Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Posted on 08/24/2012 5:28:22 PM PDT by Teófilo
As always, blunders, typos, mine.
PING.
fascinating! thanks for posting this!
Very good.
Two comments.
I don’t think the comparison of any Catholic Traditionalists to the Old Believers is valid. At most we have a distant similarity: both appeal to the liturgical practices on the verge of being discarded. The rest are all dissimilarities:
- Catholic Traditonalists also and with equal force object to theological innovations. One can argue whether the Vatican II teaching on ecumenism is the principal reason for liberal innovations, but certainly innovations exist. In contrast, the Old Believers did not have and do not have today any theological objections to Patr. Nikon, merely liturgical formalities. (As a result of the Schism in Russia, sectants resembling the Western Reformers began to be mixed up with Old Believers, and they did hold different and incompatible theologies).
- The divisions between Rome and the Catholic Traditionalists were treated for most part with mutual respect, steps such as re-adoption of Latin Mass were taken and the dialog continues today. In contrast to that, the Old Believers were treated like criminals. I am not aware of any serious effort to re-integrate them into the Russian Orthodox Church.
My second comment is about the internal dynamics in the West and in Russia. In the West, it is mostly conservative Catholics that have a desire for the Western Church to become more Orthodox. For example, we see how Eastern Catholic Churches thrive while the Roman Church seems to always be on the verge of liberal takeover. In the East, however, it is the most liberal element of the Orthodox Church that is open to an ecumenical effort. This means that the present movement toward reunification cannot be successful: the people who are driving it on each side differ in their view of the Church, and their motivations are only superficially similar. I used to think that a reunification is a possibility within our lifetimes, but having paid closer attention to the state of affairs in Russia I no longer think so. We should especially beware of an apparent reunification that will be rejected by the Orthodox faithful who would feel betrayed by their patriarchs. For example, Patr. Kirill in Moscow may opt for ecumenical posturing, but his popularity is in decline; the outcome might be similar to the Florence fiasco. We don’t need a second one.
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
I’m inclined to agree with annalex’s comments, but, as always, you have said your piece very well. Thank you, as always. Keep ‘em comin’, Teó.
Dave
Just one note: I didn’t compare Catholic traditionalists with Russian Old Believers. I compared them with Old Calendarists. These are a different species. :-)
-Theo
Disagree. Actually, the churches that formed after the Reformation in the sixteenth century were very much in favor of the traditions of the orthodox Christian faith and they held to ALL the tenets described in the Nicene Creed. To just dismiss "Protestants" out of hand like this while discussing the differences and similarities of the Eastern and Western Churches is gratuitous, I feel. There most certainly IS an authoritative judge for the explanation of Holy Scripture and it is BOTH the traditional views of early church fathers and the early creeds as well as the present indwelling Holy Spirit, who illuminates the Word to our hearts. Just because there are many denominations under the umbrella called "Protestantism" doesn't mean there are the same number of different "interpretations" of these main tenets of the Christian faith. I mean, either Jesus is the Son of God and God incarnate or he isn't. Either the Holy Spirit is God, or he isn't. Either we are redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ on the cross for our sins or we aren't, and so forth - how could there possibly BE thousands of different interpretations? We may disagree concerning order of worship and leadership modes - but so do you guys and the Roman Catholics. Just as there are organizations that call themselves Christians, doesn't mean that they truly are and hold to the tenets that define Christianity. There have ALWAYS been breakaway sects but the unity of the faith IN Christ is what unifies His body.
My point is that I don't see why threads have to needle "Protestants" for what is mistakenly thought about them when you're talking about repairing the east and west schism. Are you intentionally wanting to draw us into the dialog or was it said as a sort of salve to at least say something you both agree on?
