Posted on 04/10/2017 6:40:46 PM PDT by fishtank
Evangelical Apologist Hank Hanegraaff Converts to Eastern Orthodoxy
Posted by: Rob Bowman
On Palm Sunday, April 9, 2017, Hank Hanegraaff formally joined the Orthodox Church. Since 1989 Hanegraaff has been the President of the Christian Research Institute (CRI) and (since ca. 1992) the host of CRI’s Bible Answer Man radio program.[1] Hank, his wife Kathy, and two of their twelve children were inducted by a sacramental rite called chrismation into the Orthodox faith at St. Nektarios Greek Orthodox Church in Charlotte, North Carolina, near where CRI is based. In chrismation, a baptized individual is anointed with oil in order to receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.[2]
(Excerpt) Read more at religiousresearcher.org ...
Sirach may be in the Deuterocanonical (Second) Canon, AKA Apocryphal books, but it has NEVER been accepted as God-breathed Scripture by those who even Paul said were given the Oracles of God - the Jews. Why did they get appended to the books of the Old Testament as if they WERE divinely revealed Scripture when even Jerome and others placed them separately between the two testaments? I guess "Protestants" must observe a higher standard on what is considered the Word of God than the EO and RC do.
And it is about a relationship with Christ. The problem is that you deny - by what you’re saying - that those in a historic Church can have that relationship. Don’t bother denying it.
If you took my comments that way I am sorry because it’s certainly not what I believe. I have both Protestant and Catholic friends and family that I consider to be good Christian people.
The "split" had as much to do with politics as it did with theology. And, in an odd twist, the excommunication of the Patriarch of Constantinople by the Papal legate was not even legitimate, because the Pope who commissioned him had died in the meantime. History has many strange quirks.
I am very familiar with the differences between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, having spent considerable time on an Orthodox discussion list heavily populated with ROCOR Orthodox.
That assumes facts not in evidence.
Never accepted? What we know is that Sirach and the other DT books were included by the Alexandrian rabbis in the Septuagint ca 200 BC.
What we know is that one Jewish rabbinical school, 70 years after the resurrection, rejected them by imposing standards (concerning place, language, and date of composition) that would also rule out the entire New Testament -- which was probably their intent.
If you're going to point to them as your authority, you ought to get busy excising everything from Matthew to Revelation, because their standards would rule out those books just as much as they would Sirach.
What we know is that the same 4th century church councils, in the West, that definitively spoke on the canon of the NT also included the OT deuterocanonicals, without putting them in some third category separate from the protocanonical books.
Those are the facts that can be easily documented.
Your “facts” are arguable. You imply that the Septuagint (LXX) - the Greek translation made in Alexandria of the Hebrew books that make up the Tanakh in addition to about fifteen other books that were already in the Greek language - qualifies the Deuterocanonical books as equal to the Divinely-inspired and uncontested Old Testament. But that is simply NOT the case. The reason is simple, of those fifteen Greek books in the LXX only SEVEN are considered by Catholicism as Scripture. Why did they exclude the others?
It is ridiculous how many times this same argument has taken place over these books on this forum. I really have no desire to make the effort ONCE again to prove the point because I know the SAME arguments will be repeated as if the “facts” (the actual facts) had never been made before. So let me ask you this one question...why would anyone who was/is a Christian reject the actual Word of God? I honor the Sacred Scriptures and believe it is the word of truth from Almighty God by which all tenets of our faith must be measured against. What possible reason would I have for excluding these seven books as Divinely-inspired, Holy Spirit revealed truth if they actually WERE from God?
Just as I suspected,
“I’m sure there will be a few who will tout this as some kind of condemnation against all Protestants. Hank should work to ensure his actions do not lead to that.”
It didn’t take long, did it?
Like I said, it was ONE summary and a partial one at that. I didn’t compile it but gave the link to the source. Sorry it didn’t meet your high expectations for “quality”, but you did ask for what the differences were.
“Sirach isn’t Divinely-inspired Scripture.”
