Posted on 08/07/2009 9:00:03 AM PDT by Teófilo
Folks, Elizabeth Mahlou, my fellow blogger from Blest Atheist, asked me one of those “big questions” which necessitate its own blog post. Here is the question:
I am a Catholic who upon occasion attends Orthodox services because of my frequent travels in Eastern European countries. The differences in the masses are obvious, but I wonder what the differences in the theology are. I don't see much. Is that something that you can elucidate?
I welcome this question because, as many of you know, I belonged to the Eastern Orthodox Church for about four years and in many ways, I still am “Orthodox” (please, don’t ask me elucidate the seeming contradiction at this time, thank you). This question allows me to wear my “Orthodox hat” which still fits me, I think. If you are an Orthodox Christian and find error or lack of clarity in what I am about to say, feel free to add your own correction in the Comments Section.
Orthodox Christians consider the differences between the Orthodox and the Roman Catholic Churches as both substantial and substantive, and resent when Catholics trivialize them. Though they recognize that both communions share a common “Tradition” or Deposit of Faith, they will point out that the Roman Catholic Church has been more inconsistently faithful – or more consistently unfaithful – to Tradition than the Orthodox Church has been in 2000 years of Christian history. Generally, all Orthodox Christians would agree, with various nuances, with the following 12 differences between their Church and the Catholic Church. I want to limit them to 12 because of its symbolic character and also because it is convenient and brief:
1. The Orthodox Church of the East is the Church that Christ founded in 33 AD. She is the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church confessed in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. All other churches are separated from by schism, heresy, or both, including the Roman Catholic Church.I think this will do it for now. I invite my Orthodox Christian brethren to agree, disagree, or add your own. Without a doubt, - I am speaking as a Catholic again - what we have in common with the Orthodox Church is immense, but what keeps us apart is important, challenging, and not to be underestimated.
2. Jesus Christ, as Son of God is divine by nature, as born of the Virgin Mary, True Man by nature, alone is the head of the Church. No hierarch, no bishop, no matter how exalted, is the earthly head of the Church, since Jesus Christ’s headship is enough.
3. All bishops are equal in their power and jurisdiction. Precedence between bishops is a matter of canonical and therefore of human, not divine law. “Primacies” of honor or even jurisdiction of one bishop over many is a matter of ecclesiastical law, and dependent bishops need to give their consent to such subordination in synod assembled.
4. The Church is a communion of churches conciliar in nature; it is not a “perfect society” arranged as a pyramid with a single monarchical hierarch on top. As such, the Orthodox Church gives priority to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils as having precedent in defining the nature of Christian belief, the nature and structure of the Church, and the relationship between the Church and secular government, as well as the continuation of synodal government throughout their churches to this day.
5. Outside of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, the Orthodox Church receives with veneration various other regional synods and councils as authoritative, but these are all of various national churches, and always secondary in authority to the first seven. They do not hold the other 14 Western Councils as having ecumenical authority.
6. Orthodox Christians do not define “authority” in quite the same way the Catholic Church would define it in terms of powers, jurisdictions, prerogatives and their interrelationships. Orthodox Christian would say that “authority” is inimical to Love and in this sense, only agape is the one firm criterion to delimit rights and responsibilities within the Church. Under this scheme, not even God himself is to be considered an “authority” even though, if there was a need of one, it would be that of God in Christ.
7. The Orthodox Church holds an anthropology different from that of the Catholic Church. This is because the Orthodox Church does not hold a forensic view of Original Sin, that is, they hold that the sin of Adam did not transmit an intrinsic, “guilt” to his descendants. “Ancestral Sin,” as they would call it, transmitted what may be termed as a “genetic predisposition” to sin, but not a juridical declaration from God that such-a-one is “born in sin.” Hyper-Augustinianism, Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed, is impossible in Orthodox anthropology because according to the Orthodox, man is still essentially good, despite his propensity to sin. By the way, even what Catholics would consider a “healthy Augustinianism” would be looked at with suspicion by most Orthodox authorities. Many trace “the fall” of the Latin Church to the adoption of St. Augustine as the West’s foremost theological authority for 1,000 years prior to St. Thomas Aquinas. The best evaluations of St. Augustine in the Orthodox Church see him as holy, well-meaning, but “heterodox” in many important details, starting with his anthropology.
