever. You do want the Filioque resolved, don't you?)

I literally gave you an example why the Orthodox and the Catholic position is not the same and you've blown past though it... Orthodoxy taches monarchical Trinitarianism - the Father is the origin of the Trinity. He begets the Son and spirates the Spirit. The theological consequences of the filioque are devastating. Here's a video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDwuQqPr-rM

The resolution of the filioque is for Rome to renounce this development and return to the original Nicaean creed. But you understand that admitting they've taught error for 1000 years will automatically destroy their whole system so that's not happening. Btw, as I already said if Rom falls, Protestantism falls too because you adopted their tradition and their teachings like the filioque.

No, you! I might say. I asked the difference, you didn't give an answer I comprehended and ultimately deferred the answer to authority, that's where it stands. Another pass on OrthodoxWiki doesn't find anything supporting "The True Church".

You don't have apostolic succession through Luther. Luther wasn't a bishop to begin with. He never claimed to have apostolic succession. He doesn't need it for his system which is based on personal inspiration, Sola Christus and Sola Scriptura. He literally made up that system to undermine the authority of the Pope which is guaranteed by tradition and apostolic succession. You're making up stuff to check the boxes you see that are missing in your system. This is idiocy.

If the mark of "The True Church" is that it does treat other professing churches as hypernormative, well it seems Rome has that mark too (and again it's just semantics about size).

That's not a mark but a necessary precondition. There are many things which define and identify the Church. The reason I call it the True Church is to set it apart from all the heterodox who use the term to denote multiple sects. The Church can only be one. There are no 100 bodies of Christ. There's no division within His Body either, but complete unity in sacraments and creed. Everyone is in communion in the Church through baptism and the Eucharist. The fullness of truth and grace is only in the Church. If "a Church" doesn't lay claim to being the single true Church, then it's definitely not it. Branch theory is unscriptural. But if you are a Lutheran and believe the Lutheran Church - the specific denomination that has common creed and tradition - is the true Church then you're past that hurdle. Now all you have to do is demonstrate how that's the case. You can't of course because of the stated above.

BTW there's no evidence Origen or Tertullian were excommunicated. Origen made big errors but the church was too polite to him to name him in their anathema against his errors. Tertullian reformed Montanism (Tertullianism) to bring it back to Christianity and was a great pontifex.

Correct, Origen wasn't excommunicated but his teachings were condemned. Tertullian left the Church for montanism. He didn't bring anything back to Christianity - he became the leader of that sect and influenced it but didn't return to the Church. His earlier writings are considered authoritative but he's not canonized as a saint.

"Origination and sending without begetting or procession or spiration": Yeah, it's over semantics. For a couple people it wasn't and they were heretics, and God knows who they are. For the rest, I won't argue the size of hypernormative connection. (And my larger point is that all schisms that remain might well be over semantics, as there will be a final resolution for each and it will be either semantics or one size being defined out forever. You do want the Filioque resolved, don't you?)

I literally gave you an example why the Orthodox and the Catholic position is not the same and you've blown past though it... Orthodoxy taches monarchical Trinitarianism - the Father is the origin of the Trinity. He begets the Son and spirates the Spirit. The theological consequences of the filioque are devastating. Here's a video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDwuQqPr-rM

The resolution of the filioque is for Rome to renounce this development and return to the original Nicaean creed. But you understand that admitting they've taught error for 1000 years will automatically destroy their whole system so that's not happening. Btw, as I already said if Rom falls, Protestantism falls too because you adopted their tradition and their teachings like the filioque.

No, you! I might say. I asked the difference, you didn't give an answer I comprehended and ultimately deferred the answer to authority, that's where it stands. Another pass on OrthodoxWiki doesn't find anything supporting "The True Church".

You don't have apostolic succession through Luther. Luther wasn't a bishop to begin with. He never claimed to have apostolic succession. You're making up stuff to check the boxes you see that are missing in your system. This is idiocy.