Sure it is.
“Is that why you neglected to post the reference?”
So you’re saying this isn’t inspired scripture either then, right. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3542983/posts?page=73#71 I mean, since you didn’t post the reference, that must be it, right?
Petard. Hoist.
No disrespect to the Orthodox meant, but what are the essentials to them? I don’t think “love” of Jesus is it. Even the Muslims say they do
Nice try. That “petard” is your own since what you cited in that post were the verses AFTER the ones I posted in the same book and chapter. I am really amazed at how eager you seem to be to hoist up others and boast of your superiority in all things. It reminds me of the MSM and Libs who glom onto any word or statement just so they can criticize and gloat.
And, no, Sirach (AKA Ecclesiasticus) is not Divinely-inspired Scripture. The Council of Laodicea, Jerome and Rufinus of Aquileia, ranked it as an ecclesiastical book suitable for reading but not for establishing doctrine. Rome didn’t get around to declaring it to be canonical until 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent. Which is why I think RCs today HAVE TO accept and defend it as Holy Scripture....you don’t have a choice. But, I do and I reject it along with the other Apocryphal books as from God. They never CLAIM to be either, you know that right?
Indeed. While Eastern Orthodox is not as much a deformation of the NT church as Rome is, yet it substantially is.
Also,
Somebody recently told me he's heard that Hank Hanegraaff has been attending an Eastern Orthodox church. This individual was also concerned about a report that Hanegraaff had become an Orthodox catechumen, though some people with a close relationship with the Christian Research Institute (CRI) told him that it's not true.
Before I cite some of Hanegraaff's recent positive comments about Orthodoxy, I want to give some examples of how mixed his comments about Evangelicalism and Orthodoxy have been over the years. He'll make comments that are highly supportive of Orthodoxy at one point, but identify himself as an Evangelical, or at least seem to do so, at another point. In response to a call beginning at 47:22 on his October 15, 2014 radio program, he distinguishes between what Orthodox believe about the Apocrypha and what "we" believe. On the other hand, in response to a call at 40:17 on his May 5, 2016 program, Hanegraaff misrepresented the history of eucharistic doctrine, as if there was agreement about an Eastern Orthodox view of a eucharistic presence during the first millennium of church history. A little past the 50:00 point in his February 8, 2017 program, he comments that "I have the scripture as my rule of faith and practice", which sounds Evangelical, but may not be intended that way. He doesn't use a qualifier like "alone". Near the beginning of Hanegraaff's March 8, 2017 radio program, he commented that Mary is "the apex of all of humanity" and "the model for all that we are to become in Christ", going on to say that "while Islam venerates Muhammad, Christianity venerates Mary". Later in the same program, when discussing other topics, he seems to affirm some Evangelical and non-Orthodox positions at some points, yet uses more ambiguous language and language that seems more in line with Orthodoxy at other points. See the call on baptism and salvation at 23:13 and the call on the imputation of Christ's righteousness and confession of sin at 46:51.
Hanegraaff has been discussing Orthodoxy more than usual on his program lately. In response to a call at 39:29 on the November 11, 2014 program, Hanegraaff comments that Orthodoxy never strays from its principles, in contrast to Roman Catholicism. He also comments that though there are some problematic Orthodox churches, there are others that are "completely committed to the gospel". While responding to a call that begins at 30:40 in his June 14, 2016 program, Hanegraaff claims that Orthodoxy was "the only church" prior to the split between West and East in the eleventh century. Here's a video segment of his January 25, 2017 program in which he refers to Eastern Orthodoxy as orthodox, "fantastic", "the early church", etc. In response to a call beginning at 6:17 on his February 8, 2017 program, Hanegraaff outlines an Orthodox view of justification, describing it in a way that seems to be supportive of it. He also refers to how the Orthodox view of justification predates the Catholic and Protestant views, without further qualification. Near the end of his response to the call, he refers to how his wife has been reading the church fathers on this subject, which may explain part of what's influencing Hanegraaff on these matters. See his March 14, 2017 program here (starting at 9:56), where he refers to the alleged unity of the early church, makes some comments critical of Roman Catholicism, and refers to Protestantism as a further "schism" of the Western church, all the while saying nothing negative about Eastern Orthodoxy. More recently, on his April 4 program (start listening at 22:10), he referred to how he's always been interested in Orthodoxy, how the church allegedly had unity during the first millennium of Christianity until the Pope broke that unity, how he's recently been influenced by Orthodox individuals who have a "keen sense of church history", how he "absolutely loves" how Orthodoxy affirms the presence of Christ in the eucharist while "leaving it in the realm of mystery", etc.
