Replies

Its very traditional Orthodox theology on the subject.

Tradition is equal to Scripture. The reason? Tradition. Of course it falls apart when you consider that EO and RCs both cling to tradition, yet each considers the other schismatic. Whose tradition is right?

Now of course now is the time when out of frustration someone will trot out the myth of the nonexistent 30,000 Protestant denominations. The answer to that is we agree on the nature of Salvation, Faith in Christ's perfect work.

Sooo, please tell me: Is the RC correct or the EO?

"Tradition is equal to Scripture. The reason? Tradition."

The Church has never said that, G. But you as a Protestant educated in the history of The Faith know that it was indeed Holy Tradition which was the yardstick by which the various claimants to canonical status among the many "scriptures" available in the first two or three centuries of The Church were measured for inclusion in the canon. What The Church, East and West, has said is that it is The Church which is the keeper of Holy Tradition, not you or me individually. Holy Tradition is made up of many things, the consensus patrum and the writings of individual Fathers when they are in accord with the consensus patrum, liturgical practices, various prayers and devotions, in sum, what The Church always and everywhere believed. This Holy Tradition is the living embodiment of The Truth about our Salvation through Christ. It is precisely because what you read as the scriptures is completely and absolutely in accordance with this Holy Tradition that The Church established the canon of scripture in the late 4th century and you can know (well, with the exception of Luther's fooling around with the canon)that what you are reading is The Truth. But the NT and the OT alone, in a void, are not obviously self-authenticating. And yet we know they are because The Church told us so 1700 years ago, long before anyone had ever heard of Luther and the other reformers. Any other understanding of the "authenticity" of the scriptures tends to wander off into Mohammedanism.

"Of course it falls apart when you consider that EO and RCs both cling to tradition, yet each considers the other schismatic. Whose tradition is right?"

I think you misunderstand the nature of The Schism. It has very little, if anything, to do with the Holy Tradition we are speaking of here. The nearest it comes to an issue of Holy Tradition lies in a few points within the consensus Patrum and, here's the big one, Papal Supremacy, which we Orthodox of course reject, especially its claims to infallibility and universal jurisdiction, but we would argue that these are extra-patristic innovations born of post hoc propter hoc reasoning and political conditions. The Latins of course disagree...but this has absolutely nothing to do with any notion that random individual Christians, as simply Christians, have either the ability or the authority to establish what the scriptures mean.

Tradition is equal to Scripture.

If you accept the teachings recorded in the Bible, then you also accept Tradition. In Matt. 2:23, for example, the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition. Again, in 1 Cor. 10:4, Paul relies on the oral tradition of the rock following Moses. It is not recorded in the Old Testament. See Exodus 17:1-17 and Num. 20:2-13.

In Mark 3:14; 16:15, Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it?

EO and RCs both cling to tradition, yet each considers the other schismatic.

The Orthodox and Catholic Churches are separated; neither views the other to be in schism.

Of course it falls apart when you consider that EO and RCs both cling to tradition, yet each considers the other schismatic

Actually we don't. Furthermore, it's pretty common knowledge that the ROOTS of the disunion were more political and linguistic than anything -- The Western half wanted to be pally with the new Frankish Emperors, while the Eastern was pretty much under the thumb of the Roman Emperors in Constantinople. Furthermore, both Rome and Constantinople wanted to be #1 -- remember that Constantinople wasn't one of the original 7 Churches. A lot of political posturing, by mortal men. Then we have the differences in language as evidenced by the filioque: the Latins probably couldn't quite figure out why the Greeks objected, not getting that the Greeks thouight the filioque conveyed dualism. They stopped talking and misunderstanding grew over the centuries, causing the wide schism, which is now being bridged.