No I haven't forgotten. The question deals with the events of secular world and church history in the 6th to 9th centuries, i.e. long out of Scripture's purview. Scripture can hardly be in a position to tell us what happened in some random wayward 6th century where immodest Monks and Nuns cohabitated in the same monastery, and what we're to think about that. The Church has already determined that those monks and nuns lived in sin, as evidenced by the dissolution of that Cohabitation. Similarly the Church deemed a wayward woman bishop to be an insult to the Church and to God, and that woman's orders were never recognized by any thinking Christian. This is why we need the testimony of the church. It is a record of the application of Scripture in ensuing ages.
All you can do is use words such as "heresy" and heretical". If something was originally practiced, then the heresy belongs to the innovators, no matter how numerous. Based on your logic, it was okay for Catholics and Protestants to murder each other and dissenters in the name of Christ because it was validated by state churches, they being in the majority.
Sorry i will tone down my side of the interaction. Look, all I have to ask you is this: by what standard would you condemn Arius, if his theories were to be popularly found, very early in the Church, as early as the 1st century AD. If you can find something to be practiced early on, do you ipso facto judge it to be legitimate? Nestorianism, Donatism, Marcionism, Manicheism... and so forth?
I have yet to eind any convincing proof of Women As I understand it, 'Heresy', simply means wrong teaching! If we have to describe the abandonment of traditional doctrine, 'Heresy,' is as good as anything to use. But it begs the question , amongst others, what do you term people who abandon scriptural belief and set up their own sects? Or should we just ignore them?
This is exactly what I've asked over and over again. By what standard is any (ancient, recent, or contemporary) doctrine/practice determined to be heretical or not? No answer 3 pages in.
If I may interject, I think it is important to remember that Anglicanism considers itself to be part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. As such, what the Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and Oriental Orthodox think on any given subject has to be taken into consideration. If not, then in what sense can we claim to be part of the ancient and undivided Church? No Apostolic Church allows for the ordination of women. If we are truly part of the ancient Church, we do not have the freedom to innovate across the board and do whatever we feel like depending on the times. If all the other Apostolic Churches consider something to be heretical, e.g. Arianism, then we need to ask ourselves to what extent are we free to disagree and still have a valid claim to be being part of the Catholic Church?
Here is from one Celtic Orthodox Assembly, some material on the Celtic church that is most telling. They also follow the Anglican BCP Liturgy and have ministers ordained in the Orthodox Anglican Communion. One book they like to use is called " The Celtic Church in Britain" by Hardinge. In it there are many ancient records cited that some historians have apparently negligently ignored. Foreward to the article on the "Celtic Church" by Abp. Stephen Michael K. is as follows: From the time of Jeremiah the Prophet, the Irish Celtic church began to take hold. His dated grave remains part of the history of Ireland today. He had successfully transplanted the Kingdom of Israel to the British Isles, just as God had foretold to him. David’s literal throne is a part of Irish, Scottish and English history that is known as the stone of scone. The many Hebrew practices remaining so long in the Celtic lands bears witness to this Israelite heritage. They like to show the Israelite beliefs in the Celtic church which are also embedded in the Anglican liturgy. Read more at their url: http://christsassembly.com/2015/11/the-celtic-church-in-britain-by-leslie-hardinge/
In discussing Celtic Christianity, I found this video helpful in distinguishing fact from fiction. Two professors present their research and conclusions and dispel some false history. Many of our modern ideas of the Celtic church reflect our current needs and wants projecting onto the past rather than the reality on the ground.
Another question: How did Celtic Christians communicate their faith from their very beginning in theology, ritual, music, and art? Both professors did an excellent job in this theological conversation. Not a single hair was shed!