The Apostles and their Followers were Catholics!!!! (Isn't it astonishing???) [Archive]

View Full Version : The Apostles and their Followers were Catholics!!!! (Isn't it astonishing???)

D.R.R.

April 3rd 2004, 12:06 PM

St. Cyprian of Carthage:

"If any will consider this, there is no need of a long treatise and of arguments. 'The Lord saith to Peter: 'I say unto thee that thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; to thee I will give the keys to the kingdom of heaven, and what thou shalt have bound on earth shall be bound in heaven, and what thou shalt have loosed shall be loosed in heaven.' Upon one He builds His Church, and though to all His Apostles after His resurrection He gives an equal power and says: 'As My Father hath sent Me, even so send I you: Receive the Holy Ghost, whosesoever sins you shall have remitted they shall be remitted unto them, and whosesoever sins you shall have retained they shall be retained', yet that He might make unity manifest, He disposed the origin of that unity beginning from one. The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power, but the commencement proceeds from one, that the Church may be shown to be one. This one Church the Holy Ghost in the person of the Lord designates in the Canticle of Canticles, and says, One is My Dove, My perfect one, one is she to her mother, one to her that bare her. He that holds not this unity of the Church, does he believe that he holds the Faith? He who strives against and resists the Church, is he confident that he is in the Church?"

"Extra ecclesiam nulla salus" - "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (Ep. 73, 21).

St. Irenaeus (born in the first half of the second century):

In Adversus haereses, he speaks of the Holy Eucharist, and the primacy of the Roman Church.

St. Ignatius of Antioch, who was very probably a disciple of St. John the Apostle, (d. c. 115):

Some Catholic doctrines in his writings: "Among the many Catholic doctrines to be found in the letters are the following: the Church was Divinely established as a visible society, the salvation of souls is its end, and those who separate themselves from it cut themselves off from God (Philad., c. iii); the hierarchy of the Church was instituted by Christ (lntrod. to Philad.; Ephes., c. vi); the threefold character of the hierarchy (Magn., c. vi); the order of the episcopacy superior by Divine authority to that of the priesthood (Magn., c. vi, c. xiii; Smyrn., c. viii;. Trall., .c. iii);the unity of the Church (Trall., c. vi;Philad., c. iii; Magn., c. xiii);the holiness of the Church (Smyrn., Ephes., Magn., Trall., and Rom.); the catholicity of the Church (Smyrn., c. viii); the infallibility of the Church (Philad., c. iii; Ephes., cc. xvi, xvii); the doctrine of the Eucharist (Smyrn., c. viii), which word we find for the first time applied to the Blessed Sacrament, just as in Smyrn., viii, we meet for the first time the phrase "Catholic Church", used to designate all Christians; the Incarnation (Ephes., c. xviii); the supernatural virtue of virginity, already much esteemed and made the subject of a vow (Polyc., c. v); the religious character of matrimony (Polyc., c. v); the value of united prayer (Ephes., c. xiii); the primacy of the See of Rome (Rom., introd.). He, moreover, denounces in principle the Protestant doctrine of private judgment in matters' of religion (Philad. c. iii), The heresy against which he chiefly inveighs is Docetism. Neither do the Judaizing heresies escape his vigorous condemnation" (www.newadvent.org).

The Didache (the doctrine of the Twelve Apostles, written in 1st century, earliest known Christian writing outside of Scripture, "catechetical summary of Christian sacraments, practices, and morality" (Introduction to Catholicism, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003) ):

Pt.2, ch. ix: "Concerning the Eucharist, thus shall you give thanks: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the holy Vine of David Thy Child, which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be the glory for ever'. And of the broken Bread: 'We give Thee thanks, our Father, for the Life and knowledge which Thou hast made known to us through Jesus Thy Child; to Thee be glory for ever. For as this broken Bread was dispersed over the mountains, and being collected became one, so may Thy Church be gathered together from the ends of the earth into Thy kingdom, for Thine is the glory and the power through Jesus Christ for ever.' And let none eat or drink of your Eucharist but those who have been baptized in the Name of Christ; for of this the Lord said: 'Give not the holy Thing to the dogs'."

Pt.3 says that 'the breaking of bread and Thanksgiving [Eucharist] is on Sunday, "after you have confessed your transgressions, that your Sacrifice may be pure", and those who are at discord must agree, for this is the clean oblation prophesied by Malachias, i, 11, 14. "Ordain therefore for yourselves bishops and deacons, worthy of the Lord . . . for they also minister to you the ministry of the prophets and teachers." ' (www.newadvent.org).

Jude3b

April 3rd 2004, 05:40 PM

Roman Catholicism is not God's church. It is part of Babylon.

Popery, as found in the Roman Catholic Church today, dates back to A.D. 270. Years preceding this date it was developing, but did not exert much power until 270 A.D. and was fully developed in 530 A.D. and ruled, along with its political power, the entire civilized world from approximately A.D. 530 until A.D. 1530, a period of one thousand years. This period is known as the dark ages. The Roman Catholic Church does not date back to the days of Jesus. It is not the church Jesus built.

Come out of her my people (Revelation 18:1-5)

romepunk

April 3rd 2004, 07:02 PM

Can't argue with that reply. What a devestating deconstruction of your argument, DRR. You and I better ditch popery. Popery? Isn't that some sort of incense? Oh, no wait, that's potpouri...

D.R.R.

April 3rd 2004, 07:10 PM

Roman Catholicism is not God's church. It is part of Babylon.

Then the Apostles too must have been part of Babylon since the Didache, the doctrine of the Apostles, contains distinctly Catholic doctrines (Eucharist, confession, etc.). Please see my last post.

D.R.R.

April 3rd 2004, 07:11 PM

Can't argue with that reply. What a devestating deconstruction of your argument, DRR. You and I better ditch popery. Popery? Isn't that some sort of incense? Oh, no wait, that's potpouri...

Popery, yes...Jude's quite the lexicographer.

VFarris01

April 3rd 2004, 10:22 PM

The Apostles and their "followers" (really they were all followers of Jesus Christ) were all called Christians.

# of times the word Christian or Christians appears in the NT: 3, (Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, 1 Peter 4:16)

# of times the word catholic or universal appears in the NT: 0

Source: 1899 Douay-Rheims Bible

the Roman Catholic Church today, dates back to A.D. 270. Years preceding this date it was developing, but did not exert much power until 270 A.D. and was fully developed in 530 A.D. and ruled, along with its political power, the entire civilized world from approximately A.D. 530 until A.D. 1530, a period of one thousand years. This period is known as the dark ages. The Roman Catholic Church does not date back to the days of Jesus. It is not the church Jesus built.Spare me, I don't accept much from a group (the RCC) known for extensive forgery to back-up their doctrine.

spl_cadet

April 4th 2004, 12:16 AM

Spare me, I don't accept much from a group (the RCC) known for extensive forgery to back-up their doctrine.

Instances being? Only one I'm aware of is the Donation of Constantine and that wasn't even produced by the heirarchy of the Church iirc.

D.R.R.

April 4th 2004, 03:10 AM

kofh2u

April 4th 2004, 04:13 AM

VFarris01

April 4th 2004, 11:03 AM

Did you read what I posted?I did; it's all RC propoganda defined in newadvent.org.:lol:
IF you really could think for yourself you wouldn't need the RCC to tell you what to believe and why and how to believe it. The truth will someday "set you free" from the cult of Catholicism.

Instances being? Only one I'm aware of is the Donation of Constantine and that wasn't even produced by the heirarchy of the Church iirc.You need to get up-to-date on "St." Gregory, the forger.

Catholics often quote the "Early Fathers" in support of Catholic doctrines, the Papacy, and other Catholic claims. Who were these people? There were many early Christian leaders, including priests, bishops, and scholars. There were a lot of these men, and they had a wide variety of opinions on religious matters. Their theological differences were as widely varied as those of theologians from different denominations are today. (Malachi Martin in The Decline and Fall of the Roman Church, pages 11-28 describes these different beliefs and practices. Martin was a Catholic priest, an eminent theologian, and a professor at the Vatican's Pontifical Institute.)

So one person finds some "Early Fathers" to support one position, and another person finds other "Early Fathers" to support the opposite position. But it's not a level playing field. Among all of those early Christian leaders, who decided which ones qualified to be called "Early Fathers"? The Catholic Church. Who decided which works should be copied and passed on to posterity? Who decided which writings were important enough to copy? The Catholic Church.

Apart from political intrigue, the Roman bishops have been known to stoop to forge documents to support their claims of supremacy and to widely increase their power and influence. I will look at two of the more famous and important ones: The Donation of Constantine and the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals.

The Donation of Constantine was a known forgery that was used by Pope Stephen III (752-757) against the Franks, which successfully increase the powers and influence of the Roman Church. In the year 753 the Lombards threatened Rome, a barbarian tribe from the Baltic. Stephen approached Pepin, the king of the Franks. The Roman bishop showed the Frankish king a document that purports to be dated 30th March 315; a document that came to be called “The Donation of Constantine”. The document tells the story of how Emperor Constantine, after being miraculously healed of leprosy, gave Pope Sylvester I (314-335), the regions of Italy surrounding Rome and pronounced Rome supreme over the other main centers of the church, namely, Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem.

The document all purports to give the reason why Constantine moved the capital of his empire from Rome to Constantinople: he wished that the Pope should have no rival on earth! In a stroke, the document showed that the Roman Church was, from the days of Constantine, pronounced as the supreme church, had a right to the regions around Rome and was superior to the emperor. The document made the right impression on Pepin. Upon defeating the Lombards, he duly handed to Stephen the regions mentioned in the Donation. Thus was how the Papal States came into being.

The Donation of Constantine, however, is a fraudulent document and one that was most probably concocted just before Stephen met Pepin. The document was finally shown to be a fraud in the fifteenth century by the Italian humanist, Lorenzo Valla. Lorenzo showed that, among other things, the time of the donation as stipulated by the document was before the reign of Pope Sylvester I; thus the Pope that should have received the donation was Pope Miltiades. He also showed that the name Constantinople was not conferred on the new capital, which was called Byzantium until 330; so it would not have been possible for a document that was supposed to have been written in 315 to know that the name of the new capital was going to be changed to Constantinople fifteen years later. Valla also showed that the language of the document was a later form of Latin than that used in the fourth century. With the help of these and other arguments he conclusively proved that the Donation of Constantine was a papal fraud. While Valla’s argument convinced the impartial scholars, Rome continued to deny for many centuries that the Donation was a fraud. Thus one of the most significant triumphs in the history of the Roman Church was achieved by fraud. (de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: p54-57, Kelly, Dictionary of Popes: p90-91, Livingstone, Dictionary of the Church: p127,158, Strauss, The Catholic Church: p58-59)

The Pseudo Isidorian Decretals was perhaps the most important forgery in the steps towards papal supremacy. St. Isidore of Seville supposedly collected the documents. Part of the collection contained letters purportedly written by the anti-Nicene Popes beginning with Clement (88-97). These letters collection was supposed to prove that from the earliest days the Church of Rome had the right to issue laws, validate council decisions and depose bishops. These documents are known today to be forgeries.

