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.
***And once again, you refuse to even acknowledge what evil has been done by your Church.***
I must not be posting clearly enough. Evil has been done by the Church, but by the individual men doing evil within its institution, not by Church mandate, doctrine or pronouncement.
***It is blameless and perfect, and that is the position you start from.***
I do not say that and have never said that. Only One is blameless and perfect.
***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.***
Reading Scripture and rejecting the proscriptions of personal interpretation and the authority of the Church found within it simply because one likes personally interpreting Scripture only leads one away from the Truth; indeed, it puts one in a hammerlock and frogmarches one away from 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.***
Tell you what; watch some Papal announcements or some official Church functions with unbiased eyes. You may be surprised at what you see. Attend a TLM with unbiased eyes. I suspect from your postings that you know only a strawman of the Church and not the Church itself.
***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!***
You may be mixing me up with somebody else. I don’t write postings like that.
There were certainly 100+ that CLAIMED authority, but only a handful were ever taken seriously by anyone.
It is up to each individual to decide what he is willing to accept as scripture. The vast majority of Christians (99.999%) accept Old and New Testaments as scripture.
As Jesus said, ‘My sheep will know my voice.”
Perhaps you need to meet the Shepherd...
When evil is allowed to continue for decades - selling of indulgences, guaranteed trips to heaven for killing muslims, decades of sexual abuse - and is covered up by the Church, then the institution is corrupt and must repent.
How is tolerating and hiding the sin different from outright condoning of the sin?
I do not say that and have never said that. Only One is blameless and perfect.
Can the Catechism be in error? If only One is perfect and blameless, then why even have the dogma of ex cathedra? Even if never used, or used only for good, the dogma itself states explicitly that a man may speak without blame and in perfection.
Reading Scripture and rejecting the proscriptions of personal interpretation and the authority of the Church found within it simply because one likes personally interpreting Scripture only leads one away from the Truth; indeed, it puts one in a hammerlock and frogmarches one away from the Truth.
Can a person read the Bible and reach a different conclusion than the Church, and not be considered to hold a heretical position?
Tell you what; watch some Papal announcements or some official Church functions with unbiased eyes. You may be surprised at what you see.
I have. In general, the recent Pope's have been quite good in their theology, but their caretaking of the Church is sorely lacking (at best). The bishops in America have been abysmal (see the sex scandals, illegal immigration positions, heavy politicking, refusing to heed the Catechism regarding abortion, etc). When you have consistent and explicit deviancy within the Church by the ordained, and the leaders in Rome do little, what does that say about the leadership of the Church? Are they so weak-willed that they cannot stand up and correct the errors? And if it continues for decades as has been done, doesn't that at least convey the message of condoning the renegades?
A lot of the Church's leadership is corrupt, at least here in the US. The fact that Rome will not stand up and state as much means either Rome is neutered or Rome doesn't care. Neither are good.
But then, this is what Luther said, and for that much he's been castigated for 450 years, and Protestants are considered as the evil bastard children of Rome (at least, according to your own words). So don't mind me, I'm just an illegitimate demon-spawn rambling here!
You may be mixing me up with somebody else. I don’t write postings like that.
Can a person Scripturally hold a position that Jesus had actual brothers and sisters? That Mary was not a perpetual virgin? If I held that position as a Catholic, would I not be committing heresy?
“Satan introduced the idea of individual interpretation of Scripture to the world.”
No, Satan introduced the idea that only a great leader of some sort can understand it. That is why all cults keep interpretation of scripture to themselves. Nothing in the Temptation of Jesus suggests we are not supposed to study scripture ourselves, or listen to the Holy Spirit. On the contrary - it teaches us to study, memorize, and be ready to apply Scripture - the exact OPPOSITE of what you claim.
In 2 Peter, we are NOT told to avoid studying scripture. Quite the contrary. The passage you cite - as Catholics love to do - has a two-fold meaning.
Translated by the NIV: “20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
The ESV has: “...that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone’s own interpretation. 21For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
Note, it does NOT say no one is to interpret scripture, since just before that it says “And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts...”
It doesn’t talk about the Church providing interpretation, etc. WE (”you”) are expected to study the scriptures.
Peter writes about the origin of scripture - it doesn’t come from the prophet’s own understanding, but from God. (”came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. 21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man”)
Not, ‘no one but the church can interpret scripture’, but ‘no prophecy of scripture COMES FROM personal interpretation’.
“Personal interpretation is proscribed.”
Wrong. It takes a serious misreading of 2 Peter to derive that! While it is not the primary meaning of the passage, it may be a valid second interpretation to say it teaches we need the Holy Spirit to teach us - that we cannot understand it apart from Him.
