Why the world is not religious: Religious Confusion!

[spauline]

Why the world is not religious: Religious Confusion!

600, first major confounding of Christian Doctrine, Islam, one billion strong today (now which is the true God: The Jewish God of Moses, the Triune Christian God and Jesus, or the God ALLAH?!)

1000, the Great Schism (now which is it, with or without the Pope of Rome? East or West, 400 million Orthodox today)
...
1500, Protesatantism (Now, is it Peter with all bishops, Just the bishops WITHOUT Peter, or NO Peter and NO BISHOPS EITHER! And then, if it is NO Bishops whatsoever, and just the Bible, which of the 100 primary categories of Bible-only churches is it?)

1700, Enlightenment (now, is it any of the Revealed Religions: Jewish, Islam, Peter, no Peter but Bishops, no Bishops just bible, or none of it, and just God and reason, natural religion? Wait, maybe even natural philosophy without regard for religion is enough!)

And wouldn't this happen in any world, folks, because of sin?

first the world attacks God's nature, as Triune and Incarnate.

Then they attack the Supreme Mediating father, next in command.

Then they attack ALL Mediating Fathers, next in command.

Then they confound the Writings cuz they don't have the Mediating Fathers

Then world says screw it all, it is a mess, just figure out God with your own unaided brain. Then those guys confound that pursuit, finally, skip religion, too confusing in ANY sense, even natural, just live for this world!

Would've happened in any world, folks, would it not? If God came to it as Incarnate One, and gave it a Church with Mediating Fathers, a Rigorous Oral Word, a Supreme Mediating Father, and Poetic Writings?

(Reason would already be there, can't help it. Same with Trinity and Incarnation. The Trinity cannot NOT be, it IS and it never was not, nor can never not be. And the Incarnation, we already assumed it!)

This is part of my book theory: In ANY world, once the Incarnate One comes, if God was going to do that to a fallen world, this would be the history, NO MATTER WHAT, cannot be avoided, it is the nature of sin, and the nature of the pyramid of these sources, from top to bottom, from most reliable to least reliable:

God, Triune, Incarnate
The Pope
The General Bishops and Oral Traditin
The Written Tradition, the Bible
Reason

From this, you can see the trumpets (Apocalypse chapters 7-11): God seals His chosen ones in the forehead to protect them. The trumpets can "herald God's teaching!" The woes are the world above that repeatedly rejects, causing problems in the world. The sealed ones are not harmed SPIRITUALLY, protected from the errors of not listening to the Church's PROCLAMATIONS, trumpet blasts of preaching unto humanity the Gospel!

Hence, the three great woes are the climactic attacks:

Protestantism (5th trumpet)
Enlightenment (6th trumpet)
Secular Apostasy (7th trumpet, beast and false prophet)

At least now, you can see how the arguments develop!

[RBerman]

I think Saint Peter must vomit a little bit every time he hears someone call him something like "Supreme Mediating Father." If the Roman church hadn't idolized its own tradition, there wouldn't have been a need for any of these church splits in the first place.

[spauline]

I think Saint Peter must vomit a little bit every time he hears someone call him something like "Supreme Mediating Father." If the Roman church hadn't idolized its own tradition, there wouldn't have been a need for any of these church splits in the first place.

ok

[Alucard]

This is part of my book theory: In ANY world, once the Incarnate One comes, if God was going to do that to a fallen world, this would be the history, NO MATTER WHAT, cannot be avoided, it is the nature of sin, and the nature of the pyramid of these sources, from top to bottom, from most reliable to least reliable:

God, Triune, Incarnate
The Pope
The General Bishops and Oral Traditin
The Written Tradition, the Bible
Reason

Did you seriously just place the Pope, bishops and "oral tradition" above the Bible?

[RBerman]

Did you seriously just place the Pope, bishops and "oral tradition" above the Bible?

Roman Catholics see the Bible as simply one element of Church Tradition. In theory it's not higher than the others, but since the Popes and Bishops are still generating new material, whereas the Bible is complete, in practice the Bible means what the Magisterium today says it means today, and thus the Bible becomes superfluous in its own right.

[spauline]

The Pope, then Bishops and Oral Tradition are above Scripture because they are more reliable when taken by themselves. Hence, does an ECF write, "What if the Apostles had not left us writings? Would we not take recourse to that Tradition of the Apostles?..."

Protestants have only the Bible, and about the only thing they can totally agree about, when you take all forms of those who only go by the Bible, is that Jesus was the Messiah. That is about it. Go any deeper, and you will find factions on how to answer theological questions.