The documents first surfaced when Pope Nicholas I (858-867), who was an ardent campaigner for papal supremacy, clashed with Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, on the issue of the right of the Roman church to depose and install bishops. Nicholas I, in his arguments with Hincmar, cited the Decretals, claiming to have ancient copies of them. It was obvious that Nicholas lied, for the forgery was only less than two decades old then!

Pope Gregory VII (1073-1085) used the Decretals as the source of his claim, in the Dictatus papae, of the right to depose princes, emperors and kings. He deposed the Polish King and the Greek emperor, sowing trouble and unrest everywhere. More than any other Pope before him, Gregory virtually invented the Roman Catholic ideal: with the Pope having control over all things, temporal and spiritual. The Popes following Gregory became emboldened by his claims. The Roman bishops, in the few centuries following Gregory, excommunicated no less than eight emperors (and some deposed). It was also Gregory who changed the title of the Roman see from Vicar of St. Peter to Vicar of Christ. The title the Pope today claims came, not from Peter, but from Gregory VII and based ultimately on fraudulent documents. (de Rosa, Vicars of Christ: p79-91, Kelly, Dictionary of Popes: p107-108, Livingstone, Dictionary of the Church: p189, Strauss, The Catholic Church: p62-63)

It is important to add that Gregory not only used fake documents, he had a whole school set up to manufacture still more fraudulent documents:
The leaders of the school were Anselm of Lucca, nephew of the previous pontiff, cardinal Deusdedit and after them Cardinal Gregory of Pavia...Many earlier documents were touched up to make them say the opposite of what they were saying originally. Some of these earlier documents were themselves forgeries...This instant method of inventing history was marvelously successful, especially as the forgeries were at once inserted into canon law. By innumerable subtle changes they made Catholicism seem changeless. They turned "today" into "always was and always will be", which even now, contrary to the findings of history, is the peculiar stamp of Catholicism.- de Rosa, Vicars of Christ, p81The Roman Church made this user (and maker!) of fraudulent documents a saint in the sixteenth century.

Jude3b

April 4th 2004, 03:11 PM

Then the Apostles too must have been part of Babylon since the Didache, the doctrine of the Apostles, contains distinctly Catholic doctrines (Eucharist, confession, etc.). Please see my last post.

The pure church of God of the apostolic period was not to continue ever with glories undimmed. It was God's will that she should remain the same, but conditions among men were destined to bring about a great change in her spiritual affairs.
Peter wrote about the great apostasy that was to come with the increase of man-rule that would lead into full blown Romanism: "But there were false prophets also among the people even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways: by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of" (2 Peter 2:1,2)
Jesus described the same as follows: "Take heed that no man deceive you. For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many." "And many false prophets shall arise and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold" (Matt. 24:4,5, 11, 12).
Paul tells us about the Apostasy and Papacy that was to come: "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God" (2 Thess. 2:3,4). (papal system and ex-cathedra doctrine).
By consulting the historical facts in the case we find that these predictions were true. Even before the death of the apostles themselves the apostasy was beginning to work. Simple apostolic truth as we read of it in the Bible was being lost sight of and rapidly the dark night of spiritual apostasy was coming on. As we get into the 2nd and 3rd century A.D. we find that many congregations of that age were filled with multitudes of nominal professors, while errors and heresies were creeping in. This would develope into Romanism by 270 A.D. and continue to "fall away" into the darkness and gloom that is full blown Romanism - by the 6th century and after that for nearly 1,000 years, the era is known as the "dark ages."
But all was not lost. God has always had a people. A Remnant that Love Him and Love His Word. Praise the Lord!

romepunk

April 4th 2004, 07:04 PM

Ah, charges of forgery. The last line of defense. Proof that, at root, the only way Protestants can deal with the testimony of the Church Fathers is with conspiracy theory.

Of course, why not take this line of reasoning to it's logical extreme, and call major elements of the NT forgery. There's really no reason not to. Most scholars, even conservative ones, admit that certain passages such as the Johanine comma are "othodox corruptions." Who's to say the NT isn't full of them.

D.R.R.

April 4th 2004, 09:13 PM

I presume that this threadvwas placed here primarily to emphasis that Peter was bestowed the keys.

No, that wasn't why the thread was posted. It was posted to prove the subject-matter of the title.

Jude3b

April 4th 2004, 09:40 PM

Jude3b

April 4th 2004, 09:41 PM

God says His Word is true. God gave us the Bible. He did not give us false religion!

jason

April 5th 2004, 12:56 AM

Jezz

April 5th 2004, 02:30 AM

I agree with you the early Christians were both catholic and orthodox.

The problem is that the Roman Catholic Church is no longer catholic or orthodox and has become corrupted with the inventions of men and drunk with the blood of the saints.

Which is hardly a surprise given the demons made flesh that have so frequently sat in the top job.
I agree with Jason. The RCC apostasised from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church when it tried to assert its inflated claims of papal authority - ie, that the pope had supreme authority over all other bishops.

In fact, Cyprian's words seem to work against that position:

The other Apostles were indeed what Peter was, endowed with a like fellowship both of honour and of power...

Thus while Cyprian recognises Peter as the first apostle, he notes that the other apostles have the same honour and power. In other words, no single apostle had power or authority over all the others. This is precisely the position held by the Orthodox to this very day - ie, that the pope was "first among equals" (a position inherited by the bishop of Constantinople after Rome apostasised).

The quotes you gave prove that the apostles were Orthodox - not part of the apostate RCC. :smile:

jason

April 5th 2004, 03:00 AM

I agree with Jason. The RCC apostasised from the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church when it tried to assert its inflated claims of papal authority - ie, that the pope had supreme authority over all other bishops.And where this wacky wacky concept of "apostolic succession" comes from is beyond me.

Jason

VFarris01

April 5th 2004, 07:45 AM

Ah, charges of forgery. The last line of defense. Proof that, at root, the only way Protestants can deal with the testimony of the Church Fathers is with conspiracy theory.De Rosa the author of Vicars of Christ is a Roman Catholic priest. Why would he make this stuff up. Proof there are some RCs who are willing to admit the truth, unlike yourself.

romepunk

April 5th 2004, 01:00 PM

God says His Word is true. God gave us the Bible.The Bible says God says the Bible is true, so the Bible is True. I don't think I need to point out that this is circular logic, but I will anyway. This is circular logic. I can't believe how many Christians use this kind of reasoning to defend the faith. If Jesus hadn't risen, he'd be spinning in his grave. I can't blame any skeptics out there who see this and think to themselves that if this is the best Christianity has to offer, count them out. However, we do have something better to offer, and I'll bring it up in just a sec.

De Rosa the author of Vicars of Christ is a Roman Catholic priest. Why would he make this stuff up. Proof there are some RCs who are willing to admit the truth, unlike yourself.
And John Shelby Spong is a Protestant minister, so you better stop believing the ressurection. Gimme a break. You know that Spong is a poor scholar, and no matter how loudly he proclaims he is a Christian, it ain't so. De Rosa is a modernist heretic. If you think he wrote a hatchet job on the papacy because he's an objective scholar, your poorly mistaken. Like Spong, De Rosa is pro-abortion, anti-inerrancy, and many other things I'm sure you disagree with. This is why he detests the papacy, for solemnly defending dogmatic truths of the faith, many of which Catholics and Protestants share in common. Vicars of Christ, or at least the edition at my library, is a 400 page diatribe with no footnotes and no bibliography, which immediately sends off alarm bells in my brain. Interesting critiques of the papcy do exist. This is not one of them.

But to return to the argument I hinted at in my reply to Jude, let's assume the Catholic Church has engaged in massive forgery. Let's say that all those quotes supplied by DRR at the beginning of this thread are inauthentic. Protestants would be in just as much trouble as Catholic. Because as much as Protestants like to throw around terms like "self-authenticating documents", the truth is educated Protestant scholars construct careful historical arguments for the authenticity of the Bible, much of it based on the Church Fathers. Most secular scholars dismiss the Gospel of St. John out of hand as inauthentic, early second-century pseudopigripha. Conservative Catholic and Protestant scholars rely on the testimony of Iranaeus in arguing for the authenticity of St. John. The Church Fathers are an invaluable tool in defending the NT. The books of the NT didn't develop in a vacuum, they bear witness to a living a community, and a living community preserved them. Protestants defer to the writing of this living community when it comes to establishing the apostolic origin of the NT books, but illogically, ignore the theology of this community. They ignore it in two ways:

1) Like you they call it forgery, or latter Catholic corruption, which complete undermines in attempt to use them to defend the NT. or

2) Like James White and his ilk, they attempt to reinterpret them. Trying in vain to squeeze Protestant juice from Catholic fruit. This way they can use them to defend the NT, and not worry about any Catholic implications. However, this method is at best really, really poor scholarship. And at worst, outright deception.

What say you?

VFarris01

April 5th 2004, 01:54 PM

And where this wacky wacky concept of "apostolic succession" comes from is beyond me.I agree Jason. Why is Peter the only Apostle worthy of a successor? Shouldn't the other 11 have successors as well? If so who and where are they?

D.R.R.

April 5th 2004, 03:34 PM

I agree Jason. Why is Peter the only Apostle worthy of a successor? Shouldn't the other 11 have successors as well? If so who and where are they?

They do have successors: the bishops of the Catholic Church (with the exception of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter).

jason

April 5th 2004, 07:37 PM

I agree Jason. Why is Peter the only Apostle worthy of a successor? Shouldn't the other 11 have successors as well? If so who and where are they?Why are only the Apostles worthy of successors ?

We are all saints.

Jason

VFarris01

April 5th 2004, 08:27 PM

They do have successors: the bishops of the Catholic Church (with the exception of the Bishop of Rome, the successor of St. Peter).Can any of them trace an "unbroken" line back to any of the other 11 Apostles? If there is such a thing as "Apostolic succession" they should shouldn't they?

I agree as well concerning the Saints. We don't have to go to New Orleans to be among or have the Vatican's permission to become Saints.