I don't know just how much the segments of his program mentioned above reflect where Hanegraaff stands in relationship to Orthodoxy. Maybe he's made other comments elsewhere that would significantly qualify what I've cited above. But the impression I have at this point is that he's at least moved a long way toward Orthodoxy. However much he still holds some Evangelical beliefs that are opposed to Orthodox beliefs, he may not do so much longer. His current Evangelical positions on some issues may not have much significance. He may be in a transitional phase that will lead him away from those Evangelical views in the near future.
I haven't listened to Hanegraaff much in recent years, and I haven't read any of his most recent books. I did listen to him a lot and read some of his books in the 1990s and the opening years of the 2000s.I benefited from his work in my first several years as a Christian, and I appreciate much of what he's done. But his promotion of Eastern Orthodoxy is a major problem. CRI needs to do something about it. There needs to be clarification about Hanegraaff's relationship with Eastern Orthodoxy, and his promotion of Orthodoxy on the air and through other CRI resources needs to end. The damage he's already done, in contexts like the ones discussed above, needs to be addressed and counteracted.
Anybody who's interested can read a lot of posts we've written about Orthodoxy in our archives. My index of posts on Catholicism and church history has a lot of material that's relevant to Orthodoxy as well. As I document there, Orthodoxy doesn't have the sort of historical roots Hanegraaff suggests it does. http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2017/04/hank-hanegraaffs-promotion-of-eastern.html
There is a reason Hank Hanegraaff is hardly mentioned even in posts over the course of over 20 years on FR. That Hank converted to the EOs is actually an argument against being one.
See above.
Far different from the founder: http://www.waltermartin.com listen
Some conflicts: Eastern Orthodox vs.
|
Roman Catholic |
|
|
►The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." - Orthodox apologist and author Clark Carlton: THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135. ►Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church.. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076 ►The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God. Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076 ►Such a “vain deceit” is the teaching of the Immaculate Conception by Anna of the Virgin Mary, which at first sight exalts, but in actual fact belittles Her. Like every lie, it is a seed of the “father of lies” (John 8:44), the devil, who has succeeded by it in blaspheme the Virgin Mary. Together with it there should also be rejected all the other teachings which have come from it or are akin to it. — "Saint" John Maximovitch; http://preachersinstitute.com/2010/06/24/the-error-of-the-immaculate-conception/ ►What I found most disturbing in my reading was that the Orthodox objected to the doctrine [of the Immaculate Conception] not so much because of its proclamation of Mary as immaculate (indeed, the Orthodox liturgy repeatedly refers to Mary as "all holy ... .. immaculate," and "most blessed") but because of the erroneous understanding of original sin underlying it... I sadly concluded that the erroneous Roman understanding of original sin had led to another erroneous teaching, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception. The dogma was clearly an unwarranted innovation. It was much the same with the dogma of papal infallibility. This doctrine asserts that when the pope speaks ex cathedra, "from the throne," or officially, on matters of faith and morals, he teaches infallibly. Thus the whole Church is bound by his teaching. Orthodoxy and Catholicism - What are the differences - "Father" Theodore Pulcini ISBN 978-1-888212-23-5 [69] http://almoutran.com/2011/03/251 ►Despite the high honor and the highest admiration which the Orthodox Church bestows upon the Virgin Mary Theotokos, it does not teach either her immaculate conception or her bodily assumption into the heavens., The west, in altering the Creed without consulting the east, is guilty (as Khomiakov put it) of moral fratricide, of a sin against the unity of the Church. In the second place, most Orthodox believe the Filioque to be theologically untrue. They hold that the Spirit proceeds from the Father alone, and consider it a heresy to say that He proceeds from the Son as well. There are, however, some Orthodox who consider that the Filioque is not in itself heretical,. and is indeed admissible as a theological opinion - not a