I have no idea what you are trying to show by the quote from Acts. All I see is that the lost need a preacher of the Word. Someone who has never heard of Jesus isn’t likely to fully understand the passages that refer to Him.
The church has the truth, of course. That is why the church has preachers and teachers, and I don’t devalue their ministry. I substitute teach often in church, and there is nothing improper about that. But in the end, “When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth...” - John 16
I find the refusal of Catholics to trust the Holy Spirit to do what Jesus says He will do blasphemous.
I wrote: “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.”
You responded, “Misinterpreting it is evil and taking on authority that you do not have is evil. The Church is authorized. Individuals are not.”
False claim. Jesus taught the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all the truth”. There isn’t a single passage in scripture teaching that we should leave interpretation to a church body of fallible men. There are multiple passages teaching us to study the scriptures ourselves. I take no authority for myself, but I will not deny the ministry of the Holy Spirit, as taught by Jesus Christ.
Remember, Jesus said, “31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” - Matt 12
PS - Luther regretted the proliferation of interpretations, but he never pulled his German translation off the market...
“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.”
No, a-x, I believe the passage DOES refer to the rewards
of each individual believer being revealed and judged. I
didn’t write otherwise. I don’t know why you think anything
I wrote means differently.
“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.”
That is rich friend! :-) The Holy Words of God are true,
regardless of which Church you have chosen to fellowship
with.
“May the Lord sanctify you through the study of His word.”
Back at ya.
ampu
***There were certainly 100+ that CLAIMED authority, but only a handful were ever taken seriously by anyone.***
There were thousands of books in the NT era that were considered at one point or another. It’d be nice if we could find an expanded chart which shows the hundreds which were read as Scripture at some point in the early Churches. The chart posted didn’t even differentiate between 1 Peter and 2 Peter which has to be deliberate since 2 Peter was not accepted until the very last debates.
***It is up to each individual to decide what he is willing to accept as scripture. The vast majority of Christians (99.999%) accept Old and New Testaments as scripture.***
The majority of Christians in the world accept the Deuterocanonicals. Going with the majority here?
***As Jesus said, ‘My sheep will know my voice.”***
I find that just about everyone that posts that goes about proving that they, as individuals, don’t. Removing large chunks from the Bible does not indicate voice recognition.
***Perhaps you need to meet the Shepherd...***
I have not doubt that I will.
God applies the fire to determine the quality of the works, not to purify the believer
To which I respond, that, according ot the text as written by St. Paul, "It is he who builds, he whose shortcomings are purified, he who suffers loss, and he who is saved.”
It is true that the quality of the works is revealed, but the allegorical straw and wood is burned off, hence what remains is purified, allowing the believer to be saved.
***I must not be posting clearly enough. Evil has been done by the Church, but by the individual men doing evil within its institution, not by Church mandate, doctrine or pronouncement.
When evil is allowed to continue for decades - selling of indulgences, guaranteed trips to heaven for killing muslims, decades of sexual abuse - and is covered up by the Church, then the institution is corrupt and must repent. ***
After several posts in which it was hundreds of years with orders from the Vaticn, when challenged for some evidence, now it is some of the evil allowed to continue for decades. Perhaps after several more posts, we will get to the true scope.
The practice of indulgences is Scriptural, who guaranteed trips to heaven for killing Muslims? The sexual abuse was perpetrated by a small handful of bishops, some of whom are regularly quoted by anti Catholics because they not only go against God in that matter, but in many matter.
*** do not say that and have never said that. Only One is blameless and perfect.
Can the Catechism be in error? If only One is perfect and blameless, then why even have the dogma of ex cathedra? Even if never used, or used only for good, the dogma itself states explicitly that a man may speak without blame and in perfection. ***
If the Holy Spirit speaks through the Church, why not? Tens of thousands of different Protestant denominations and non denominationals claim that on a daily basis.
***Reading Scripture and rejecting the proscriptions of personal interpretation and the authority of the Church found within it simply because one likes personally interpreting Scripture only leads one away from the Truth; indeed, it puts one in a hammerlock and frogmarches one away from the Truth.
Can a person read the Bible and reach a different conclusion than the Church, and not be considered to hold a heretical position? ***
I don’t know of any example.
***Tell you what; watch some Papal announcements or some official Church functions with unbiased eyes. You may be surprised at what you see.
I have. In general, the recent Pope’s have been quite good in their theology, but their caretaking of the Church is sorely lacking (at best).***
THe caretaking follows the theology. If one is off base theologically, then one is almost certain to be off base in the material world as well.
***The bishops in America have been abysmal (see the sex scandals, illegal immigration positions, heavy politicking, refusing to heed the Catechism regarding abortion, etc). When you have consistent and explicit deviancy within the Church by the ordained, and the leaders in Rome do little, what does that say about the leadership of the Church? ***
Before I answer that, tell me your understanding of Church hierarchy, if you would.