D.R.R.

April 5th 2004, 09:42 PM

Can any of them trace an "unbroken" line back to any of the other 11 Apostles? If there is such a thing as "Apostolic succession" they should shouldn't they?

They do. http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp

jason

April 5th 2004, 10:05 PM

They do. http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.aspHow do you deal with the fact that a number of popes excommunicated their fore runners.

Not to mention the Papal Schism.

How do you know you picked the right line to succeed through ?

Leaving aside the obvious point, that their is not justification in scripture for this at all.

Jason

Secretary of Education - Colin the Cat

April 5th 2004, 10:14 PM

So if the Apostles were Catholic, did they venerate statues of Mary before they died? Did they have Mass at noon? Where did they hide their rosaries?

Jezz

April 5th 2004, 10:34 PM

And where this wacky wacky concept of "apostolic succession" comes from is beyond me.
I thought you subscribed to the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds? You know, the ones where you confess "I believe in one Holy Catholic and Aposotlic Church"? What did you think "Apostolic" meant? Because when the people who wrote those creeds confessed it, they meant that they believed in the faith that was founded by Jesus, through His apostles, and handed down from one (group of) church leader(s) to the next.

The idea of apostolic succession has its earliest explicit expression (to my knowledge) in Irenaeus' "Against Heresies". In order to refute the heretics, he could not rely only on Scripture, because all of the heretical sects supported their position from Scripture as well. Some of them even had their own Scripture (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Truth, etc). (Does this sound like a familiar picture??? Think: those who support their position from Scripture = Protestant, those who have their own Scripture = Mormons)

The only weapon he had to argue against the heretics as that what he taught could be traced back directly to the apostles, through the succession of bishops. rely on the fact that what he taught was the same as that taught by everyone, everywhere, since the time of the apostles. He used apostolic succession to prove that the teaching of the Roman bishop could be traced back to the apostle Paul.

See here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm). This appeal to tradition has also found its roots in the NT (Paul instructs people to hold fast to the traditions that he has taught them somewhere, IIRC).

If that weapon was effective against combating the "sola scriptura" heresies of the time, then surely it's equally applicable today?

Leaving aside the obvious point, that their is not justification in scripture for this at all.
That's a circular argument. I could similarly argue that there is no justification in tradition for sola scriptura, and likewise leave the question about whether or not tradition is the final court of appeal very firmly begged.

But we're discussing this elsewhere, so I see no point in going over it again here. I just thought I'd call your bluff.

VFarris01

April 5th 2004, 10:37 PM

They do. http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp
Bishop = Elder in the NT. Every church had at least one.
Paul told Timothy, "[W]hat you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim. 2:2). In this passage he refers to the first four generations of apostolic succession—his own generation, Timothy’s generation, the generation Timothy will teach, and the generation they in turn will teach.Paul "refers" to no such thing except in the imagination of the RCC. Paul MUST be referring to the "generations of apostolic succession" in order for RC doctrine to be consistent. TALK ABOUT READING OUT OF CONTEXT AND READING INTO WHAT ISN'T THERE.

Also, I trust the word of the "Church Fathers" about as much as I trust the word of Bill Clinton. Rome is self-serving in this regard; only take the word of the ECF supporting RC doctrine. Doesn't the RCC use the Bible to support their doctrine? Not that I can tell.

VFarris01

April 5th 2004, 10:51 PM

jason

April 6th 2004, 01:08 AM

I thought you subscribed to the Nicene and Apostle's Creeds? You know, the ones where you confess "I believe in one Holy Catholic and Aposotlic Church"? What did you think "Apostolic" meant? Because when the people who wrote those creeds confessed it, they meant that they believed in the faith that was founded by Jesus, through His apostles, and handed down from one (group of) church leader(s) to the next.Do you really think it applies 1900 years after the fact ?

I have no problem with the idea of those believers in the 2nd Century holding to this sort of idea when it still had some legitimacy. 1900 years (or 1400 years) removed from the time of the Apostles, and only the Lord knows how many heretics later, do you really still ascribe to this concept ?

Certianly their is a universal church built on the foundation of the Apostles, but it is the Church that stays with their teachings not the Church that traces some direct lineage back to them.

And their is some precedent in scripture for this idea (albeit indirectly). After all who did Jesus say were the real children of Abraham ?

The only weapon he had to argue against the heretics as that what he taught could be traced back directly to the apostles, through the succession of bishops. rely on the fact that what he taught was the same as that taught by everyone, everywhere, since the time of the apostles. He used apostolic succession to prove that the teaching of the Roman bishop could be traced back to the apostle Paul.Thats fine. 1900 years removed from the fact the same argument holds a lot less weight.

See here (http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf01-60.htm). This appeal to tradition has also found its roots in the NT (Paul instructs people to hold fast to the traditions that he has taught them somewhere, IIRC).Do you mean in 2nd Timothy ?

If that weapon was effective against combating the "sola scriptura" heresies of the time, then surely it's equally applicable today?No it is not, because the chain is much longer and the longer it gets and the further removed from the teaching of the Apostles the weaker the chain gets.

You could appeal to the writings of the Fathers to butress a point, but that is not the same thing.

That's a circular argument. I could similarly argue that there is no justification in tradition for sola scriptura, and likewise leave the question about whether or not tradition is the final court of appeal very firmly begged.If divine revelation is not a final authority then what could you hope to be ?

Men are fallible, as is church consensus (which shifts over time).

The scriptures are not. Although care must be taken in reading them (2Peter 3:16), they can be accurately interpreted.

But we're discussing this elsewhere, so I see no point in going over it again here. I just thought I'd call your bluff.I'm not bluffing. I made a defence of the need for sola scriptura today in a debate against spl_Cadet, but he never replied to my argument. We can pick this up if you want in a formal debate.

Jason

Jezz

April 6th 2004, 01:21 AM

http://www.hyperdictionary.com/search.aspx?define=apostolic

Apostolic Church: the Christian church; so called on account of its apostolic foundation, doctrine, and order. The churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were called apostolic churches.

Simply meaning, the Church was founded on the Apostles (JC being the chief cornerstone) not that there is some mythical "unbroken" line of succession.

Yet another case of a RC trying to change the meaning of words to suite RC doctrine.
Hint: It's no use using a modern dictionary to define the meaning of an ancient word.

When the creed was written, the idea of the "Apostolic Church" had a very specific meaning - ie, the Church that adhered to the teachings of the apostles. Apostolic succession is simply an argument by induction to prove that the currently held belief at the end of the succession is the same as the belief at the start of the succession.

jason

April 6th 2004, 01:34 AM

When the creed was written, the idea of the "Apostolic Church" had a very specific meaning - ie, the Church that adhered to the teachings of the apostles. Apostolic succession is simply an argument by induction to prove that the currently held belief at the end of the succession is the same as the belief at the start of the succession.The problem is that I don't think it is a sound argument.

I agree that a church could adhere to the teaching of the apostles 1900 years later. But there is not reason to assume it does, and look at the Roman Church, you definitely think it does not.

Also note, that the RC's are making the same argument you made in the other thread over them being the OneTrueChurchTM.

Jason

D.R.R.

April 6th 2004, 01:43 AM

Do you really think it applies 1900 years after the fact ?

Chronological snobbery, eh?

Jezz

April 6th 2004, 02:28 AM

Do you really think it applies 1900 years after the fact ?
Argument from incredulity. I can just imagine Marcion et. al. arguing, in response to irenaeus: "Do you really think that apostolic succession applies 120 years after the fact?" :wink: I can also hear echos of Bishop Spong and other liberal Christians: "That applied back then, but it no longer applies today..."

At what point, exactly, did it no longer apply, and why?

I have no problem with the idea of those believers in the 2nd Century holding to this sort of idea when it still had some legitimacy. 1900 years (or 1400 years) removed from the time of the Apostles, and only the Lord knows how many heretics later, do you really still ascribe to this concept ?
See above. Any reason why we shouldn't?

Certianly their is a universal church built on the foundation of the Apostles, but it is the Church that stays with their teachings not the Church that traces some direct lineage back to them.
The Church that traces their direct lineage back to them is the Church that stays with their teachings. They are the measuring stick by which all other claimants to Orthodoxy must be measured.

And their is some precedent in scripture for this idea (albeit indirectly). After all who did Jesus say were the real children of Abraham ?
Jesus said that following the tradition of men did not make one a child of Abraham. He said that following his teaching (ie, his tradition) did.

Everyone interprets the Bible according to a tradition. The question is not "do we need tradition to interpret the Bible?", but "which tradition is the right one?"

Do you mean in 2nd Timothy ?
No, 2 Thessalonians 3:6 In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, we command you, brothers, to keep away from every brother who is idle and does not live according to the teaching (Greek paradosis = tradition) you received from us.

This is a very clear teaching - keep away from those who do not live according to the tradition (and by implication, associate with those who do live according to the tradition). It is exactly this sort of clear statement in support of "sola scriptura" that the Bible lacks.

No it is not, because the chain is much longer and the longer it gets and the further removed from the teaching of the Apostles the weaker the chain gets.
This line of reasoning predicts the extinction of the Church. If the tradition inevitably becomes distorted with the passage of time, then it inevitably will disappear.

Moreover, you're also ignoring the fact that, in the case of the Orthodox, we're not talking about a single chain like the Catholics do. I agree that the Catholic position is weak, because there have provably been breaks in the chain of bishops of Rome from the start. However, the Orthodox view is not of a single chain, but of a whole network of interlinked chains. While there may have been breaks in individual chains, the multitude of chains is more than sufficient to take up the slack left behind.

You could appeal to the writings of the Fathers to butress a point, but that is not the same thing.
But it is the same thing. Moreover, the fathers themselves, like the Bible, were not writing in a vacuum. They need to be interpreted. So we have to appeal to the successors of those Fathers for guidance in interpretation of their work. And likewise for those Fathers, and for those again... all the way up to the present.

If divine revelation is not a final authority then what could you hope to be ?
How about the authority of the institution which declared that Scripture was the divine revelation of God in the first place?

Men are fallible, as is church consensus (which shifts over time).

The scriptures are not.
Your first point undermines the second.

How was the canon of Scripture determined? That's right - by Church consensus. The reliability of the Scriptures cannot be greater than the reliability of the reasoning that led it to be declared Scripture. If Church consensus is fallible, then so are the Scriptures.

Although care must be taken in reading them (2Peter 3:16), they can be accurately interpreted.
This contradicts the experience of the Ethiopian eunuch, who could not interpret the Scriptures until Phillip (who had the benefit of a great Teacher) explained them to him.

