On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

Orthodox Advices ^ | 1981 | Elder Cleopa of Romania

[annalex]

On Holy Scripture

Ch. 2 from
The Truth of Our Faith:: A Discourse from Holy Scripture on the
Teachings of
True Christianity, By
Elder Cleopa of Romania

Inquirer: What do we mean by the term “Holy Scripture?”

Elder Cleopa: The term Holy Scripture denotes the sum of holy books that were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit within a time period of close to 1,500 years, namely, from Moses, 1,400 years before Christ, until the writer of the Apocalypse, nearly 100 years after Christ.

Inq.: Why don’t the bishops and priests sanction Christians, who are members of the Church, to interpret and preach publicly the word of God from the Scriptures?

EC: Each Christian has the need to read Holy Scripture, yet each Christian does not also have the authority or ability to teach and interpret the words of Scripture. This privileged authority is reserved for the Church via its holy clergy and theologians, men who are instructed in and knowledgeable of the true faith. When we consider how our Saviour gave the grace of teaching to His Holy Apostles (Mat. 28:20) and not to the masses it is easy for us to see that the prerogative to teach is held only by the bishops, priests and theologians of our Church. It was the Apostles who were sent by Christ to teach and to celebrate the Holy Mysteries (Sacraments). Our Apostle Paul says: “How shall they preach, except they be sent?” (Rom. 10:15). Accordingly, the bishops are the lawful successors to the Apostles and those sent for the preaching (kerygma) to the people. Paul entrusts the heavy burden of the instruction of the people to Timothy and not to the faithful. He speaks of this elsewhere: “Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers?” (1 Cor. 12:29) Again he says to Timothy that the clergy must be “apt to teach” others (1 Tim. 3:2). He does not, however, say the same thing for the faithful. He makes a distinction between shepherd and sheep, between teacher and those taught. Still, the teachers cannot teach whatever they would like, but that which the Church teaches universally. They teach in the name of the Church and of Christ. Not everyone has the intellectual ability and the requisite divine grace necessary to expound Holy Scripture correctly. The Apostle Peter also says this in his second epistle, referring to the epistles of the Apostle Paul. He says the following: “There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures” (2 Peter 3:16).

Inq.: Some say that it is not right that members of the Church don’t have the right to interpret and expound upon Scripture. As this excerpt says, each Christian knows how to render Holy Scripture: “But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things,” and “the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you” (1 John 2:20, 27).

EC: Holy Scripture is like a very deep well wherein is comprised the infinite wisdom of God. If someone thirsty dives into this well to drink of all its water, he will be drowned within. If, however, he will fetch the water with a bucket and from there will drink with a cup, then there is no fear of being engulfed. What man is so crazed as to wish to plunge into such an abyss of water without knowing how to swim? Holy Scripture, according to the Fathers, is “bone” and no one will venture with teeth “fit for milk” to break the strong bones of Holy Scripture - for those teeth will be crushed.

You’ve read in Scripture about the eunuch of Candace, Queen of the Ethiopians? He was reading the Prophet Isaiah when the Apostle Philip asked him if he understood that which he read, to which he replied: “How can I, except some man should guide me?” (Acts 8:31).

You realize also that the word “unction,” or “anointing” (chrisma) that you mentioned above means the effusion of the Holy Spirit in the Mystery of Holy Chrism, directly after Baptism (Acts 8:17).

The phrase “you know all things” signifies everything that contains Christian truth and salvation, as well as everything that is related to the antichrist and his adherents, to whom the subsequent verse of the epistle of the holy John the Theologian refers. One must not, therefore, teach according to one’s own understanding and perception, for one will be deceived.

Inq.: All the same, it is said that each Christian has the right and obligation to read Holy Scripture on his own, as the Saviour admonishes us: “You search the Scriptures, because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness of me” (Jn. 5:39).

EC: Be careful, because many heretics of earlier eras made bold to immerse themselves in the fathomless sea of Scripture and drowned spiritually, thus perishing together with as many as followed them. They don’t have all the same spiritual maturity. They are not all able to understand the mystery of Holy Scripture.

Holy Scripture is understood and explained in three ways: 1) according to its literal meaning, namely the nominal, grammatical, verbal and historical, 2) allegorically or metaphorically, which is superior to the former, and 3) spiritually. According to the Fathers, the simplest of senses to alight upon is the first meaning, according to the letter of Scripture; to penetrate with discretion to the nature of Scripture requires modest learning, while to explain the depth of the meanings of Scripture is of the highest spiritual advancement and in need of the most divine grace. The perfect wisdom of Scripture belongs, according to Saint Paul, to the perfect: “Howbeit we speak wisdom among them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to naught: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory” (1 Cor. 2: 6-7).