***Are they so weak-willed that they cannot stand up and correct the errors? And if it continues for decades as has been done, doesn’t that at least convey the message of condoning the renegades?
A lot of the Church’s leadership is corrupt, at least here in the US***
How long ago was the last of the errors that you mentioned committed?
***The fact that Rome will not stand up and state as much means either Rome is neutered or Rome doesn’t care. Neither are good. ***
The first premise is wrong. I believe that we have only two of the scandal bishops left and they are due to go in the next couple of years.
***But then, this is what Luther said, and for that much he’s been castigated for 450 years, and Protestants are considered as the evil bastard children of Rome (at least, according to your own words). So don’t mind me, I’m just an illegitimate demon-spawn rambling here!***
If Luther drove the correction of the German errors and left it at that, he would be a great hero in the Church. Not a Doctor; he was a lightweight, theologically. But a hero. But he was seduced by the good life. No life as a monk for him, any more.
I would not take evil names upon myself and I do not recommend it for any man who wishes to follow Christ.
“To which I respond, that, according ot the text as written by St. Paul, “It is he who builds, he whose shortcomings are purified, he who suffers loss, and he who is saved.”
Repeating it won’t make it about Purgatory. The believer
here was saved regardless of whether his works burned off
or not. The purpose is not to purify him. The purpose is
to REWARD him.
“It is true that the quality of the works is revealed, but the allegorical straw and wood is burned off, hence what remains is purified, allowing the believer to be saved.”
You are quite focused on “purification” which is never
mentioned in the passage. You are equally focused on
“suffering” which is not mentioned in the passage. What
is mentioned is suffering loss - meaning seeing false
works burned up and leaving the judgment with empty
hands, but saved.
a/x you’ve already decided what you believe. Great.
No matter what is in the passage, the thinking was done
before you read it and you accept it lock stock and barrel. I very sincerely wish you the best.
I simply prefer what it actually says. And clearly our
approaches are different.
Best,
ampu
I don’t know of any example.
Can I read the Bible, reach a conclusion that Mary had other children after Jesus, and not be a heretic?
I would not take evil names upon myself and I do not recommend it for any man who wishes to follow Christ.
I do not take the names; I wear the names you gave me. You have labeled me as an illegitimate, evil person; it was not my claim. But it is apparently how you wish to know me, thus I will wear the badge without guilt.
Yes, let the evil reside and live within the Church. Better to let them die off naturally rather than actually bring them through redemption.
Meanwhile, keep offering mass and communion to the Kennedys, the Kerrys, the Pelosis all because it's the politically expedient thing to do.
Since the inferior works are removed by burning, that is purification. Since the believer is said to “suffer loss” that is suffering. Ignoring the language that St. Paul chose is not going to make this scripture go away.
How does the HS communicate with you and how do you know it is the Holy Spirit? Do you know what Holy Spirit is, and if so how? And if not, how can you 'recognize' the unknown?
In 2 Peter, we are NOT told to avoid studying scripture. Quite the contrary. The passage you cite - as Catholics love to do - has a two-fold meaning
Is this the same 2 Peter that wasn't written yet by the 3rd century, since no one even mentions it in their canons?
Translated by the NIV: “20Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation
Isn't NIV the Bible version that ad libs when it comes to verses—adding words that are not in the "originals?" And how does the author of 2 Peter know that no prophesy of Scripture came about by prophet's own interpretation? Did he know each and every one of the prophets?
21For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.”
Oh, boy!
And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts...”
Is this the same morning star that was otherwise known as the "shining one" (i.e. luicfer), a Babylonian deity?
Peter writes about the origin of scripture - it doesn’t come from the prophet’s own understanding, but from God
But how do you know the individual preacher and/or Bible reader will interpret it correctly? You don't! But most people believe they interpret it correctly.
Of course, since there is no way to know anything for certain because everything in the religious realm is either "hope" or an a priori assumption, there is no way of ascertaining what is right and what is wrong.
False claim. Jesus taught the Holy Spirit would “guide you into all the truth”.
But everyone (and his brother) claims the Holy Spirit guides them!
Remember, Jesus said, “31 Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” - Matt 12
What constitutes blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and why? Who decides that? Where is it written and by what authority?
“***Perhaps you need to meet the Shepherd...***
I have not doubt that I will.”
Pity you put it in the future tense...
“The majority of Christians in the world accept the Deuterocanonicals. Going with the majority here?”
Nope - I’ll go with Jesus and the Apostles. They cited the Old Testament nearly 300 times in the New.