Also remember that in the letter you cited, Peter was writing to a group who were already part of the Church, and had already received the tradition from the apostles.

I'm not bluffing. I made a defence of the need for sola scriptura today in a debate against spl_Cadet, but he never replied to my argument. We can pick this up if you want in a formal debate.
I know, I read that defence of sola scriptura, and meant to write a reply but was too busy at the time. I'd be interested in a formal debate, but don't really have the time right now. To summarise: in my view, you undermined your own argument as soon as you started relying on something other than scripture to make your case. For if you are allowed to rely on something other than scripture to support your reasoning, then why am I not allowed to rely on Tradition to do the same?

I agree that a church could adhere to the teaching of the apostles 1900 years later. But there is not reason to assume it does, and look at the Roman Church, you definitely think it does not.
There is every reason to assume that it does. In fact, of all the apostolic Churches, it is really only the RCC (and its progeny) that have distorted the faith. The Oriental and Eastern Orthodox, for example, split at the Council of Chalcedon. Now, after 1500 years in isolation from each other, they are nearly back in full communion again, having resolved their original difference (and every other aspect of the faith remaining the same). It is only the RCC that seem to have stuffed things up completely (a slight exaggeration, but it makes my point :smile:).

Also note, that the RC's are making the same argument you made in the other thread over them being the OneTrueChurchTM.
This is unsurprising, because for the first 1000 years of existence, both the EO and the RCC agree that they were both part of the One True Church. The disagreement is over who apostasised from whom. And as I have noted to you several times before, merely noting that there is an alternative claimant to the One True Church does not mean that the first claimant is false. You need to engage specifics. Otherwise, I could note that the Jehovah's Witnesses also make the same argument you make about Sola Scriptura, and therefore that disproves your claim...

jason

April 6th 2004, 02:51 AM

Chronological snobbery, eh?Not at all. Just an assumption of reality.

Look at church history, the longer down the chain you get the more barnacles that get adhered.

John Tetzel and his selling of Papal Indulgences anyone ?

Jason

jason

April 6th 2004, 03:17 AM

Argument from incredulity. I can just imagine Marcion et. al. arguing, in response to irenaeus: "Do you really think that apostolic succession applies 120 years after the fact?" :wink: I can also hear echos of Bishop Spong and other liberal Christians: "That applied back then, but it no longer applies today..."But unlike at the time of Marcion the church has over time grown an accretion of barnacles that can only really be called the "vain inventions of men".

The further down the chain you go the greater the corruption that creeps in. Especially in a church that is not persecuted.

At what point, exactly, did it no longer apply, and why?The weight that can be accorded to it tails off the further down the chain you go. Or are you going to accord Tetzel's hawking of Papal Indulgences the same level of weight as the Doctrine of the Trinity ?

The Church that traces their direct lineage back to them is the Church that stays with their teachings. They are the measuring stick by which all other claimants to Orthodoxy must be measured.The Donatists would disagree with you.

Jesus said that following the tradition of men did not make one a child of Abraham. He said that following his teaching (ie, his tradition) did.Which begs the question.

Everyone interprets the Bible according to a tradition. The question is not "do we need tradition to interpret the Bible?", but "which tradition is the right one?"Yes to some extent.

It is exactly this sort of clear statement in support of "sola scriptura" that the Bible lacks.2 Tim 3:14-17.

Plus you have a warning against those bringing new traditions 2 Peter 2:3

This line of reasoning predicts the extinction of the Church. If the tradition inevitably becomes distorted with the passage of time, then it inevitably will disappear.Not at all. It simply means that an authorative anchor is needed to "test everything and hold onto the good".

However, the Orthodox view is not of a single chain, but of a whole network of interlinked chains. While there may have been breaks in individual chains, the multitude of chains is more than sufficient to take up the slack left behind.Are you sure you don't have barnacles just as the pharisees did ?

But it is the same thing. Moreover, the fathers themselves, like the Bible, were not writing in a vacuum. They need to be interpreted. So we have to appeal to the successors of those Fathers for guidance in interpretation of their work. And likewise for those Fathers, and for those again... all the way up to the present.But the context at each point is critically important. And you have to watch for breaks in those chains as well.

How about the authority of the institution which declared that Scripture was the divine revelation of God in the first place? Is the church a single institution as you claim ? Or is it those who hold fast to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.

And note already, that I did say that the early church was in a position to appeal to tradition in a way the modern church is not so readily able to do.

How was the canon of Scripture determined? That's right - by Church consensus.Actually it was determined by careful examination of the evidence from the texts and then the decisions were finalised. True ultimately the decision was scholarly consensus in the early church in response to marcion and montanus, but at the same time, it is not as if any old book was included. Each book was included after careful investigation and much thought and work.

It was not just the concensus that went into figuring this out.

The reliability of the Scriptures cannot be greater than the reliability of the reasoning that led it to be declared Scripture. If Church consensus is fallible, then so are the Scriptures.Who said the church made a mistake here ? Quite clearly the churches consensus in some matters is fallibe. Papal indulgences again.

This contradicts the experience of the Ethiopian eunuch, who could not interpret the Scriptures until Phillip (who had the benefit of a great Teacher) explained them to him.Not really. Why would you expect any novice to be able to interpret everything without some training. It does not mean it cannot be done with some training.

To summarise: in my view, you undermined your own argument as soon as you started relying on something other than scripture to make your case. For if you are allowed to rely on something other than scripture to support your reasoning, then why am I not allowed to rely on Tradition to do the same?You can. The problem is when there is a conflict between the two, what is the final authority. Does scripture bend to tradition or tradition to scripture.

And as I have noted to you several times before, merely noting that there is an alternative claimant to the One True Church does not mean that the first claimant is false.I know. But that is not the problem, the problem is that we have 2 claimants to the one title that are both arguing identically about why they deserve the title.

What would you appeal to to break the deadlock.

Otherwise, I could note that the Jehovah's Witnesses also make the same argument you make about Sola Scriptura, and therefore that disproves your claim...Actually they make a claim a little more akin to that of the muslim and the koran.

Jason

Jezz

April 6th 2004, 10:46 AM

But unlike at the time of Marcion the church has over time grown an accretion of barnacles that can only really be called the "vain inventions of men".
If you read Irenaeus, you'll notice that there were plenty of barnacles that are the "vain inventions of men" at the time.

The further down the chain you go the greater the corruption that creeps in. Especially in a church that is not persecuted.
Many Orthodox churches have been persecuted for a long time. The Church in Constantinople has been persecuted ever since the Turks took it over in

The weight that can be accorded to it tails off the further down the chain you go. Or are you going to accord Tetzel's hawking of Papal Indulgences the same level of weight as the Doctrine of the Trinity ?
You'll find that quoting the abuses of Tetzel et. al. have little effect on the Orthodox case. According to the Orthodox, the RCC ceased to be part of the true Church when it split from them. Thus, in their eyes, these papal abuses are in no way affiliated with the Church (that is, Orthodoxy).

Even if a particular church within Orthodoxy does stray, this does not mean that the wider Church has strayed. A single church is not the Church. The wider Church will react to the errant church by trying to get them to correct their errant ways (witness several Epistles in the NT and from the ECFs that are aimed at achieving this purpose), or if that cannot be achieved, then by breaking communion with them. Either way, the Church as a whole remains pure and undefiled.

The Donatists would disagree with you.
And where are the Donatists today?

Which begs the question.
Yes, it does leave the question of "which tradition is Jesus' tradition" left open. I hope to be answer this question more directly at some stage.

Everyone interprets the Bible according to a tradition. The question is not "do we need tradition to interpret the Bible?", but "which tradition is the right one?"

Yes to some extent.
Actually, it is "yes" to a complete extent. Those who ignore tradition are, by definition, making up a new interpetation and starting a new tradition. Either way, it's still a question of "which tradition is the right one"?

2 Tim 3:14-17.
This is a popular one by sola scriptura advocates, I've noticed. Socrates, themuzicman and now yourself have all quoted it to me.

I find it interesting, though, that unlike them you've included verse 14:

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it...

Paul uses "you" in the singular here, not the plural, so he is specifically addressing Timothy. Does he tell him to come up with his own interpretation of the Scripture? Or does he tell him to continue to use the interpretation that he learned from Paul et al?

Anyway, that little bit aside, the bit that most sola scriptura advocates quote is vs16:

All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness...

I gave a more detailed response to Muz here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?t=23067&page=4#post505111), so I'll only give a summary here: That verse omits a key part of the "sola scriptura" doctrine - the "sola" part. It says that scripture is useful for teaching (with which the Orthodox wholeheartedly agree). It does not say that only Scripture is useful for this purpose.

Plus you have a warning against those bringing new traditions 2 Peter 2:3
Yes, Peter gives a warning against those who make up stories. In doing so, he implicitly affirms that people should stick with the teaching that he had "passed on" to them (ie, the tradition).

Not at all. It simply means that an authorative anchor is needed to "test everything and hold onto the good".
Exactly. And what is that authoritative anchor? It can't be the Bible, because the Bible needs context to interpret it, and "context" is just tradition by another name. And you claim that all traditions inevitably "grow barnacles". :smile:

Are you sure you don't have barnacles just as the pharisees did ?
Yes, I am sure that the Orthodox don't have barnacles just as the pharisees did. For reasons, see the end of this post re: the monophysites.

But the context at each point is critically important. And you have to watch for breaks in those chains as well.
The break in the RCC chain is easy to see - when the RCC separated itself from the Church ~1054, by its dogmatic adherence to claims of papal supremacy.

It is much more difficult to find breaks in the Orthodox chains, because there are so many of them. Every single Orthodox believer is a link in a chain, so that it's not even really a "chain" but a matrix. Like a single break in a single thread in a piece of woven material.

Is the church a single institution as you claim ? Or is it those who hold fast to the teaching of Christ and the Apostles.
It is both.

And note already, that I did say that the early church was in a position to appeal to tradition in a way the modern church is not so readily able to do.
Yes, I did note that. However, at what point in time did appeal to tradition cease to be a useful way of eliminating heresy? I assume that you allow this period to persist as long as to the formation of the canon and the Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed, but if you do that that puts you to 381 AD. It was not long after that (at the Council of Ephesus in 431) that the first long-standing schism happened (Nestorians), and (as I argue at the end) there is little difference between the two halves of that schism even today. That doesn't leave much of a window for when "appeal to tradition" becomes useless. :smile:

Actually it was determined by careful examination of the evidence from the texts and then the decisions were finalised. True ultimately the decision was scholarly consensus in the early church in response to marcion and montanus, but at the same time, it is not as if any old book was included. Each book was included after careful investigation and much thought and work.