dogma - provided that it is properly explained. But even those who take this more moderate view still regard it as an unauthorized addition. That was how an Orthodox felt in the twelfth century, when the whole question had come out into the open. In earlier centuries the Greek attitude to the Papacy was basically the same, although not yet sharpened by controversy. Up to 850, Rome and the east avoided an open conflict over the Papal claims, but the divergence of views was not the less serious for being partially concealed. — http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm ►It is evident from the Scripture that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only; this was the belief from the very beginning of the One Undivided Church. When the church in the West inserted the "filioque" phrase into the Creed, this innovation precipitated the Great Schism of the Undivided Church. The "filioque" phrase is an error. It is not found in the Scripture. It was not believed by the Undivided Church for eight centuries, including the church in the West. It introduces a strange teaching of a double procession of the Holy Spirit and refers to two origins of the Spirit's existence, thus denying the unity of the Godhead. The Church of Christ from the beginning baptized its members by a priest immersing them thrice in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Immersion baptism was the practice of the early Church. ...the synods of the Fathers, as a whole and as individuals, have believed that their decisions are infallible. Their decisions, however, are not considered permanent until they are accepted by the "Conscience of the Church," the whole body of the faithful, clergy and laity, who must give their consent.— http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7063 ►Within a reintegrated Christendom the bishop of Rome will be considered primus inter pares serving the unity of God's Church in love. He cannot be accepted as set up over the Church as a ruler whose diakonia is conceived through legalistic categories of power of jurisdiction. His authority must be understood, not according to standards of earthly authority and domination, but according to terms of loving ministry and humble service (Matt. 20:25 27).- http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith8523 ►In the Nicene Creed of faith our Church is described as the "One, Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church": "One" because there can only be one true Church with one head Who is Christ... Each of these titles is limiting in some respects, since they define Christians belonging to particular historical or regional Churches of the Orthodox communion.. “because it has all the proper attributes, the Orthodox Church is the living realization of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.” — http://www.antiochian.org/node/17076 Then there are those who attempt to join together all Christian religions into one faith. They would be horrified at the idea of a service with Hindus and Christians celebrating together, yet they do not bat an eyelash at the idea of Orthodox celebrating with Roman Catholics, who with no authority broke off from the Church close to a thousand years ago. — http://www.orthodox.net/articles/against-ecumenism.html ►The Church preserves unity in diversity. In the Orthodox Church there is no hierarch with universal jurisdiction since its One True Shepherd, our Lord Jesus, has never left His Church (Matthew 28:20). The Apostle Peter does not replace or substitute for Him. The Scriptures do indeed indicate that Peter exercises an important role as leader among the Apostles but his primacy is exercised in equality or collegiality ("primus inter pares") as the Book of Acts clearly shows. The Rock upon which the Church is built is our Lord Himself as we proclaim during Matins: "The Stone which the builders rejected has become the Cornerstone; this is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes" (from Psalm 118:2 - also the most often repeated phrase from the Old in the New Testament: Matthew 21:42, Mark 12:10, Luke 20:17, Acts 4:11 and 1 Peter 2:7). Peter, a leader among the Apostles, was first to proclaim the Church's faith in our Lord upon Whom it is built: "You are the the Christ (i.e. the Messiah, God's Chosen and Annointed One - igk), the Son of the Living God" (Matthew 16:15). He did not see himself as that Rock. Such, at any rate, is the conviction of the Orthodox Church. — http://www.ukrainian-orthodoxy.org/questions/2007/appostolic.html ►Roman Catholic historian, Francis Dvornick, states:...the question of the apostolic character of a see was viewed in quite different fashion in the