8. Since no “forensic guilt” is transmitted genetically through “Original Sin,” the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of our Blessed Mother is considered superfluous. She had no need for such an exception because there was nothing to exempt her from in the first place. Of course, Mary is Theotokos (“God-bearer”), Panagia (“All-Holy”) and proclaimed in every Liturgy as “more honorable than the Cherubim, and beyond compare more glorious than the Seraphim,” but her sanctification is spoken about more in terms of a special, unique, total, and gratuitous bestowing and subsequent indwelling of the Spirit in her, without the need of “applying the merits of the atonement” of Christ to her at the moment of conception, in order to remove a non-existent forensic guilt from her soul, as the Catholic dogma of the Immaculate Conception would have it. If pressed, Orthodox authorities would point at the Annunciation as the “moment” in which this utter experience of redemption and sanctification took place in the life of the Blessed Theotokos. Although the Orthodox believe in her Assumption, they deny that any individual hierarch has any power to singly and unilaterally define it as a dogma binding on the whole Church, and that only Councils would have such power if and when they were to proclaim it and its proclamations received as such by the entire Church.
9. Although Orthodox Christians have at their disposal various institutions of learning such as schools, universities, and seminaries, and do hold “Sunday Schools,” at least in the USA, it is fair to say that the main catechetical vehicle for all Orthodox peoples is the Divine Liturgy. All the liturgical prayers are self-contained: they enshrine the history, the story, the meaning, and the practical application of what is celebrated every Sunday, major feast, and commemoration of angels, saints, and prophets. If one pays attention – and “Be attentive” is a common invitation made throughout the Divine Liturgy – the worshipper catches all that he or she needs to know and live the Orthodox faith without need for further specialized education. For this very reason, the Divine Liturgy, more than any other focus of “power and authority,” is the true locus of Orthodox unity and the principal explanation for Orthodox unity and resiliency throughout history.
10. Since the celebration of the Divine Liturgy is overwhelmingly important and indispensable as the vehicle for True Christian Worship – one of the possible translations of “orthodoxy” is “True Worship – and as a teaching vehicle – since another possible translation of “orthodoxy” is “True Teaching” – all the ecclesiastical arts are aimed at sustaining the worthy celebration of the Divine Liturgy. Iconography in the Eastern Church is a mode of worship and a window into heaven; the canons governing this art are strict and quite unchanging and the use of two-dimensional iconography in temples and chapels is mandatory and often profuse. For them, church architecture exists to serve the Liturgy: you will not find in the East “modernistic” temples resembling auditoriums. Same thing applies to music which is either plain chant, or is organically derived from the tones found in plain chant. This allows for “national expressions” of church music that nevertheless do not stray too far away from the set conventions. Organ music exists but is rare; forget guitars or any other instrument for that matter. Choral arrangements are common in Russia – except in the Old Calendarist churches – the Orthodox counterparts to Catholic “traditionalists.”
11. There are Seven Sacraments in the Orthodox Church, but that’s more a matter of informal consensus based on the perfection of the number “seven” than on a formal dogmatic declaration. Various Orthodox authorities would also argue that the tonsure of a monk or the consecration of an Emperor or other Orthodox secular monarch is also a sacramental act. Opinion in this instance is divided and the issue for them still open and susceptible to a final dogmatic definition in the future, if one is ever needed.
12. The end of man in this life and the next is similar between the Orthodox and the Catholics but I believe the Orthodox “sing it in a higher key.” While Catholics would say that the “end of man is to serve God in this life to be reasonably happy in this life and completely happy in the next,” a rather succinct explanation of what being “holy” entails, the Orthodox Church would say that the end of man is “deification.” They will say that God became man so that man may become “god” in the order of grace, not of nature of course. Men – in the Greek the word for “man” still includes “womankind” – are called to partake fully of the divine nature. There is no “taxonomy” of grace in the Orthodox Church, no “quantification” between “Sanctifying Grace” and actual grace, enabling grace, etc. Every grace is “Sanctifying Grace,” who – in this Catholic and Orthodox agree – is a Person, rather than a created power or effect geared to our sanctification. Grace is a continuum, rather than a set of discreet episodes interspersed through a Christian’s life; for an Orthodox Christian, every Grace is Uncreated. The consequences of such a view are rich, unfathomable, and rarely studied by Catholic Christians.