Whereas what is settled in Orthodoxy, which has legitimate Bishops and Oral Tradition, is alot of what is settled in Catholicism. The first thousand years of dogma are shared.

FInally, with Peter, the fullness of dogma is accepted.

Scripture by itself is merely IMPLIED, POETIC Revelation which requires INTERPRETATION. And with just Scripture, there is no one or anything to settle DISPUTES over its MEANING.

In Orthodoxy, there is a GENERAL College.

In Catholicism, there is the rock of SUPREME Bishop.

For this reason, Protestants as a whole know very little, the Orthodox know alot, even most of it, and the Catholics have the total fullness.

[Kabane52]

The Pope, then Bishops and Oral Tradition are above Scripture because they are more reliable when taken by themselves.

Pff. Why draw this dichotomy between the Holy Scriptures and the Tradition of the Church? The Scriptures are authoritative and they are properly understood when read in the context of the life of the Church. The life of the Church is authoritative and is properly understood when taken in the context of the Scriptures. To take any statement by itself is an error in praxis. We don't have a "Magisterium" which people submit questions to and receive infallible answers from. One understands Orthodoxy from Orthopraxis. That is our "magisterium."

Hence, does an ECF write, "What if the Apostles had not left us writings? Would we not take recourse to that Tradition of the Apostles?..."

Of course we would, and that tradition is embodied and enfleshed in the life of the Church as encapsulated in its Holy Fathers, Liturgies, Icons, Synods, etc. What the Father does not say is that we would take recourse to the Holy Office in Rome. That is a modern innovation.

Whereas what is settled in Orthodoxy, which has legitimate Bishops and Oral Tradition, is alot of what is settled in Catholicism. The first thousand years of dogma are shared.

The problem is that the very substance of the Church is drained from Roman Catholicism. The Eucharist is that which creates the Church. The Church is the manifestation of the Heavenly Liturgy of Jesus Christ in spacetime, with the Bishop as the Icon of Christ's High Priesthood and the Presbyters as icons of the Holy Apostles. The Universal Church is the communion of these local churches. Within Roman Catholicism, there isn't even a concept of a local church anymore. It has essentially been transformed into a gigantic diocese, with the Pope as the bishop and the "bishops" and priests as the presbyters.

FInally, with Peter, the fullness of dogma is accepted.

Following the holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that St. Peter's leadership among the Apostles is represented in the leadership of the Bishop among the Presbyters. This is the teaching of St. Cyprian in "On the Unity of the Church" as well as of St. Optatus in "Against the Donatists", though both of these works have been horrifically ripped out of context in order to support the Roman papacy.

Scripture by itself is merely IMPLIED, POETIC Revelation which requires INTERPRETATION. And with just Scripture, there is no one or anything to settle DISPUTES over its MEANING.

The disputes on the interpretation of Scripture are not settled by some court of appeals, but rather by the Holy Spirit working in the life of the Church. Even the Holy Councils, which are the closest parallel to the Roman practice, act based on how the Holy Spirit has revealed Himself in the life of the Church. For example, the Council of Nicea settled the issue by pointing out that the Church had always worshiped Christ as God in Her Liturgy. The Councils themselves are revealed to us as ecumenical by the work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the Church, not by "papal confirmation" as Rome teaches.

In Orthodoxy, there is a GENERAL College.

Nope, this is false. There's no conception of a "College of Bishops" which together shares infallible authority. This is an attempt to understand the Orthodox notion of infallibility from a papal perspective, and it won't work.

In Catholicism, there is the rock of SUPREME Bishop.

Some rock. Let's not forget whose church it is that has committed liturgical suicide. The Orthodox, without the "supreme bishop" but with the Holy Spirit, preserve the Divine Liturgy in reverence. The problem with a Supreme Bishop is that he can single-handedly steer the Church anyway he wants. Consensus is irrelevant. The Fathers are irrelevant. The Liturgy is irrelevant. If the Pope wants to declare all the Fathers wrong on a particular point, he is free to do so. If he wishes to declare that the ancient Liturgies are in error, he is free to do so. If he wishes to declare the majority of Church iconography theologically incorrect, he is free to do so. And we can see the horrid results of that in both Vatican I and Vatican II. Of course, it is claimed that the Pope only acts based on the tradition of the Church. But who determines the tradition of the Church? The Pope. Thus, Pius IX, when it was pointed out to him that the witness of tradition clearly refuted papal infallibility, declared, "I AM THE CHURCH! I AM TRADITION!" This, my friend, is not the teaching of the Church of Christ.

[Tanakh Keeper]

Why the world is not religious: Religious Confusion!

Who says the world is not religious? Having different opinions doesn't negate religion.