East. There had been many important sees in the East which had been founded by an Apostle: this was the case for Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Ephesus. - (Francis Dvornik, Byzantium and the Roman Primacy (New York: Fordham University, 1966), p. 43) The East never accepted the regular jurisdiction of Rome, nor did it submit to the judgment of Western bishops. Its appeals to Rome for help were not connected with a recognition of the principle of Roman jurisdiction but were based on the view that Rome had the same truth, the same good. - Yves Congar, Diversity and Communion (Mystic: Twenty-Third, 1982), p. 26). More . ►The Orthodox Church believes that the Church exists where: 1) there is Apostolic Succession; 2) where the traditions and canons of the Church are preserved; 3) and where a right-believing Bishop in Apostolic Succession shepherds his people in good order according to these traditions and canons. In the Roman Catholic Church, Apostolic Succession itself resides in the person of the Pope, who is Christ’s Vicar on earth. While modern Latin theologians have tried to restate or even reject it, and while the ecumenical pronouncements of the Latin Church have tried to downplay the significance of Papocentrism, it is the fundamental dogma of Roman Catholicism and a principle repeatedly defended by the present Pope. Even collegiality and shared primacy with the Eastern Patriarchates are subject to the magisterium of the Papacy. And herein lies one of the most important differences between the Latin and Orthodox Churches in general: the Latin Church’s appeal to the authority of the Roman See and the Orthodox Church’s dependence on the authority of the wholeness of ecclesiastical tradition, the very Body of the Church. - http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/rome_orth.aspx ►Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." Following the philosophical spirit of the time (and the lead of Cardinal Henry Newman), Roman Catholic theologians began to define and teach the idea that Christ only gave us an "original deposit" of faith, a "seed," which grew and matured through the centuries. The Holy Spirit, they said, amplified the Christian Faith as the Church moved into new circumstances and acquired other needs. Consequently, Roman Catholicism, pictures its theology as growing in stages, to higher and more clearly defined levels of knowledge. The teachings of the Fathers, as important as they are, belong to a stage or level below the theology of the Latin Middle Ages (Scholasticism), and that theology lower than the new ideas which have come after it, such as Vatican II. All the stages are useful, all are resources; and the theologian may appeal to the Fathers, for example, but they may also be contradicted by something else, something higher or newer. On this basis, theories such as the dogmas of "papal infallibility" and "the immaculate conception" of the Virgin Mary (about which we will say more) are justifiably presented to the Faithful as necessary to their salvation. - http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html ►There is nothing Orthodox about the charismatic movement. It is incompatible with Orthodoxy, in that it justifies itself only by perverting the message of the Fathers, suggesting that the Church of Christ needs renewal, and indulging in the theological imagery of, Pentecostal cultism. With such things, one cannot be too bold in his language of condemnation and reprobation. - http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/charmov.aspx ►Vladimir Lossky, a noted modern Eastern Orthodox theologian, argues the difference in East and West is due to the Roman Catholic Church's use of pagan metaphysical philosophy (and its outgrowth, scholasticism) rather than the mystical, actual experience of God called theoria, to validate the theological dogmas of Roman Catholic Christianity. For this reason, Lossky argues that the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholics have become "different men".[18] Other Eastern Orthodox theologians such as John Romanides[19] and Metropolitan Hierotheos[20][21] say the same Roman Catholicism teaches, also, that, in the Age to Come, man will, with his intellect and with the assistance of grace, behold the Essence of God. The Orthodox declare that it is impossible to behold God in Himself. Not even divine grace, will give us such power. The saved will see, however, God as the glorified flesh of Christ. According to Metropolitan Hierotheos that because the Roman Catholic Church uses philosophical speculation rather that an actual experience of God to derive their theology they are lead into the many errors that Orthodox call into question about their theology including the filioque[66]. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox__Roman_Catholic_theological_differences ► Orthodoxy is not simply an alternative ecclesiastical structure to the Roman Catholic Church. The Orthodox Church presents a fundamentally different approach to theology, because She possesses a fundamentally different experience of Christ and life in Him. To put it bluntly, she knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church.” — Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997; http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=13-07-033-b. More: http://www.bible.ca/catholic-vs-orthodox.htm; http://www.ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html http://vivificat1.blogspot.com/2009/08/twelve-differences-between-orthodox-and.html (Note that referenced sources does not infer agreement with all that such may provide) |
►CCC 882: For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered. “...the Apostolic See has received and hath government, authority, and power of binding and loosing from the Incarnate Word Himself; and, according to all holy synods, sacred canons and decrees, in all things and through all things, in respect of all the holy churches of God throughout the whole world, since the Word in Heaven who rules the Heavenly powers binds and loosens there" — Defloratio ex Epistola ad Petrum illustrem; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_29061896_satis-cognitum_en.html. ►From this it must be clearly understood that Bishops are deprived of the right and power of ruling, if they deliberately secede from Peter and his successors; because, by this secession, they are separated from the foundation on which the whole edifice must rest. They are therefore outside the edifice itself; and for this very reason they are separated from the fold, whose leader is the Chief Pastor; they are exiled from the Kingdom, the keys of which were given by Christ to Peter alone.. We read that the Roman Pontiff has pronounced judgments on the prelates of all the churches; we do not read that anybody has pronounced sentence on him"..The reason for which is stated thus: "there is no authority greater than that of the Apostolic See" — Post Epistolam, xxvi., ad omnes Episc. Hispan., n. 4 ►Bellarmine: Besides that, the second affirmation of Cajetan, that the Pope heretic can be truly and authoritatively deposed by the Church, is no less false than the first... it must be observed in the first place that, from the fact that the Pope deposes bishops, it is deduced that the Pope is above all the bishops, though the Pope on deposing a bishop does not destroy the episcopal jurisdiction, but only separates it from that person. — http://www.fisheaters.com/bellarmine.html ►Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam: “We declare, say, define, and pronounce [ex cathedra] that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” "If, therefore, the Greeks or others say that they are not committed to Peter and to his successors, they necessarily say that they are not of the sheep of Christ, since the Lord says that there is only one fold and one shepherd (Jn.10:16). Whoever, therefore, resists this authority, resists the command of God Himself. " — Pope Boniface VIII, Unam Sanctam (Promulgated November 18, 1302) http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/b8-unam.html ►Furthermore, in this one Church of Christ no man can be or remain who does not accept, recognize and obey the authority and supremacy of Peter and his legitimate successors. Did not the ancestors of those who are now entangled in the errors of Photius [the eastern “Orthodox” schismatics] and the reformers, obey the Bishop of Rome, the chief shepherd of souls?...Let none delude himself with obstinate wrangling. For life and salvation are here concerned...” Pope Pius XI, Mortalium Animos, PTC:873) The Promotion of True Religious Unity) ►We declare, pronounce and define that the doctrine which holds that the Blessed Virgin Mary, at the first instant of her conception, by a singular privilege and grace of the Omnipotent God, in virtue of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of mankind, was preserved immaculate from all stain of original sin, has been revealed by God, and therefore should firmly and constantly be believed by all the faithful. —Pope Pius IX, Ineffabilis Deus, December 8, 1854 ►Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation. Finally, and very crucially, they embrace radically different views of the final destiny of man. In this respect they both employ the concept of "deification", but possess very