Thank you Elizabeth for motivating me to write these, and may the Lord continue to bless you richly.
“...we see passages, like 1 Cor. 3 that you guys cannot explain.”
??????????????????????????????????
Everything an individual does, he does in the Church: he lives in the Church as he builds it with his good works, he, as necessary, is purified in the Church, and he triumphs in heaven with the Church. Church is people. The judgement is, of course, individual, just like it is described in 1 Cor. 3, where every man's work is tested.
Sanctification is ongoing.
Indeed.
Purgatory is not a result of condemnation, but rather the result of divine mercy: the allegorical wood and straw are imperfections that are forgiven. The Purgatory finalizes the process of sanctification. It is, of course, only possible because of the redemption that Christ worked for us on the cross.
I haven’t seen a Protestant explanation of the passage in question that would account for every feature of the passage and make sense. All that you, or others, have offered so far do not fit the metaphore that St. Paul is using.
Suffice it to say I find your explanation bizarre.
Paul is very clear about what he is saying - so much so that the Catholic theologians doing footnotes for the New American Bible agree that he was, at least, not intentionally supporting Purgatory in this passage.
“The text of 1 Cor 3:15 has sometimes been used to support the notion of purgatory, though it does not envisage this.”
From http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/1corinthians/1corinthians3.htm footnote #8
They also say this takes place on “The Day: the great day of Yahweh, the day of judgment, which can be a time of either gloom or joy” - which doesn’t lend itself to the idea of Purgatory.
There is no hint in there of purifying someone’s soul. The work a man did is revealed to be genuine, or counterfeit. If counterfeit, it doesn’t provide the basis for a reward.
But, we disagree. I’ll leave it to anyone still reading this thread to decide for themselves which of us is right.
The tradition is firm that Mary remained a virgin. So, in absence of scripture, we go with the tradition.
And, based on that tradition (which you admit does not have a definitive Scriptural foundation, just a potential Scriptural justification), people who interpret the Scripture differently are considered heretics. Tradition has become equal to Scripture. Don't you see a problem with that?
The passage refers to the man being purified of his well-intentioned but inferor work; whether you consider man's life work a part of his soul or not is a separate question. The idea that the judgement described in 1 Cor. 3 occurs at the second Coming of Christ and not at the time of the individual's death can be entertained, of course, but it is not consistent with other scripture that described the particular judgement as a separate event that occurs as soon as we are not in our body. See for example, the first few paragraphs of 2 Cor. 5 that contain similar themes.
To interpret the "loss" in 1 Cor. 3 as loss of a reward doesn't explain the allegory of straw and wood that are lost. Are rewards straw?
The Holy Scripture is simply a product of Holy Tradition. Interpreting it separately from its source is indeed a grave error. It becomes heresy if done obstinately and despite being informed otherwise.
I Corinthians 3:15 et al
=> It is the believer’s works that God subjects to the fires of testing, not the believer personally. God applies the fire to determine the quality of the works, not to purify the believer <=
Every explanation added to that does not come from
context, original language, metaphor or sentence structure.
It is simply a belief looking for some backing in the
Bible to justify itself.
ampu
This explanation ignores the fact that singular third person is used in the text (he builds, he suffers loss, he is saved), so the purification has some personal effect on the individual.
“To interpret the “loss” in 1 Cor. 3 as loss of a reward doesn’t explain the allegory of straw and wood that are lost. Are rewards straw?”
A man ministers, building the church. Some build well (remember, Paul in this chapter is defending HIS ministry). Some are careless. Speaking for myself, there have been times where laziness stopped me from working on Sunday School lessons thoroughly - on those days, I built badly. Compare that to Paul, who was nearly killed multiple times in the ministry...
Those who build well are building with stone or gold - an analogy, for building something genuine. Those who have been sloppy - as I have been sometimes - built with straw or wood.
On Judgment Day, Christians do not face condemnation - John 3. However, what we’ve done will be inspected - “each one’s work will become manifest, for the Day will disclose it, because it will be revealed by fire”.
Those times where I’ve been true in preparing, and studied and prayed and worked to prepare a good lesson - those will be revealed to others and me as genuine and deserving reward.
Those times I’ve been lazy, or tried to prepare a lesson on my own strength - those will be revealed as false, and meriting nothing.