It was not just the concensus that went into figuring this out.
Oh yes - I don't dispute that each person who voted considered their position carefully. I don't claim that the vote was frivolous. But it was a vote, a consensus nonetheless. And no doubt you believe, as I did, that the result of the vote was guided by the Holy Spirit.

But my point is, Jason, that the process you described (which you obviously don't find objectionable as a way of settling disputes) is exactly the process that the Orthodox Church uses to resolve all matters of doctrine - primarily through the Ecumenical Councils, secondarily through local councils, works of the great fathers, etc...

Who said the church made a mistake here ? Quite clearly the churches consensus in some matters is fallibe. Papal indulgences again.
Papal indulgences were not determined by a Church consensus - an Ecumenical Council. They were an innovation introduced by the RCC, and condemned by the Orthodox.

Not really. Why would you expect any novice to be able to interpret everything without some training. It does not mean it cannot be done with some training.
But if the one doing the training is themselves not properly trained, then the one being trained will not be either.

You can. The problem is when there is a conflict between the two, what is the final authority. Does scripture bend to tradition or tradition to scripture.
No, as I pointed out above, the choice is not between scripture and tradition - the choice is between traditions of scriptural interpretation. Whose interpretation must bend to whose? You already know my answer. :smile:

I know. But that is not the problem, the problem is that we have 2 claimants to the one title that are both arguing identically about why they deserve the title.

What would you appeal to to break the deadlock.
Well, you already acknowledge that papal indulgences is a false doctrine, as is papal supremacy. Both doctrines that the Orthodox deny, and the latter of which was the cause of the split in the first place.

You can also look at those Orthodox churches who split prior to the East-west branches of the church, and weren't part of the whole East-West controversy. Specifically, the monophysites and the "Nestorians" (I use quotation marks because it is dubious whether or not the church known by that name actually bears the condemned Christology it implies). Are they closer to the EO or to the Catholics? In actual fact, despite being out of contact for most of the time since their schism, the monophysites and the EO still only differ on that single doctrine which split them way back at Chalcedon. And as a matter of fact, even that one doctrine they've recently come to a mutual understanding on, so that they are nearly back in full communion again. If either of them had changed their doctrines in the intervening 1500 years, then this would not have been possible. So I think that answers your "barnacles" question. :smile: If there are any barnacles in Orthodoxy, they must have been introduced before the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon - way back in the first 4 centuries. And if the church of the first 4 centuries was that unreliable, then what business do we have trusting the canon that they handed down to us?

And of course, it seems much more likely that the 4 Eastern patriarchs excommunicated the one Western, than the one Western patriarch simultaneously excommunicated the other 4...

As I've said elsewhere, you can judge a tree by its fruit. The RCC approach has led to doctrinal innovation, papal abuses, and further schism. The Orthodox approach has led to older schisms being healed. Judge for yourself.

VFarris01

April 6th 2004, 11:25 AM

Hint: It's no use using a modern dictionary to define the meaning of an ancient word.

When the creed was written, the idea of the "Apostolic Church" had a very specific meaning - ie, the Church that adhered to the teachings of the apostles. Apostolic succession is simply an argument by induction to prove that the currently held belief at the end of the succession is the same as the belief at the start of the succession.Nice try Jezz at throwing the dictionary back into my face. The problem is you tell me my definition is wrong then define "Apostolic Church" essentially the same way.Apostolic Church: the Christian church; so called on account of its apostolic foundation, doctrine, and order. The churches of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were called apostolic churches.Take a look:

Apostolic Church ala Jezz: the Church that adhered to the teachings of the apostles.

Apostolic Church ala VF01: the Christian church; so called on account of its apostolic foundation, doctrine, and order.

I don't know about you but these two definitions are the same!

Let's take a look at this: "Apostolic succession is simply an argument by induction to prove that the currently held belief at the end of the succession is the same as the belief at the start of the succession."

Here are a few RCC practices (now used or once used) that didn't start with the Apostles.

1. Prayers for the dead .....300 AD
2. Making the sign of the cross .....300 AD
3. Veneration of angels & dead saints .....375 A.D
4. Use of images in worship .....375 A D.
5. The Mass as a daily celebration .....394 AD
6. The exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus .....431AD.
7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) .....526 AD
8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I .....593 AD
9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints .....600 AD
10. Worship of cross, images & relics .....786 AD
11. Canonization of dead saints .....995 AD
12. Celibacy of priesthood .....1079 AD
13. The Rosary .....1090 AD
14. Indulgences .....1190 AD
15. Transubstantiation - Innocent III .....1215 AD
16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest .....1215 AD
17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) .....1220 AD
18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion .....1414 AD
19. Purgatory proclaimed .....1439 AD
20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed .....1439 AD
21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent .....1545 AD
22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 AD
23. Immaculate Conception of Mary (not only of Jesus!).....1854 AD
24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council .....1870 AD
25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .....1950 AD
26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Roman Catholic Church - the Mother of God!!.....1965 AD

romepunk

April 6th 2004, 06:13 PM

Here are a few RCC practices (now used or once used) that didn't start with the Apostles.



1. Prayers for the dead .....300 AD

2. Making the sign of the cross .....300 AD

3. Veneration of angels & dead saints .....375 A.D

4. Use of images in worship .....375 A D.

5. The Mass as a daily celebration .....394 AD

6. The exaltation of Mary; the term, "Mother of God" applied at Council of Ephesus .....431AD.

7. Extreme Unction (Last Rites) .....526 AD

8. Doctrine of Purgatory-Gregory I .....593 AD

9. Prayers to Mary & dead saints .....600 AD

10. Worship of cross, images & relics .....786 AD

11. Canonization of dead saints .....995 AD

12. Celibacy of priesthood .....1079 AD

13. The Rosary .....1090 AD

14. Indulgences .....1190 AD

15. Transubstantiation - Innocent III .....1215 AD

16. Auricular Confession of sins to a priest .....1215 AD

17. Adoration of the wafer (Host) .....1220 AD

18. Cup forbidden to the people at communion .....1414 AD

19. Purgatory proclaimed .....1439 AD

20. The doctrine of the Seven Sacraments confirmed .....1439 AD

21. Tradition declared of equal authority with Bible by Council of Trent .....1545 AD

22. Apocryphal books added to Bible .....1546 AD

23. Immaculate Conception of Mary (not only of Jesus!).....1854 AD

24. Infallibility of the pope in matters of faith and morals, proclaimed by the Vatican Council .....1870 AD

25. Assumption of the Virgin Mary (bodily ascension into heaven shortly after her death) .....1950 AD

26. Mary proclaimed Mother of the Roman Catholic Church - the Mother of God!!.....1965 AD







Have you actually done any research to look into these claims. This is the old Protestant charge of identifying a dogmatic definition with the genesis of a doctrine. For instance, to hit a few obvious points:



The term Mother of God was around long before Ephesus, and if you did some studying, you would know that the proclamation was made not as a way to elevate Mary, but a defense of the deity of Jesus. Heretics were denying that the Jesus's human nature and divine nature existed hypostatically in one person. It essentially turned Christ into a demigod, with his human half coming from Mary and his divine half from the Father. When the Church proclaims Mary the Mother of God, they are saying that Jesus is truly God. Mary didn't simply supply a nature, she gave birth to a person. And this person was truly God.



Priestly celibacy existed long as the Church's preference before it became an offcial mandate.



The real presence was dogmatically defined in Aristotelian terms as transubstantion during this time, but the idea of the real presence is much older. Just read the Fathers (and the Bible :teeth: ).



The "apocryphal books" or deuterocanon were part of the Greek OT, and were used by the Church since the earliest of times. Good linguistic arguments can be made that this translation was used by the NT authors.



Immaculate conception is likewise very old, though recently proclaimed. Once again, in the latter Fathers. (This was quite controversial because the nature of the Fall and transmission of original sin wasn't defined until Trent. At that time, it became easy to define the immaculate conception. Since you can't define the one before the other. Ironically, if Calvin hadn't said such crazy things about the Fall, Marian doctrine may not be where it is today.!)



Furthermore, the "not only of Jesus remark" makes me think that you might not know what the IC is. Jesus was virginally conceieved. Mary was not virginally conceived, she was conceived the normal way, but God made it so that she wasn't stained with original sin, so she could be a proper vessel to hold Jesus. This is another example of Marian doctrine simply reflecting how great and holy Jesus is.



Okay, that's an incomplete analysis, my fingers hurt. I'll do some more later.

spl_cadet

April 6th 2004, 06:34 PM

Ok, this has always bugged me about The List™: What exactly is wrong with making the sign of the cross?

jason

April 6th 2004, 06:50 PM

If you read Irenaeus, you'll notice that there were plenty of barnacles that are the "vain inventions of men" at the time.Yes, so why would you expect them to be fewer the further down the ages you go ? This is why I have a problem with a tradition like "The perpetual virginity of Mary". It turns up first in the 5th Century. Why so late ? IF it really was their from the first, why isn't it mentioned, and if it wasn't and it developed over time, then I think we have a candidate for the "inventions of men". Surely you can see why I would say this and agree with the reformers for rejecting this doctrine.

Many Orthodox churches have been persecuted for a long time. The Church in Constantinople has been persecuted ever since the Turks took it over in Thats fine, the problem is that it also wasn't persecuted for a very long time.

You'll find that quoting the abuses of Tetzel et. al. have little effect on the Orthodox case. According to the Orthodox, the RCC ceased to be part of the true Church when it split from them. Thus, in their eyes, these papal abuses are in no way affiliated with the Church (that is, Orthodoxy).The problem is that I am more familar with the RCC church than the EO. I know you want accord any weight to his claim, I don't expect you to, the point is, you have a late idea that is part of tradition, should it be accepted ?

Icons were actually condemmed at a Church council before a later one reversed the decision, and the mary's perpetual virginity are relativly late ideas, shall we deal with those instead ? Tetzel has the advantage of being someone that neither of us are offside about so we are less likely to be defensive.

I only noted him because the case for Papal Indulgences for the remission of sin are a "holy tradition" and argued for the same as some of your traditions as well. I notice the RC's in here are very quiet on this charge, plus the charge of the RCC being "drunk on the blood of the saints". Perhaps they should read a short tome by John Foxe.