different understandings of what this term signifies. - http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii[Traditionalist] ►The chief thing, therefore, is the continued juridical succession of apostolic authority. Now this element precisely is missing from the Greek Orthodox Church. By the mere fact of being in schism, apostolic authority is forfeited. In addition, the Greek Church has not preserved the Faith intact in many points. The Greek Church cannot therefore be called apostolic in the technical sense of that word. — Radio Replies, 1940 | Fathers Rumble & Carty http://celledoor.com/cpdv-ebe/Bible/data/radio_replies_second_volume-239.html ►As Peter was given a new name so does the new Supreme Pontiff become known by another. After the election he extends his first blessing to the people -- a Benediction which was not given in the open for years until Pope Pius XI established the custom. The Coronation, one of the most magnificent of Vatican Ceremonies, takes place shortly after the election. With the Pope carried high in a golden chair and attended by brilliantly attired chamberlains and soldiers, the Coronation Mass is an unrivaled spectacle of beauty, dignity, and ancient pageantry. At the Coronation, in the midst of the pomp and splendor, a master of ceremonies recites in Latin: "Holy Father, thus does the glory of the world pass away." As the first Cardinal Deacon places the three-crowned Tiara on the head of the Pope, he says: "Receive the three-crowned Tiara, and know that thou are the Father of Princes and Kings, the Pastor of the earth, and Vicar of Jesus Christ, to Whom be honor and glory forever. Amen." The CORONATION of Pope Pius XII took place on the balcony of St. Peter's in March 1939. (From the book "The Vatican and Holy Year" by Stephen S. Fenichell & Phillip Andrews -- 1950 edition. http://www.users.qwest.net/~slrorer/ReunionOfChristendom.htm) ►"The Church has the right,..to admonish or warn its members, ecclesiastical or lay, who have not conformed to its laws and also, if needful to punish them by physical means, that is, coercive jurisdiction." — Catholic encyclopedia, Jurisdiction;http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08567a.htm ►[sins] must be expiated [atoned, be compensated] either on this earth through the sorrows, miseries and calamities of this life and above all through death, or else in the life beyond through fire and torments or 'purifying' punishments.” — Indulgentiarum Doctrina; cp. 1. 1967; http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/apost_constitutions/documents/hf_p-vi_apc_19670101_indulgentiarum-doctrina_en.html) ►‘Since the faithful departed now being purified [i.e. in purgatory] are also members of the same communion of saints, one way we can help them is to obtain indulgences for them, so that the temporal punishments due for their sins may be remitted. — CCC 1478,79 It was the charge of the Reformers that the Catholic doctrines were not primitive, and their pretension was to revert to antiquity. But the appeal to antiquity is both a treason and a heresy. It is a treason because it rejects the Divine voice of the Church at this hour, and a heresy because it denies that voice to be Divine... I may say in strict truth that the Church has no antiquity. It rests upon its own supernatural and perpetual consciousness. Its past is present with it, for both are one to a mind which is immutable. Primitive and modern are predicates, not of truth, but of ourselves. — Most Rev. Dr. Henry Edward Cardinal Manning, Lord Archbishop of Westminster, “The Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: Or Reason and Revelation,” (New York: J.P. Kenedy & Sons, originally written 1865, reprinted with no date), pp. 227-228. ► Few Catholics realize that Eastern Orthodoxy, especially as represented by Palamite theology, represents a systematic and comprehensive attack upon Catholic doctrine. Catholic and Orthodox theology are not only in opposition to one another in their understanding of God (theology), but also in the various disciplines of philosophy – in Cosmology, Psychology, Epistemology, Metaphysics, Theodicy, and Ethics. They posit radically different views of God, of man, and of the relationship between God and His creation... Over the past 2,000 years there have been many heresies, schisms, and systems of thought comprehensively opposed to Catholicism. But none has carried the potential threat for corruption of all of Catholic dogma which Eastern Orthodoxy represents. — http:// |
What warrant was there for you to assume Hank did? What "fellowship of the Spirit, etc.?
“And, no, Sirach (AKA Ecclesiasticus) is not Divinely-inspired Scripture.”
Yes, it is.