My salvation is not in doubt. Nor do I bring any works with me into Heaven. I’m not having my soul purified to make me ready for heaven - JESUS did that already. Remember - justification is PAST TENSE. JESUS has made me PERFECT FOREVER (Heb 10.14). This has nothing to do with judgment for sin, because the sacrifice of Jesus has ALREADY made FULL amends for my sin.
But my reward is in doubt. I knew a guy who was a missionary for 20 years before a single person converted. I’m sure many thought he was wasting his time. GOD may take a different view - it may well be that he will be shown (made manifest, revealed) to have done wonderful work in the face of severe opposition. I think many respectable pastors of mega-churches will be revealed (if not condemned as non-believers first!) to have built a huge haystack.
Scripture says, “And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, 28so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him.” - Hebrews 9
We don’t get better after we die. “it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment”. If we are a Christian, we have been born again. Our spirits are alive, but in this life our new spirit wrestles with our old flesh.
“15For I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate. 16Now if I do what I do not want, I agree with the law, that it is good. 17So now it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me. 18For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh. For I have the desire to do what is right, but not the ability to carry it out. 19 For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing. 20Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I who do it, but sin that dwells within me.” - Romans 7
But after death and on that Day, we will receive new bodies. “42 So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. 43It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. 44It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body.” - 1 Cor 15
and, “22For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24For in this hope we were saved.” - Romans 8
On that Day, our battle will be over. Those who built well in this life will receive reward “he will receive a reward”.
Those who build badly will still enter heaven, but ‘empty-handed’ - with no reward for work well done, since their works were revealed as worthless. “he himself will be saved, but only as through fire”. Therefor, “Let each one take care how he builds upon it.”
Not Purgatory. Not purification from sin, for Jesus has made us perfect forever - past tense, and never-ending (Heb 10.14).
“The Holy Scripture is simply a product of Holy Tradition.”
No. By the time Paul wrote 1 Timothy, the Gospel of Luke was accepted as scripture. In 1 Tim 5.18, Paul writes, “18For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle an ox when it treads out the grain,” and, “The laborer deserves his wages.” The first quote from Scripture comes from Dt 25.4. The second is Luke 10.7 - so by 62-65 AD, Luke was accepted as Scripture.
And, of course, 2 Peter refers to Paul’s writings as scripture.
And, of course, the Old Testament was finished well before the Church started.
Scripture is NOT a product of tradition. Scriptures “are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” - 2 Tim 3
You will not find that said of “Holy Tradition”.
Those who build badly will still enter heaven, but ‘empty-handed’ - with no reward for work well done, since their works were revealed as worthless
That does not explain the use of the allegory because it does not account for suffering a loss. One does not suffer the loss of what he never had, whereas the thing being lost is described in the allegory: the wood and straw.
Scripture is NOT a product of tradition
It is true that the scripture refers to other scripture, and that the Hebrew Scripture pre-dated the Christian tradition. But each scripture fixes something that first existed as tradition, that is, as unwritten knowledge received directly form God and his angels.
You will not find [2 Tim 3:15f] said of “Holy Tradition”.
Indeed not, because the scripture has its own role in formation of the clergy and in resolving disputes.
***“Luther held that every milkmaid was able to create her own theology in opposition (if necessary) to the doctrines of the Church. That is evil.”
Luther held that a milkmaid, if she applied herself, could see for herself if teaching squared with the Scripture. After all, if Christian, she has the Holy Spirit as well, and Jesus said, “”But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.”
It also says, “26Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. 27But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. 28He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, 29so that no one may boast before him. 30It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. 31Therefore, as it is written: “Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.”
Laugh at the lowly milkmaid if you wish, but SHE may be the one in the right!***
Even Luther at the end of his life realized that he had gone wrong. It was Luther’s original contention that the Scriptures were so clear that every “milkmaid” and “child of nine” could understand it. Yet by the end of his his he deplored the fact that every “milkmaid who could read” would form a new religion based upon his or her interpretation of Sciprutre.
God said that He would teach us all thing, but He also said a bunch of other things as well, including what agency would handle the teachings.
But first let us go to Matthew 4:
1
1 Then Jesus was led by the Spirit into the desert to be tempted by the devil.
2
He fasted for forty days and forty nights, 2 and afterwards he was hungry.