Holy Tradition is the deposit of faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction. Vladimir Lossky has famously described the Tradition as "the life of the Holy Spirit in the Church." It is dynamic in application, yet unchanging in dogma. It is growing in expression, yet ever the same in essence. (OW)
THAT is what I also believe and I am a non-Catholic. The dogmas and doctrines I hold to along with my fellow Evangelical church members is identical to the "faith given by Jesus Christ to the Apostles and passed on in the Church from one generation to the next without addition, alteration or subtraction" and the way I know that is true is because what the Apostles taught, what Jesus taught them, they made sure was recorded in Holy Scripture. The church is supposed to be the bulwark and upholder of the truth and this truth is what the Word of God says about the written word:
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)
Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, “Do not go beyond what is written.” Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other. For who makes you different from anyone else? What do you have that you did not receive? And if you did receive it, why do you boast as though you did not? (I Corinthians 4:6-7)
These things happened to them as examples and were written down as warnings for us, on whom the culmination of the ages has come. So, if you think you are standing firm, be careful that you don’t fall! (I Corinthians 10:11-12)
We having the same spirit of faith, according as it is written, I believed, and therefore have I spoken; we also believe, and therefore speak; Knowing that he which raised up the Lord Jesus shall raise up us also by Jesus, and shall present us with you. (II Corinthians 4:13,14)
And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you (II Peter 3:15)
I have written unto you, fathers, because ye have known him that is from the beginning. I have written unto you, young men, because ye are strong, and the word of God abideth in you, and ye have overcome the wicked one. (I John 2:14)
But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things. I have not written unto you because ye know not the truth, but because ye know it, and that no lie is of the truth. (I John 2:20,21)
These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God. (I John 5:13)
Thank you for the informative post. I firmly believe that the Orthodox churches have the right idea about tradition. Have a good weekend.
Hi:
I rejoice on the fact that many Evangelicals are retracing our steps on the way to understanding Holy Tradition.
My quote was from an Orthodox source. I quoted it in its entirety to keep the integrity and the context of the quote, not to “needle” Protestants.
~Theo
“....and they held to ALL the tenets of the Nicene Creed”
REALLY?????
The Nicene Creed says “ we acknowledge ONE baptism for the remission of sins”
for 2,000 years, The Church has taught baptism is for the remission of sins as taught by Peter in Acts 2:38.
in the 16th century, false teachers who did not believe in the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church arose and started teaching that there are two baptisms and not one baptism, that something called “water baptism” is NOT for the remission of sins and it to be obedient and for a public testimony. this teaching was unheard of for 1,500 years up until that point.
sound familiar BB???? so this “faith” that these evangelicals hold is not in keeping with historical Christianity and does not adhere to the Holy Tradition received from the Apostles and passed down to every generation since.
BB, saying it doesn’t make it so.
I apologize for misrepresenting your article, but the points I made remain the same. The Old Calendarists, like the Old Believers, have objections that only to them themselves look theological, and that in fact are liturgical.
When the Protestants, even one particular sect of them, subscribe to the overwhelming teaching of the Holy Fathers on the real presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist, or on the necessity of good works for salvation, or on the hierarchical and sacramental nature of the Church, then, dear, you can begin to compare the revolting heresies of Luther to the differences we Catholics have with the Holy Orthodox Church, or pretend that there is any illumination occurring in Protestant hearts.
I wished to compare more their attitudes toward the greater church thant the content of their dissent.
~Theo
I don’t think the Old Calendarists are in any conciliatory mood. Of course, given that their objection is outwardly liturgical, there is no way either side can reconcile. The Christmas either is on December 25 Gregorian or it is not.
Nor is the Church of Greece trying to be nice to them. Last I heard, Old Calendarist Esphigmenou Monastery was raided by the Greek Government with full support of the New Calendarist Greek Church.
In contrast, the SSPX under Fellay is always extremely deferential, send the Popes “rosary bouquets” and seem to negotiate in good faith. There is a sedevacantist faction among the Traditionalists and some fairly anti-Papal websites that fashion themselves true Catholic remnant, but to a casual observer, the SSPX under Fellay is the face of Catholic Traditionalism and it is very, very non-confrontational: a model of ecclesial dissent.