If the mark of "The True Church" is that it does treat other professing churches as hypernormative, well it seems Rome has that mark too (and again it's just semantics about size).

That's not a mark but a necessary precondition. There are many things which define and identify the Church. The reason I call it the True Church is to set it apart from all the heterodox who use the term to denote multiple sects. The Church can only be one. There are no 100 bodies of Christ. There's no division within His Body either, but complete unity in sacraments and creed. Everyone is in communion in the Church through baptism and the Eucharist. The fullness of truth and grace is only in the Church. If "a Church" doesn't lay claim to being the single true Church, then it's definitely not it. Branch theory is unscriptural. But if you are a Lutheran and believe the Lutheran Church - the specific denomination that has common creed and tradition - is the true Church then you're past that hurdle. Now all you have to do is demonstrate how that's the case. You can't of course because of the stated above.

BTW there's no evidence Origen or Tertullian were excommunicated. Origen made big errors but the church was too polite to him to name him in their anathema against his errors. Tertullian reformed Montanism (Tertullianism) to bring it back to Christianity and was a great pontifex.

Correct, Origen wasn't excommunicated but his teachings were condemned. Tertullian left the Church for montanism. He didn't bring anything back to Christianity - he became the leader of that sect and influenced it but didn't return to the Church. His earlier writings are considered authoritative but he's not canonized as a saint.

"Origination and sending without begetting or procession or spiration": Yeah, it's over semantics. For a couple people it wasn't and they were heretics, and God knows who they are. For the rest, I won't argue the size of hypernormative connection. (And my larger point is that all schisms that remain might well be over semantics, as there will be a final resolution for each and it will be either semantics or one size being defined out forever. You do want the Filioque resolved, don't you?)

I literally gave you an example why the Orthodox and the Catholic position is not the same and you've blown past though it... Orthodoxy taches monarchical Trinitarianism - the Father is the origin of the Trinity. He begets the Son and spirates the Spirit. The theological consequences of the filioque are devastating. Here's a video explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDwuQqPr-rM

The resolution of the filioque is for Rome to renounce this development and return to the original Nicaean creed. But you understand that admitting they've taught error for 1000 years will automatically destroy their whole system so that's not happening. Btw, as I already said if Rom falls, Protestantism falls too because you adopted their tradition and their teachings like the filioque.

No, you! I might say. I asked the difference, you didn't give an answer I comprehended and ultimately deferred the answer to authority, that's where it stands. Another pass on OrthodoxWiki doesn't find anything supporting "The True Church".

You don't have apostolic succession through Luther. Luther wasn't a bishop to begin with. He never claimed to have apostolic succession. You're making up stuff to check the boxes you see that are missing in your system. This is idiocy.

If the mark of "The True Church" is that it does treat other professing churches as hypernormative, well it seems Rome has that mark too (and again it's just semantics about size).

That's not a mark but a necessary precondition. There are many things which define and identify the Church. The reason I call it the True Church is to set it apart from all the heterodox who use the term to denote multiple sects. The Church can only be one. There are no 100 bodies of Christ. There's no division within His Body either, but complete unity in sacraments and creed. Everyone is in communion in the Church through baptism and the Eucharist. If "a Church" doesn't lay claim to being the single true Church, then it's definitely not it. Branch theory is unscriptural. But if you are a Lutheran and believe the Lutheran Church - the specific denomination that has common creed and tradition - is the true Church then you're past that hurdle. Now all you have to do is demonstrate how that's the case. You can't of course because of the stated above.

BTW there's no evidence Origen or Tertullian were excommunicated. Origen made big errors but the church was too polite to him to name him in their anathema against his errors. Tertullian reformed Montanism (Tertullianism) to bring it back to Christianity and was a great pontifex.

Correct, Origen wasn't excommunicated but his teachings were condemned. Tertullian left the Church for montanism. He didn't bring anything back to Christianity - he became the leader of that sect and influenced it but didn't return to the Church. His earlier writings are considered authoritative but he's not canonized as a saint.