“The Council of Laodicea,”
Regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor. That’s hardly convincing in any way since the Churches involved all accept Sirach as inspired. Care to explain that? Did that even occur to you? “Gee, Laodicea is in modern Turkey, but in the ancient world it was Greek through and through. And the Greeks accepted Sirach as inspired. So, if I were to use a regional council from Laodicea as proof that Sirach wasn’t considered inspired when the Greeks held and still hold Sirach to be inspired, I might look stupid because it would be an obvious contradiction.” Did that even occur to you?
“Jerome and Rufinus of Aquileia, ranked it as an ecclesiastical book suitable for reading but not for establishing doctrine.”
And lo and behold Wikipedia says: “the Council of Laodicea, of Jerome, and of Rufinus of Aquileia, ranked it instead as an ecclesiastical book.” So clearly you’re cutting and pasting and passing it off as your own. Lovely.
And besides the fact that your just cutting and pasting, it’s also irrelevant. “Ecclesiasticus/Sirach is found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (three copies to be exact). It is also included in the Greek Septuagint, the Old Latin manuscripts, and the Latin Vulgate. The Catholic Church and Churches of the East receive the book as inspired, inerrant, and canonical. Sirach is also included in our oldest biblical manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (ca. A.D. 350), Codex Sinaiticus (A.D. 360), and Codex Alexandrinus (ca. A.D. 400). In other words, the early Church in both the East and West revered this book and read it in Church…not to mention Jews before the Incarnation of Christ.” http://www.calledtocommunion.com/2010/11/sirach-about-a-biblical-book-rejected-by-the-reformation/
“Rome didn’t get around to declaring it to be canonical until 1546 during the fourth session of the Council of Trent.”
False. Florence had already done that - and it wasn’t even needed then. Also, all Trent did was end the issue as a discussion after doing the same thing Florence had already done. You might know this if you had read Breen or Michuta’s two books - but of course you haven’t done that, right?
“Which is why I think RCs today HAVE TO accept and defend it as Holy Scripture....you don’t have a choice.”
Look in the mirror. You don’t have a choice. You simply accept what your Protestant masters have told you - without even having read anything for yourself. Have you even read Albert C. Sundberg’s works? His work noting that “Except for Sirach, which was sometimes quoted as scripture in the Talmud and which continued to be copied in Hebrew in Judaism until the twelfth century, all surviving extra-canonical (apocryphal) Jewish religious literature was preserved by Christians” should make you sit up and take notice. That is if you cared about truth. But you don’t seem to. You just seem interested in repeating the same old Protestant falsehoods like your masters trained you to say. http://department.monm.edu/classics/Speel_Festschrift/sundbergJr.htm
“But, I do and I reject it along with the other Apocryphal books as from God. They never CLAIM to be either, you know that right?”
Neither does the Gospel of Matthew. You know that, right?
What you do and do not reject just makes you look silly since you clearly never even studied the subject. Breen? No. Michuta? No. Sundberg? No. Nobody really. All you’ve done is let your Protestant masters decide for you, right? That and you’ve read a few modest Protestant blogs and seriously slanted articles, right?
Yeah.
Oh, and by the way, here’s where I was lazy like a Protestant anti-Catholic who doesn’t actually know anything and just cut and pasted a line from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Laodicea “a regional synod of approximately thirty clerics from Asia Minor”.
“I am now a member of an Orthodox church, but nothing has changed in my faith,” Hanegraaff said. “I have been attending an Orthodox church for a long time—for over two years, really, as a result of what happened when I went to China many years ago.”
He said that in witnessing the simplicity and passion of Chinese Christians, he was led to study Watchman Nee and theosis (a teaching of the Eastern Orthodox regarding union with God) and felt drawn to the days of the early Church...
Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis had expressed worriment about Hanegraaff in 2003, after the author and speaker seemingly denied that the serpent in the Garden of Eden was literal, and suggested that the Leviathan in Job was simply a “metaphysical reality.”
“Eve was not deceived by a talking snake. Rather, Moses used the symbol of a snake to communicate the wiles of the Evil One who deceived Eve through mind-to-mind communication,” Hanegraaff wrote. http://www.waltermartin.com listen
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.