Apocryphal citation is limited to an illustration mentioned in Jude...” 14It was also about these that Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, “Behold, the Lord comes with ten thousands of his holy ones, 15 to execute judgment on all and to convict all the ungodly of all their deeds of ungodliness that they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all the harsh things that ungodly sinners have spoken against him.”
Paul quotes a pagan prophecies as well: “One of the Cretans, a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”, so I wouldn’t put a lot of stock on the single quote from the Apocrypha.
At best, you have a 295:1 vote on the Apocryphal books. How is your majority doing now?
“according ot the text as written by St. Paul, “It is he who builds, he whose shortcomings are purified, he who suffers loss, and he who is saved.”
Your quote is extremely inaccurate.
“Since the inferior works are removed by burning, that is purification.”
No, they are revealed to be inferior. It is a test, not a refinement. You read that into the text. And no one takes the ‘good work’ into heaven with them.
I quoted myself, I believe, accurately. The point was that the individual believer was referred to by St. Paul. Since I had to repeat the point I made earlier, I used quotation marks.
The wood, straw, etc are burned off (see text), and therefore that is more than revealing imperfections, it is also removal of imperfections by burning them, i.e. purification. It is about 10th time I explain that.
I know this is a long argument and I don't have a dog in this particular fight (although it is interesting). Are you saying that God speaking through prophets is infallible and that prophets are not infallible in general?
That is are prophets normal men who, on occasion under the direction of God, speak his word infallibly?
Mark, Mr. Rogers's own link shows it wasn't 80% but 54%. Hardly something "complete." besides, that figure inbckludes the 4th century, post Nicene sources, which is wrong to lump together with the 3rd century pre-Nicene sources. When one factors out the 4th century mnuscirpts, the percentage of "complete" Bible books is even less than 54%! But, we knew all that already!
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.
There were and there were even more version, but they were either selectively destroyed or accidentally lost. In addition to an agreement on the books, there were also sharp differences in apocryphal and even pagan books used in the same local canon.
The various canons reflected individual bishop's beliefs. Origen, for example, had many gnostic books in his repertoire, beside the pretty much same NT books as _Irenaeus of Lyons. But their theology was like night and day.
While Origen did come up with many orthodox teachings and is even credited to be the first to call Mary the Theotokos, his nearly complete collection of NT books didn't stop him from advancing the gnostic ideas of universal salvation or the pre existence of the souls. Those gnostic books in his canon were not there by accident or a collector's items, as Mr. Rogers seems to suggest. They reflected what Origen believed.
Likewise, Eusebius, the first Church historian and a bishop of Cesarea, advance (together with Orgien) a three-tier approach to scripture which was rejected by +Athansius of Alexandria and the rest of the Church.
After the Nicene Council, Eusebius no longer uses mat 28:19 without the Trinitarian Formula as he did 917 times) before the Council because it was no longer acceptable. No copies of the variant of the Gospel of Matthew without a Trinitarian verse 28:19has survived. We know about it only indirectly through Eusebius' reference to Matthew 28:19.
What this clearly illustrates is that there were other copies of the NT books which were not the same as ours, and that citing superficial agreement on the books, by titles. is also false and misleading because it says nothing of the contents of those books!
How do we know Mark 16 of a church in Asia Minor, and a church in Iberia said the same thing in ever verse? We don't! But we do know that same-name books existed with different verses in them.
Biblical criticism isn't really criticism at all. In most cases, it is an attempt by religious researches to create a rosy picture of a harmonized scripture so as to increase confidence in it through scientific method.
In reality, these biblical "scientists" invent methods to obfuscate the real picture by drawing up misleading charts and lists, and leaving out crucial information, not to talk about exaggerating percentage, etc.
In short: highly unreliable and always wearing blinders.
I would say so! Any time God speaks - through men with written word or through the leading of the Holy Spirit within our hearts - it is infallible.
prophets are not infallible in general?
No. And not all prophecy will come true! That is, in fact, Biblical. Some of the greatest prophets of the Bible were in fact quite fallible. And not all prophecies have come to be.
That is are prophets normal men who, on occasion under the direction of God, speak his word infallibly?
I would say so, yes. But it is God that gives them the infallible nature, and it is not pre-ordained by their position in life. And it will be the body of Christ as a whole - the laity and ordained - who will show their words to be from the Holy Spirit, from God.
God calling you and speaking through you makes you infallible, and it can be through a milkmaid or the Pope. However, by virtue of being Pope you do not have the guarantee that God will speak through you any more than He will through the milkmaid.
And the words of the prophet must be tested against Scripture and against the leading of the Holy Spirit of the entire church at large. Much of the early church as recorded in Acts took action based upon consensus of the entire congregation, believing in the leading by the Holy Spirit of all assembled.
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.