Even if a particular church within Orthodoxy does stray, this does not mean that the wider Church has strayed. A single church is not the Church. The wider Church will react to the errant church by trying to get them to correct their errant ways (witness several Epistles in the NT and from the ECFs that are aimed at achieving this purpose), or if that cannot be achieved, then by breaking communion with them. Either way, the Church as a whole remains pure and undefiled.Yes I agree. The problem is that I do not agree with you that a merely human institution is the entire manifestation of the Church.

And where are the Donatists today?Persecuted out of existence unfortunately. But they were hardly heretics.

Actually, it is "yes" to a complete extent. Those who ignore tradition are, by definition, making up a new interpetation and starting a new tradition. Either way, it's still a question of "which tradition is the right one"?Ok then I concede this point. True enough.

I find it interesting, though, that unlike them you've included verse 14:I do take the charge of "context is important" very seriously.

Paul uses "you" in the singular here, not the plural, so he is specifically addressing Timothy.Yep. But lots of the advice in the Episltes is addressed to individuals or specific churches, should we therefore ignore it ? I presume that is not what you are saying.

Does he tell him to come up with his own interpretation of the Scripture? Or does he tell him to continue to use the interpretation that he learned from Paul et al?Whats the problem ? You learn things always from the those more leaned than you and with greater knowledge and experience.

That verse omits a key part of the "sola scriptura" doctrine - the "sola" part. It says that scripture is useful for teaching (with which the Orthodox wholeheartedly agree). It does not say that only Scripture is useful for this purpose.That is a misunderstand of Sola Scriptura though. The idea is not that you cannot appeal to other souces, the idea is that Scripture is a final authority. If their is a conflict between tradition and scripture than tradition looses out. That is what Sola Scriptura is getting at. If you want to advance a position then show me where you get that from in the revealed word of God.

Although a concept like the Trinity is not directly named in scripture it certianly can be defended from it.

Yes, Peter gives a warning against those who make up stories. In doing so, he implicitly affirms that people should stick with the teaching that he had "passed on" to them (ie, the tradition).Which we find written down for us in the Bible.

Exactly. And what is that authoritative anchor? It can't be the Bible, because the Bible needs context to interpret it, and "context" is just tradition by another name. And you claim that all traditions inevitably "grow barnacles". :smile:Which is why they need to be reappaised over time and as new information comes to light. And the Bible can be an authorative anchor because the historical context of the times can be used to inform about the thinking and mind set of the writers. That will suffice to determine the writers intent in nearly all cases.

Yes, I did note that. However, at what point in time did appeal to tradition cease to be a useful way of eliminating heresy?It depends how you use it. The ECF's and a work like Against Praxaes by Tertullian will always be a useful work in looking at, understanding and defending the doctrine of the trinity. It does not fade with usefulness over time because it is anchored in time at 220AD.

The problem becomes when you want to base things on an idea that first turns up in the 5th century. That has to be accorded less weight because it turns up later. The later you find ideas first mentioned the more suspect they are. Does that make sense.

One caveat on this though. In many cases in church history we see a doctrine really get hammered out and nailed down when a challenger comes along and questions it. In many cases a doctrine is actually held in the intervening time but nobody has seriously questioned it until that point, so then a defense is written of it. So a "late tradition" gains strength and authority if it is first written about in a defense against those who are atacking the idea.

Is that clear ? I do think tradition has a part to play, I am simply suspect of traditions that grow up slowly over time that do not appear to be held by the early believers.

Look at Papal Authority. Both of us reject it, but why. Clearly it is not an idea that is taught early and it is an idea that evolved over time (even into a monstrosity like Papal Infallibility) but that is exactly why I find it suspect. You can trace its growth and lineage back in time and see were this aberation came from and it was not from the apostles.

But my point is, Jason, that the process you described (which you obviously don't find objectionable as a way of settling disputes) is exactly the process that the Orthodox Church uses to resolve all matters of doctrine - primarily through the Ecumenical Councils, secondarily through local councils, works of the great fathers, etc...Good for them. What do they do when 2 councils conflict ?

How do you resolve that case ?

You have a conflict over Icons from the council of 754 saying no and the council in 787 saying yes.

No, as I pointed out above, the choice is not between scripture and tradition - the choice is between traditions of scriptural interpretation. Whose interpretation must bend to whose? You already know my answer. :smile:The problem is that you do have problematic traditions turning up that are then used to interpret scripture. The RCC do it all the time finding justifications in scripture for all manner of wackiness. But principally by essentially reinterpreting scripture to defend their case. (Peter having the "keys" and being the "rock" anyone ?).

Well, you already acknowledge that papal indulgences is a false doctrine, as is papal supremacy. Both doctrines that the Orthodox deny, and the latter of which was the cause of the split in the first place.The problem is that you have me at a disadvantage by having a better understand of EO practice than I do.

If either of them had changed their doctrines in the intervening 1500 years, then this would not have been possible. So I think that answers your "barnacles" question. :smile: If there are any barnacles in Orthodoxy, they must have been introduced before the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon - way back in the first 4 centuries. And if the church of the first 4 centuries was that unreliable, then what business do we have trusting the canon that they handed down to us?Do they have Icons or recognise the council that approved them ?

As I've said elsewhere, you can judge a tree by its fruit. The RCC approach has led to doctrinal innovation, papal abuses, and further schism. The Orthodox approach has led to older schisms being healed. Judge for yourself.And yet we have Protestant/EO dialogue and perhaps in time that schism can be healed as well. What I have a problem with is the idea that Protestants are not part of the Church of Christ.

Was the monophystite churches unsaved for 1500 years when they were out of communion with the EO church ?

Jason

D.R.R.

April 6th 2004, 09:00 PM

Not at all. Just an assumption of reality.

What do you mean?

Look at church history, the longer down the chain you get the more barnacles that get adhered.

Since when did barnacles have anything to do with church history? I thought they pertained to natural science.

John Tetzel and his selling of Papal Indulgences anyone ?

Jason

Tetzel was committing abuses and not living out the teachings of the Catholic Church.

VFarris01

April 6th 2004, 09:01 PM

Concerning RCC practices from my post #39, Jason covers the whole post with:Look at Papal Authority. Both of us reject it, but why. Clearly it is not an idea that is taught early and it is an idea that evolved over time (even into a monstrosity like Papal Infallibility) but that is exactly why I find it suspect. You can trace its growth and lineage back in time and see were this aberation came from and it was not from the apostles.Not all but most of the practices listed share this commonality.That is a misunderstand of Sola Scriptura thought. The idea is not that you cannot appeal to other souces, the idea is that Scripture is a final authority. If their is a conflict between tradition and scripture than tradition looses out. That is what Sola Scriptura is getting at. If you want to advance a position then show me where you get that from in the revealed word of God.Absolutely!

jason

April 6th 2004, 09:36 PM

What do you mean?The observation that traditions become corrupt over time.

Since when did barnacles have anything to do with church history? I thought they pertained to natural science.Funny.

Tetzel was committing abuses and not living out the teachings of the Catholic Church.Yet he was sent by the Pope to raise fund for the construction of yet another church in Rome. (St. Peters Basillican IIRC).

Was the Pope failing to live out the teaching of the RCC and commiting abuses as well ? It seems that if one is the other is. Especially as, to Luthers surprise the Pope took Tetzel's side against him in the ensuing conflagration.

But if the Pope is so freely commiting abuses what does that mean for "Apostolic Succession" ? Perhaps the Donatists were right.

Jason

Jezz

April 8th 2004, 04:11 AM

Yes, so why would you expect them to be fewer the further down the ages you go ?
I don't. There were plenty of barnacles all throughout the ages. But never on the Church - who always either scraped them off or cut off the affected part.

This is why I have a problem with a tradition like "The perpetual virginity of Mary". It turns up first in the 5th Century. Why so late ? IF it really was their from the first, why isn't it mentioned, and if it wasn't and it developed over time, then I think we have a candidate for the "inventions of men". Surely you can see why I would say this and agree with the reformers for rejecting this doctrine.
I used to think the same way. But then I realised:

1. It was an argument from silence. I am always wary of those.
2. Celibacy among those devoted to a life of service to God (the monastic ideal) was much more common in the day than I had at first realised, so that the claim is not historically implausible.
3. Most importantly, historically we note that the Church has usually reacted vigorously when someone changes the tradition handed down to them. The fact that noone reacted vigorously when it was mentioned for the first time in extant works tends to indicate that it was already a widely held belief.

Thats fine, the problem is that it also wasn't persecuted for a very long time.
Sorry, I didn't properly complete my sentence. I mentioned that the Church of Constantinople was oppressed, and you correctly noted that they weren't oppressed for a long time too. But I also meant to mention other churches. For example, the entire Church was oppressed for the first 3 centuries, as you know. Constantine's edict of toleration in 311 and the adoption of Christianity as the official religion some time later that century by Theodosius were a big victories for the churches of the Roman Empire - but they had the opposite effect for the churches of neighbouring Persia. Relations between Persia and Rome were always tense, and war was frequent. When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire, to be seen as a Christian in Persia was to be seen as a traitor. Persecution of the Persian Church (aka, the Assyrian Church of the East) was intense (indeed, it still is). There has always been some part of Orthodoxy that has been persecuted.

The problem is that I am more familar with the RCC church than the EO. I know you want accord any weight to his claim, I don't expect you to, the point is, you have a late idea that is part of tradition, should it be accepted ?
I addressed this above. If 1. it is not directly contradicted by an earlier testimony (silence does not count as contradiction), and 2. it is was not met with controversy when it first appeared (indicating that it was a fact that people took for granted), then I think it should be accepted.

Icons were actually condemmed at a Church council before a later one reversed the decision, and the mary's perpetual virginity are relativly late ideas, shall we deal with those instead ? Tetzel has the advantage of being someone that neither of us are offside about so we are less likely to be defensive.
It is a fair thing to bring up Tetzel in a thread originally claiming that the RCC is the original Church - however, it won't be successful against me because I'll simply agree with you and it will not be in the least damaging to my position. As for addressing the other issues - I've addressed Mary above, and I'll address the issue of icons later.

I only noted him because the case for Papal Indulgences for the remission of sin are a "holy tradition" and argued for the same as some of your traditions as well. I notice the RC's in here are very quiet on this charge, plus the charge of the RCC being "drunk on the blood of the saints". Perhaps they should read a short tome by John Foxe.
Oh yes... the "being drunk on the blood of saints" thing. The RCC sacked and looted Constantinople during one of the Crusades and installed a Latin Patriarch...