Well, thank you, dear, but if you were really familiar with the majority of the early church fathers, you would acknowledge that they did NOT hold to those tenets you claim they do. One of THE most important ones being that salvation is by grace through faith alone APART from works. What you call "revolting heresies" of the Reformers such as Martin Luther CAN be traced back not only from many early church fathers but, critically, the Bible which states such in unequivocal terms. That the church of Rome perverted that doctrine and formalized it at Trent is revolting to me as well as, I am sure, the Holy Spirit. The Apostle Paul even calls it an "accursed" gospel. Scripture overrules what man's traditions have invented.
Salvation is by grace alone while both faith and works are divine gifts in us constituting human response to grace.
[5] Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together in Christ, (by whose grace you are saved,) [6] And hath raised us up together, and hath made us sit together in the heavenly places, through Christ Jesus. [7] That he might shew in the ages to come the abundant riches of his grace, in his bounty towards us in Christ Jesus. [8] For by grace you are saved through faith, and that not of yourselves, for it is the gift of God; [9] Not of works, that no man may glory. [10] For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus in good works, which God hath prepared that we should walk in them. (Eph 2)
Show me a Father of the Church who taught salvation by faith alone in which good works play no role, but rather are a mere consequence of faith, and we can discuss if he meant the same thing as Luther or not.
Then, show me where Bible Alone is taught by the Fathers. Or where the Eucharist is taught to be a memorial snack rather than the sacrifice of Christ. Or where priests are taught to be merely pastors who explain the Bible. Or where saints are not to be venerated.
Till such time, stop whitewashing the Protestant error, buttering up to the Orthodox and slandering both Churches in the process.
“....human response to grace.” Thank you.
That’s what is so often overlooked or ignored.
Gift and response.
Reciprocal love.
Attributing the motive to me of merely "buttering up to the Orthodox" is rich indeed! I can easily answer ALL your assertions - even those that have been misstated. They HAVE all been addressed in other threads MULITPLE times but I can predict that no matter who I quote to answer your false claims, they will be cast aside for one empty excuse or another. I do not want to hijack Teofilo's thread since it is an interesting topic though, perhaps, this could be why you are wanting to change the subject.
For those genuinely interested in the answers for this discussion, here are several links that speak to them:
The Church Fathers and the Authority and Sufficiency of Scripture
Justification - The Contrast Between the Biblical Teaching and Roman Catholicism
“differing ideas about what that ‘one baptism’ meant”
hmmm....let’s think about that statement for a minute.
that statement would make you think the author believes there is only ONE baptism as the Curch received from St Paul in his letter to the Ephesians and which the Fathers at Nicea affirmed as the Catholic Faith handed down from the Apostles.
aw, but anyone who has read past posts by the author, knows she holds to the 16th century Baptist teaching that there really are TWO baptisms for the Christian:
1. “spirit baptism” which is for regeneration
2. “water baptism” which is for obedience and an outward display of the salavation which has occurred already.
of course, this “two baptism” theory is foreign to the Scriptures and the Holy Tradition handed down from the Apostles.
no, the Catholic Church ( both Latin and Greek ) has taught and believed that here is ONLY ONE baptism and it is for remission of sins and receiving the Holy Spirit and this has been the consistent belief since Peter spoke in Acts 2:38.
the fact that some people took the Catholic Bible in the 16th century and started a new “two baptism” teaching doesn’t change the truth at all, anymore than the Jehovah Witnesses taking the Catholic Bible in the 19th century and attacking the divinity of Christ changes the truth.
i know it is uncomfortable for those who claim to be Christian to realize that hold to a “faith” unknown to anyone before the 16th century ( after all, 1,500 years is a LONG TIME for no one to realize what baptism is for! )just as it is uncomfortable for Mormons to realize they follow a “faith” unknown to anyone before the 19th century.
but i am always willing to learn, so i would ask BB to produce JUST ONE person in the WHOLE WORLD who lived between 95ad and 500ad who believed:
1. that there are two baptisms, one spirit and one water.
2. that baptism is not for the remission of sins.
JUST ONE PERSON, please.
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.