3
The tempter approached and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command that these stones become loaves of bread.”
4
3 He said in reply, “It is written: ‘One does not live by bread alone, but by every word that comes forth from the mouth of God.’”
5
4 Then the devil took him to the holy city, and made him stand on the parapet of the temple,
6
and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down. For it is written: ‘He will command his angels concerning you and ‘with their hands they will support you, lest you dash your foot against a stone.’”
7
Jesus answered him, “Again it is written, ‘You shall not put the Lord, your God, to the test.’”
8
Then the devil took him up to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their magnificence,
9
and he said to him, “All these I shall give to you, if you will prostrate yourself and worship me.” 5
10
At this, Jesus said to him, “Get away, Satan! It is written: ‘The Lord, your God, shall you worship and him alone shall you serve.’”
Satan introduced the idea of individual interpretation of Scripture to the world. Not God. 2 Peter 1:
19
Moreover, we possess the prophetic message that is altogether reliable. You will do well to be attentive to it, as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.
20
12 Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation,
21
for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God.
Personal interpretation is proscribed. Acts 8:
29
The Spirit said to Philip, “Go and join up with that chariot.”
30
9 Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, “Do you understand what you are reading?”
31
He replied, “How can I, unless someone instructs me?” So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
32
This was the scripture passage he was reading: “Like a sheep he was led to the slaughter, and as a lamb before its shearer is silent, so he opened not his mouth.
33
In (his) humiliation justice was denied him. Who will tell of his posterity? For his life is taken from the earth.”
34
Then the eunuch said to Philip in reply, “I beg you, about whom is the prophet saying this? About himself, or about someone else?”
35
Then Philip opened his mouth and, beginning with this scripture passage, he proclaimed Jesus to him.
36
As they traveled along the road they came to some water, and the eunuch said, “Look, there is water. What is to prevent my being baptized?”
37
10
38
Then he ordered the chariot to stop, and Philip and the eunuch both went down into the water, and he baptized him.
Personal interpretation is useless and it does not lead to God. So who earthly institution has the Truth of God? 1 Tim 3:
14
6 I am writing you about these matters, although I hope to visit you soon.
15
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
The Church does, not individuals, and not Luther’s every milkmaid, of which he repented before he died. But how do we know about Christ’s ongoing protection of the Church. He founded it, but many people claim that the special protections or powers authorized to it were removed after the the Apostles died. Matthew 28:
18
11 Then Jesus approached and said to them, “All power in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
19
Go, therefore, 12 and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit,
20
teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. 13 And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age.”
He is speaking to the Church here specifically.
***If your Church teaches that only the Church knows the true interpretation of Scripture, then it devalues Scripture below its own teachings, since Scripture can only say what your Church allows it to say. Muzzling Scripture is evil.***
Misinterpreting it is evil and taking on authority that you do not have is evil. The Church is authorized. Individuals are not.
a-x,
you write, “This explanation ignores the fact that singular third person is used ...”
The third person is the believer, as Paul wrote.
Clearly, you decided what you believed before you
ever got to this passage. I accept that. I wish you
well with that kind of Christianity. I just don’t
find it Biblically honest or accurate. I couldn’t
accept that and also fulfill the other commands
to study to show myself approved...
In any case, I wish you blessings,
ampu
***You appear to be saying that the Pope is merely a man in the street, making pronouncements as if he were God.
Of the former, how is the Pope not merely a man on the street in the eyes of God?***
In the same way that Peter and the Twelve were chosen by Jesus; they were not; the successors of the Apostles are not.
***Of the latter, that is your dogma, not mine. You hold that a man can speak infallibly; that in itself is heretical and unbiblical.***
Only if he speaks an infallible Church doctrine; it is not his alone to speak.
***However, you have your own supra-Bible to uphold (the Catechism) and thus must defend what cannot be defended.***
Sola scriptura is proscribed in the Bible since the Church is identified as a the pillar of truth, not Scripture. The Church has Scripture and Sacred Tradition.
***Show me hundreds of years of perpetrated grave sins, if you would.
Selling of indulgences. Meddling the in the affairs of States. Selling of bishoprics. Theft of lands by promising “heaven” to those who would kill in the name of the Pope. And more recently, sexual abuse of children with subsequent coverups. ***
Show me hundreds of years of each example, please, to corroborate your statements.