Yes I agree. The problem is that I do not agree with you that a merely human institution is the entire manifestation of the Church.
I never claimed that a merely human institution is the entire manifestation of the Church. On the other hand, I do not believe that the Orthodox Church is a merely human institution - as it was founded by Christ Himself, and has the guidance of the Holy Spirit (as Christ promised).

Persecuted out of existence unfortunately. But they were hardly heretics.
Actually, while they were persecuted by the Church, this is not what made them die out. As a matter of fact, persecution by the Church only seemed to make them grow stronger. The only died out some time after the Muslims conquered the area (in fact, it is argued that were it not for the weakening that the Donatist schism caused, the Muslims would not have been able to take North Africa so easily). As for whether or not they were heretics... well, if they were teaching correct doctrine, do you think that God would have let them die out?

Ok then I concede this point. True enough.
:thumb:

I do take the charge of "context is important" very seriously.
:thumb:

Yep. But lots of the advice in the Episltes is addressed to individuals or specific churches, should we therefore ignore it ? I presume that is not what you are saying.
You're correct, that's not what I was saying.

My point is that he was instructing Timothy (as an individual) on how to maintain the faith. As an individual, he is not advised to rely on his personal interpretation - but to rely on the interpretation that he has been taught.

Whats the problem ? You learn things always from the those more leaned than you and with greater knowledge and experience.
Yes, but the point is that that is the only way that you're supposed to learn. You're not supposed to learn by trying to interpret the Scriptures by yourself - you're supposed to rely on the interpretation of someone more experienced than yourself.

That is a misunderstand of Sola Scriptura though. The idea is not that you cannot appeal to other souces, the idea is that Scripture is a final authority. If their is a conflict between tradition and scripture than tradition looses out. That is what Sola Scriptura is getting at. If you want to advance a position then show me where you get that from in the revealed word of God.

Although a concept like the Trinity is not directly named in scripture it certianly can be defended from it.
No, I think you're misunderstanding me. I realise that sola scriptura advocates use external sources to interpret the Bible. I have no problem with seeing Scripture as an authoritative source, which no Church doctrine should be in contradiction with. The question I am asking, is on what basis do you decide that scripture is the sole authoritative source?

In summary, I agree that Scripture is a final authority, but not the only final authority.

Yes, Peter gives a warning against those who make up stories. In doing so, he implicitly affirms that people should stick with the teaching that he had "passed on" to them (ie, the tradition).

Which we find written down for us in the Bible.
Begging the question of whether or not it was all written down for us in the Bible. Justify this assumption. You will find it difficult, given that 1. the Bible itself does not make that claim, and 2. the people who assembled the Bible did not make that claim. The first person to make that claim was Luther... so if you want to talk about the "perpetual virginity of Mary" being a late invention... :wink:

Which is why they need to be reappaised over time and as new information comes to light. And the Bible can be an authorative anchor because the historical context of the times can be used to inform about the thinking and mind set of the writers. That will suffice to determine the writers intent in nearly all cases.
Don't get me wrong - as noted above, I believe that the Bible is an authoritative anchor. This has never been the issue. The sole issue here is whether or not the Bible is the sole authoritative anchor - ie, the "sola" in "sola scriptura". I don't believe that it is, in fact it cannot be - because the authority of the Bible itself is in turn anchored on the authority of the Church that decided upon its canon. So my question is, if you trust the process and authority by which the Church came to decide upon the canon, why would you not trust it elsewhere? It would seem that in doing so one is elevating their own ability to discern what is authoritative over that of the wider Church.

It depends how you use it. The ECF's and a work like Against Praxaes by Tertullian will always be a useful work in looking at, understanding and defending the doctrine of the trinity. It does not fade with usefulness over time because it is anchored in time at 220AD.

The problem becomes when you want to base things on an idea that first turns up in the 5th century. That has to be accorded less weight because it turns up later. The later you find ideas first mentioned the more suspect they are. Does that make sense.

One caveat on this though. In many cases in church history we see a doctrine really get hammered out and nailed down when a challenger comes along and questions it. In many cases a doctrine is actually held in the intervening time but nobody has seriously questioned it until that point, so then a defense is written of it. So a "late tradition" gains strength and authority if it is first written about in a defense against those who are atacking the idea.

Is that clear ? I do think tradition has a part to play, I am simply suspect of traditions that grow up slowly over time that do not appear to be held by the early believers.
This is indeed clear to me. But I think you need to think through the consequences of the point you noted above - ie, that many doctrines went unmentioned until they were seriously questioned, at which time they were thrashed out. And one thing that is conspicuous by its absence with the first mention of the perpetual virginity of Mary is any hint of controversy over its mentioning. If this was an innovation, it would surely have brewed a controversy.

Look at Papal Authority. Both of us reject it, but why. Clearly it is not an idea that is taught early and it is an idea that evolved over time (even into a monstrosity like Papal Infallibility) but that is exactly why I find it suspect. You can trace its growth and lineage back in time and see were this aberation came from and it was not from the apostles.
I reject it not only because it appears late, but because it is contradicted by earlier testimony, and because every time Rome tried to enforce the doctrine we see ripples of controversy in the historical record, and because the fruit of the doctrine is corruption and schism.

Good for them. What do they do when 2 councils conflict ?

How do you resolve that case ?

You have a conflict over Icons from the council of 754 saying no and the council in 787 saying yes.
You figure out which of the two councils is the authoritative one. This is something done by the Church as a whole. For a council to be Ecumenical, it must have the assent of the whole Church.

With the iconoclasm controversy, for example, it's pretty easy to determine that the council of 754 was not Ecumenical. The controversy started when an iconoclastic emporer (Leo) came into power. His iconoclastic ideas were rejected by the Patriarch of Constantinople, whom he subsequently deposed and replaced with a Patriarch who would support him. His son (and successor) Constantine Copronymus was the emporer who convened the council of 754. This does not make it non-Ecumenical, but it is a bad start. The council he called only involved Eastern bishops - Rome was not represented. Again, this does not make it non-Ecumenical, but it's another black mark. Moreover, there was a disproportionately high representation of iconoclastic bishops at the council, and for that matter there were only 138 bishops all up (I'm not sure what the final vote was). Moreover the decisions of this council only lasted 33 years before being overturned, as the results weren't accepted by the wider Church. Add all of these factors together, and you don't really have a good candidate for an Ecumenical Council.

Now compare this with the 2nd Council of Nicea in 787 - it involved 350 bishops, with representatives from all the Patriarchates, the vote was unanimous, and the result was immediately accepted by the entire Church, and has been ever since by both EO and RCC. Now that's an Ecumenical Council. :smile:

Not to mention that the monophysites and Nestorians (who both split long before both of these councils) both venerate icons, and there have been Christian icons found in catacombs dating to the 2nd century, and the OT itself has examples of icons in the tabernacle, the ark, and the Solomonic temple... venerating icons can hardly be called a "late invention". The council of 754 (the iconoclastic council) was the "innovative" one, not the 7th Ecumenical Council.

The problem is that you do have problematic traditions turning up that are then used to interpret scripture. The RCC do it all the time finding justifications in scripture for all manner of wackiness. But principally by essentially reinterpreting scripture to defend their case. (Peter having the "keys" and being the "rock" anyone ?).
Yes that's true, but realise that the only reason you know about these problematic traditions is because they were identified as problematic when they first appeared. It is primarily the disagreements that generate a paper trail in history - agreement generally does not.

It is for this reason that not too much weight can be assigned to the relative lateness of the earliest extant reference to the perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact, the lack of controversy when it did appear tends to indicate that it was already an established belief.

The problem is that you have me at a disadvantage by having a better understand of EO practice than I do.
Why is that a "disadvantage"? :shrug: It's only a disadvantage if your goal is to "win" the "argument" or to defend a pre-existing POV. If you're interested in learning the truth, then you shouldn't see it as a disadvantage - rather, you should see it as an opportunity to learn. :smile:

Do [the monophysites] have Icons or recognise the council that approved them ?
Yes and yes!! Here is an excerpt from the 2nd agreed statement (1990) (http://www.orthodoxunity.org/state02.html) between the Oriental Orthodox (monophysites) and the Eastern Orthodox (simply "Orthodox" in this passage):

8. Both families accept the first three Ecumenical Councils, which form our common heritage. In relation to the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, the Orthodox state that for them the above points 1-7 are the teachings also of the four later Councils of the Orthodox Church, while the Oriental Orthodox consider this statement of the Orthodox as their interpretation. With this understanding, the Oriental Orthodox respond to it positively.

In relation to the teaching of the Seventh Ecumenical Council of the Orthodox Church, the Oriental Orthodox agree that the theology and practice of the veneration of icons taught by that Council are in basic agreement with the teaching and practice of the Oriental Orthodox from ancient times, long before the convening of the Council, and that we have no disagreement in this regard.

Once the OO and the EO resolved the issue of "monophysitism", they both realised that that was the only thing that separated them. Thus the OO were able to ratify the four later councils of the EO, despite not being a party to them at the time. As a result, each were able to acknowledge the Orthodoxy of the other - ie, that they have both preserved the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith:

9. In the light of our Agreed Statement on Christology as well as of the above common affirmations, we have now clearly understood that both families have always loyally maintained the same authentic Orthodox Christological faith, and the unbroken continuity of the apostolic tradition, though they have used Christological terms in different ways. It is this common faith and continuous loyalty to the Apostolic Tradition that should be the basis for our unity and communion.

This is what makes me certain that the tradition has been preserved, because these two branches of Christendom were placed in a position where they had to preserve the faith separately. Either they both made exactly same modifications to the faith completely independently (!), or they both preserved it exactly as it was prior to the schism. Although there were many factors contributing to my acceptance of Orthodoxy, it was meditating on the consequences of this observation that was probably the most important one.

And yet we have Protestant/EO dialogue and perhaps in time that schism can be healed as well. What I have a problem with is the idea that Protestants are not part of the Church of Christ.
I think the EO attitude to Protestants is not that they're not members of the Church of Christ - rather, that if they are members it's more in spite of their Protestantism, rather than because of it. They don't try to speculate on who among the Protestants is saved (indeed, they don't try to speculate about who among themselves is saved!), but rather leave them to the mercy of God, who in His infinite love, goodness, power and kindness will deal with them in the most appropriate way.

Was the monophystite churches unsaved for 1500 years when they were out of communion with the EO church ?
Careful here - the EO do not hold that those not in communion with the EO are unsaved. See above.

As for the monophysites - the above statement shows that the EO have acknowledged that the OO were Orthodox and hence part of the Church all along. Thus, the EO hold that the OO were saved (and vice versa).