***If you would stick to the example as discussed, it would be easier to take your posts seriously. The cause of the events was the allowed removal of American bishops from the close scrutiny of the Vatican. And the increasingly permissive society from which new priests were drawn and not vetted properly. You may wish to address the elevated numbers which married Protestant ministers abuse their flocks if you would address the whole deal of abuse of children.
The difference is, the Protestants call the offending pastors on the carpet, defrock them, and - if the pastor wants to stay within the body - put them through restoration.***
If that were true, the incidence rate of Protesant abuse (abusers per thousand pastors) must be incredibly high. Either that or the restoration is not very effective.
***We don’t buy off silence, fight with lawsuits, deny, and then try every legal trick in the book to keep the gold and silver and wealth of the Church. ***
The biggest reason is that the Church is a united whole and has more money than individual storefront mall churches that are as stable as migrant farm labour. However, the group that targeted the Church is going after the largest Protestant denominations now. Being decentralized means that the lawsuits and collecting is harder to do.
***Luther held that every milkmaid was able to create her own theology in opposition (if necessary) to the doctrines of the Church. That is evil.
And that is simply a lie - a bald-faced one perpetrated by your twisted Catechism and infallible Church. Luther held that the Bible will reveal truths to people in different ways, but that the underlying moral messages will be the same.***
You may wish to research your Luther a little more. His boasting of the ability of every milkmaid to interpret Scripture turned by the end of his life to a lament that this every milkmaid would not be able to found a new religion based upon her own personal interpretation. The only way to justify the incredible number of opposing denominations littering the theological landscape is to adopt a very non Scriptural statement like yours regarding revealed truths. How very Gnostic and anti Church can a post be?
***You have to lie - and continue to lie for 450+ years - to destroy the man who called your precious organization on the carpet; an action that was entirely Biblical! And you continue to do so, and call him evil.***
He did immense evil and admitted it by the end of his life. His deeds are pretty much an open book; he was in it for himself as it turns out. He like the good life; Calvin liked the power and Zwingli (that nutty uncle that nobody likes to talk about) was a mystic. All three had their reasons and the overriding reason of none of the three was God.
***Remember that when you pronounce truth. We do not claim that any man is above God; we only say that with the Holy Spirit influencing the Church, that we may finally get it right.
Then why the policy of ex cathedra? Is that not the formal position where a Pope can speak without fail, without blame?***
You may wish to read up on it. It is the formalized procedure where the Church may declare a Truth. It has only been used twice.
***Christ said “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life, no man comes to the Father but through Me”. He didn’t state the Church, or the Pope. Just Him. The Word. The Word of God.***
Actually, the rest of the Gospels (and the rest of the NT) contain hundreds of references to the role, makeup and authority of the Church and some of the first individuals appointed to office. But you may be making a common Protestant error. The Pope is not some warlord like Mohammed, or the incarnation of a god like the Dalai Lama. He is the earthly steward of the Church, assisted by his brother stewards. He was given the keys given the authority to forgive sins (as were all the Apostles). He holds the keys until the King returns. That’s all.
***In the beginning was the Word. And the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The Word became flesh. Jesus is the Word, He is the Bible. But your Church teaches that the only way to reach the Word - to interpret and understand what is written - is to first check with your own authorities. ***
Not quite. Jesus is the Word; the Bible is the word. Jesus is not the Bible; the Bible is the 5 books of Moses, the rest of the OT, the Gospels, the Epistles and Revelation. Of these, we presume that God dictated to Moses and He also told John to write down everything in his Revelation. Other that, where is the Word?
But even Luke 1 says that he (Luke) determined to go find out everything that was known about Jesus and write it down. God did not dictate anything to him. Therefore the Bible is NOT the Word of God (Jesus).
***And to bring this back to the origins of the thread, the Orthodox Church, from whom the Catholics split, do not agree with papal infallibility either, and it is my understanding they consider that the Holy spirit will correct the body at large, even if some men go astray.***
Just as with some other aspects, the mechanics are under dispute.