VFarris01

April 8th 2004, 08:04 AM

In summary, I agree that Scripture is a final authority, but not the only final authority.This makes so little sense it sounds silly. The Constitution of the United States is a final authority, but not the only final authority... there is the Supreme Court.

The mark of this thread is the Apostles and their followers were catholic... true enough... the Apostles were part of a "universal" church, however, the Apostles were not associated or part of the Roman Catholic Church.

jason

April 8th 2004, 08:32 AM

I don't. There were plenty of barnacles all throughout the ages. But never on the Church - who always either scraped them off or cut off the affected part.That is a begged question isn't it.

3. Most importantly, historically we note that the Church has usually reacted vigorously when someone changes the tradition handed down to them. The fact that noone reacted vigorously when it was mentioned for the first time in extant works tends to indicate that it was already a widely held belief.The problem is that beliefs can build up slowly over time, step by step, little change by little change, until you are somewhere you never intended to end up, and somewhere you never would have dreamt of going at the outset.

A clear but awful example can be seen with the progression of pornography in the west (I'm not suggesting that the veneration of mary is equivalent to pornography). It starts out with a magazine like playboy, relativly innocuous and "harmless" (Incidentally I don't think it is harmless, but this is just a secular example) and seems ok if a little bit different.

Now 40 years down the track there are clothing catalogues sold to children (till recently anyway) that were more sexually explicit than early editions of playboy. And the hardcore stuff that is available is just beyond belief. But it all started with something "relativly harmless".

These things don't start over night, but they do creep up on you, and provided the changes are small enough their is no noticeable difference, until you look at it with a longer view.

This might just as adequately account for this veneration of mary and other doctrine that protestants find "concerning".

There has always been some part of Orthodoxy that has been persecuted.Funny how the true church is always persecuted somewhere with only short period of respite. The Protestants have always been persecuted as well.

I addressed this above. If 1. it is not directly contradicted by an earlier testimony (silence does not count as contradiction), and 2. it is was not met with controversy when it first appeared (indicating that it was a fact that people took for granted), then I think it should be accepted.Ok, but I have a new line of thought.

Ok it is still an argument from silence, but at the very least it seems like a sensible principle to regard something like this as not an essential of the faith because it is not made strong note of by the Aposltes themselves.

Oh yes... the "being drunk on the blood of saints" thing. The RCC sacked and looted Constantinople during one of the Crusades and installed a Latin Patriarch...Perhaps some of the Protestants were right in thinking that Rome has a certian affinity with the whore of Babylon astride the beast.

I never claimed that a merely human institution is the entire manifestation of the Church. On the other hand, I do not believe that the Orthodox Church is a merely human institution - as it was founded by Christ Himself, and has the guidance of the Holy Spirit (as Christ promised).But it would appear that protestant churches have this same guidance and looking after.

As for whether or not they were heretics... well, if they were teaching correct doctrine, do you think that God would have let them die out?We still know about them today, and some might say that the Protetants are the heirs of some of their ideas.

Yes, but the point is that that is the only way that you're supposed to learn. You're not supposed to learn by trying to interpret the Scriptures by yourself - you're supposed to rely on the interpretation of someone more experienced than yourself.Who said protestants don't do that ? Well some don't, but they should.

The question I am asking, is on what basis do you decide that scripture is the sole authoritative source?Because it is the only really safe alternative. Given the monstrosity Rome has become with her many many traditions (and her equally ancient pedigree of traditions) what would you expect ?

Tradition might be safe for the East, but we have seen the fruit of the elevation of tradition to equal authority with scripture in the west.

In summary, I agree that Scripture is a final authority, but not the only final authority.One has to trump the other at some point. If they conflict which wins out ?

I don't believe that it is, in fact it cannot be - because the authority of the Bible itself is in turn anchored on the authority of the Church that decided upon its canon. So my question is, if you trust the process and authority by which the Church came to decide upon the canon, why would you not trust it elsewhere? It would seem that in doing so one is elevating their own ability to discern what is authoritative over that of the wider Church.I'm reading Calvins Institutes at the moment, and the next section I am to read deals with this exact topic. I'll have to get back to you on this.

If this was an innovation, it would surely have brewed a controversy.But if it is one of those slow creeping aberations, it is possible that no one will notice. And actually, given the wackiness that happens in Rome in regards to the "blessed virgin" one might question whether or not their is/was not "controversy".

You figure out which of the two councils is the authoritative one. This is something done by the Church as a whole. For a council to be Ecumenical, it must have the assent of the whole Church.Are there any ecumenical councils are the schism ?

It is for this reason that not too much weight can be assigned to the relative lateness of the earliest extant reference to the perpetual virginity of Mary. In fact, the lack of controversy when it did appear tends to indicate that it was already an established belief.Well this is the question isn't it. If it falls into the category of "creeping error" then it might not raise a ripple until it gets further along and people see how off the track the whole thing is.

The problem is that we are arguing over something that is decidedly peripheral to salvation. Romish maryology is much more problematic than eastern mary veneration, or so it appears.

Why is that a "disadvantage"? :shrug: It's only a disadvantage if your goal is to "win" the "argument" or to defend a pre-existing POV. If you're interested in learning the truth, then you shouldn't see it as a disadvantage - rather, you should see it as an opportunity to learn. :smile:I do see it as a chance to learn, the problem is that to some degree this is an argument and I dislike being in the dark when trying to defend my position. But thats ok.

As a result, each were able to acknowledge the Orthodoxy of the other - ie, that they have both preserved the one Holy Catholic and Apostolic faith:Interesting point.

I think the EO attitude to Protestants is not that they're not members of the Church of Christ - rather, that if they are members it's more in spite of their Protestantism, rather than because of it. They don't try to speculate on who among the Protestants is saved (indeed, they don't try to speculate about who among themselves is saved!), but rather leave them to the mercy of God, who in His infinite love, goodness, power and kindness will deal with them in the most appropriate way.This sounds like a very wooly way of dodging the question.

Careful here - the EO do not hold that those not in communion with the EO are unsaved. See above.Thats ok. I still think your fudging the question more than a little here.

Perhaps this belong in the other thread or a new thread.

What are the absolute requirements for salvation in the EO church ? If you don't do these then your toast.

Jason

JCA

April 8th 2004, 10:58 AM

Pardon me Jezz,

Quick question on this:

Yes, but the point is that that is the only way that you're supposed to learn. You're not supposed to learn by trying to interpret the Scriptures by yourself - you're supposed to rely on the interpretation of someone more experienced than yourself.

Although I agree, to an extent, isn't the authorative teacher the Holy Spirit, and not just someone with 'more experience'? Plus, this comes to mind on that subject:

Acts 17:11
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

It seems we are to rely upon more than just the words of others, and to search for ourselves with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, the scriptures to 'verify' what we have been told.

The issue has always been in who's 'verification' is correct.. At least, that's how it appears to me. And that's even a more broad a topic to approach than this one.

Just wondered what you thought.. reply in PM if you feel it disrupts the thread :smile:

Love and Peace

:jca:

Jezz

April 8th 2004, 11:32 AM

This makes so little sense it sounds silly. The Constitution of the United States is a final authority, but not the only final authority... there is the Supreme Court.
It makes perfect sense. You're just not trying hard enough.

"Final authority" simply means that whatever it says is true and binding. It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.

Let me put it this way: each of the individual books of the Bible is a final authority. I think you would agree with that. But none of them is the final authority.

The mark of this thread is the Apostles and their followers were catholic... true enough... the Apostles were part of a "universal" church, however, the Apostles were not associated or part of the Roman Catholic Church.
Sure they were associated with the RCC - well, at least some of them (Paul and Peter) were. But they were associated with a whole bunch of other churches as well (eg, Peter also founded the church at Antioch).

VFarris01

April 8th 2004, 10:33 PM

Greetings Friends,
This makes so little sense it sounds silly. The Constitution of the United States is a final authority, but not the only final authority... there is the Supreme Court.It makes perfect sense. You're just not trying hard enough.

”Final authority" simply means that whatever it says is true and binding. It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.
You are well aware exactly why what you are saying making your answer baloney; you are begging the question and why your statement not only “sounds silly,” it is silly.

(9) The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some people understand slowness, but is being patient with you. He does not want anyone to perish, but wants everyone to come to repentance. (10) But the Day of the Lord will come like a thief. On that day the heavens will disappear with a roaring sound, the elements will be destroyed by fire, and the earth and everything done on it will be exposed. (11) Since everything will be destroyed in this way, think of the kind of holy and godly people you ought to be (12) as you look forward to and hasten the coming of the day of God, by which the heavens will be set ablaze and dissolved and the elements will melt with fire. (13) But in keeping with his promise, we are looking forward to new heavens and a new earth, where righteousness is at home. (14) So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to have him find you without spot or fault and at peace. (This passage by itself makes Purgatory a totally unscriptural belief, VF01.) (15) Think of our Lord's patience as salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him. (16) He speaks about this subject in all his letters. Some things in them are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures. (17) And so, dear friends, since you already know these things, continually be on your guard not to be carried away by the deception of lawless people, lest you fall from your secure position. (18) Instead, continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Glory belongs to him both now and on that eternal day! Amen.

This is a glaring description of what has happens when “traditions” are introduced by “It does not mean that anything it does not say is not true and not binding.” My example here is the “tradition” of Purgatory. Purgatory is a tradition introduced by “the Bible does not specifically say there is no Purgatory, so we, the RCC, can say there is one.” There is absolutely no doubt the scriptures have been distorted in order for this false teaching (doctrine) to creep into the Bible like an accumulation of barnacles (thank you Jason).
Let me put it this way: each of the individual books of the Bible is a final authority. I think you would agree with that. But none of them is the final authority.
This is incorrect. Each book of the Bible is a part of a whole. The books together make the final authority. ALL of the “traditions” we are commanded to follow are given in the Bible without consulting barnacle covered “handed down” traditions. For instance, we cannot take Jesus’ commission to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 and Mark 16:15-16 as single verses can we? We must also know what the Apostles were to teach (Matthew 28:20, which also needs clarification from scripture), what the converted are to believe (Acts 2:22-38), and how baptism is to be applied (Acts 8:38, understanding the Greek to mean immerse and 1 Peter 3:21, noting Peter uses the word body not single parts such as head, hands, feet, or elbows, the whole body needs to be “cleansed”). Note also the Philip taught the eunuch from Isaiah concerning JC. EVERYTHING we need is found in the 39 books of the OT and 27 books of the NT (66 books in all).

There is ot