***In fact, I believe the Orthodox hold the first 7 councils as infallible not because of who participated, but because of the general consensus of the entire church body - the laity and priesthood! Quite different from the “on high” approach of the Catholic Church...***
You may wish to read up on it, then. The ECs of the first millennium were considered valid and binding upon the entire Church; the ECs of the 2nd millennium are not because of those who attended and because not all of the Orthodox were in attendence and agreed.
But your explanation of 1 Cor. 3:15 was emphatic that it does not refer to the believer personally, and the language used suggests that it does. It is he who builds, he whose shortcomings are purified, he who suffers loss, and he who is saved.
It should not matter to you how is it that I can explain the passage and you cannot. Of course, that is because I am Catholic and you are not, but it is the adequacy of the explanation that matters, not the method of arrival to it.
May the Lord sanctify you through the study of His word.
Wikipedia is always suspect; yet the first two are correct.
The good doctor Francis Sullivan is one of those Jesuits who started to wander like so many of their forebears. The Jesuits used to be know for orthodoxy; now they are known for heresy. The good Fr. Schatz appears to be on the same highway, just not as far.
With that said, I looked up the list to see if I could find it somewhere unconnected with the good Jesuits; and I did not. Now there are some things that have been declared infallibly before this - such as the doctrine of the Trinity. If such as these were not declared infallible, then the claims of such as the JWs and Mormons might be considered by more to be valid.
***amen. thank GOD we never went “far enough”...
under Pope Benedict, we are returning to the orthodox catholic faith.***
Thank God, indeed. For all of His mercies.
And once again, you refuse to even acknowledge what evil has been done by your Church. It is blameless and perfect, and that is the position you start from.
I’m sorry, but that’s simply not Biblical, and it is a perversion of the Scripture. The fact that you refuse to look at any Scripture without the control of your Church blinds you to the truth.
The first step towards repentance is to ask for forgiveness; the Church has much to atone for, and it will never be forgiven because of its stance about its own evil and failings.
As such, since you cannot accept any viewpoint except that condoned by Rome, there’s no point in you even participating in such threads. In your opinion - because of the controls of the Church - it’s the Orthodox who are wrong. They need to come around. Never can it be considered that the Catholic Church is in error!
The Church has become your god.
***“Anything that is not complete is a fragment.”
If a fragment is 80% of a book, then we’re pretty safe in assuming the book exists.***
If a book exists, does that make it all true, some true, or untrue? For example we have fragments of some 60 Gospels; and references only to 20 more. That does not prove their worth.
***The Gospels and letters of Paul weren’t even in dispute***
Hebrews, James, 2 Peter, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation were in dispute right up to the end.
The chart reference is interesting, yet it leaves off much information that could be relevant.
For example, what would this scholar say on:
The Four Gospels
The Gospel of Peter
The Gospel of Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Gospel of Nicodemus (also called the “Acts of Pilate”)
Gospel of Bartholomew
Resurrection of Jesus Christ (which claims to be according to Bartholomew)
The Gospel of Thomas
Hebrews
Gospel of the Nazarenes
Gospel of the Ebionites
Acts of Andrew
Acts of Barnabas
Acts of John
Acts of the Martyrs
Acts of Paul
Acts of Paul and Thecla
Acts of Peter
Acts of Peter and Andrew
Acts of Peter and Paul
Acts of Peter and the Twelve
Acts of Philip
Acts of Pilate
Acts of Thomas
Acts of Xanthippe, Polyxena, and Rebecca
Epistle of the Corinthians to Paul
Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Epistle of Ignatius to the Trallians
Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians
Epistle to Diognetus
Epistle to the Laodiceans (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Epistle to Seneca the Younger (an epistle in the name of Paul)
Third Epistle to the Corinthians - accepted in the past by some in the Armenian Orthodox church. or both:
Apocalypse of Paul (distinct from the Coptic Apocalypse of Paul)
Apocalypse of Peter (distinct from the Gnostic Apocalypse of Peter)
Apocalypse of Pseudo-Methodius
Apocalypse of Thomas (also called the Revelation of Thomas)
Apocalypse of Stephen (also called the Revelation of Stephen)
First Apocalypse of James (also called the First Revelation of James)
Second Apocalypse of James (also called the Second Revelation of James)
The Home Going of Mary
The Falling asleep of the Mother of God
The Descent of Mary
There were thousands of writings that were considered. Perhaps we could find a more inclusive matrix of these and which were considered Scripture by whom at what time.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.