Inq.: There are those who contend that it is not necessary for someone to have much learning to be able to understand the teachings of Scripture, since to the unlearned He revealed the wisdom of these teachings, just as the Saviour says: “I thank Thee, O Father, . . . because Thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes” (Mat. 11:25).

EC: Yes, God revealed His wisdom to those that were known to be babes in wickedness but not in mind [1] and judgement. In other words, He revealed His wisdom to those who, with respect to good works, were perfect and had attained to the innocence of infants. That’s why Paul counsels the Corinthians as follows: “Brethren, be not children in understanding: howbeit in malice be ye children, but in understanding be ye men” (1 Cor. 14:20).

Inq.: Yet, God rebuked the wisdom and knowledge of men, as this passage indicates: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent” (Is. 29:14). Saint Paul also says: “Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this world? Hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?” (1 Cor. 1:19). Might it not be that God is not able to give the wisdom of understanding the Scriptures to certain people who are worldly-wise, as the Orthodox maintain?

EC: You should know that God does not condemn just any wisdom and knowledge, but that which kills man spiritually. If He were to censure every wisdom, He would have to reject also the wisdom of Solomon, the wisdom of Joshua, son of Sirac, the wisdom of Christ the Saviour, of the Prophets and Apostles, to those whom He gave the commandment to be “wise as serpents, and harmless as doves” (Mat. 10:16). Yet, it isn’t like this in the least. Hence, take care not to resemble those to whom the Saviour said: “Your do err, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God” (Mat. 22:29).

Inq.: Is Holy Scripture sufficient in order to guide man to salvation?

EC: No, it is not sufficient to guide man to salvation, [2] inasmuch as, firstly, it wasn’t given to man from the beginning and, secondly, when it was given it wasn’t the only authentic text, with regard to the salvation of human souls, because before it there was the Holy Tradition. Many years before Moses began writing the first books of the Old Testament, there was sacred piety in the community of the people of Israel. Similarly, the books of the New Testament began to be written ten years after the formal foundation of the Church, which took place on the day of Pentecost. The Church chose and sealed as inspired by God the books of the two Testaments over one hundred years later.[3] These then comprised the declared Canon of the books of Holy Scripture. Thereafter the Church maintained this Canon of Truth, inasmuch as it is the very “pillar and ground of truth” (1 Tim. 3:15). The Holy Spirit operates within all of this for the preservation of the truth about salvation. Where the Church is, says Saint Jerome, there also is the Spirit of God and where the Spirit of God is, there also is the Church and all grace - since the Spirit is truth.

Endnotes

1 nous: mind, thought, reason; attitude, intention, purpose; understanding, discernment: The English word that best conveys the meaning of the Greek word nous is probably the word mind, however, it also has other meanings as well. The Fathers refer to the nous as the soul (the “spiritual nature” of a man, St. Isaac the Syrian) and the heart (or the “essence of the soul”). More particularly, it constitutes the innermost aspect of the heart (St. Diadochos). Yet, it is also referred to as the “eye of the soul” (St. John of Damascus) or the “organ of theoria” (St. Macarius of Egypt) which is “engaged in pure prayer” (St. Isaac the Syrian). In this book the words mind and intellect have been used most often when rendering the Greek word nous.

2
“We cannot assert that Scripture is self-sufficient; and this is not because it is incomplete, or inexact, or has any defects, but because Scripture in its very essence does not lay claim to self-sufficiency. . . . If we declare Scripture to be self-sufficient, we only expose it to subjective, arbitrary interpretation, thus cutting it away from its sacred source. Scripture is given to us in tradition. It is the vital, crystallising centre. The Church, as the Body of Christ, stands mystically first and is fuller than Scripture. This does not limit Scripture, or cast shadows on it. But truth is revealed to us not only historically. Christ appeared and still appears before us not only in the Scriptures; He unchangeably and unceasingly reveals Himself in the Church, in His own Body. In the times of the early Christians the Gospels were not yet written and could not be the sole source of knowledge. The Church acted according to the spirit of the Gospel, and, what is more, the Gospel came to life in the Church, in the Holy Eucharist. In the Christ of the Holy Eucharist Christians learned to know the Christ of the Gospels, and so His image became vivid to them.” Fr. George Florovsky, Bible, Church, Tradition: An Eastern Orthodox View, pp. 48-49

3 By the end of the first century . . . the Church possessed the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Although they were not perhaps as yet collected into one volume, each had been accepted by the group of churches for which it was written. Very soon afterward they were combined in one quadripartite Gospel, and in the middle of the second century the Christian apologist Tatian composed the first harmony, or code, of the Gospels. . . The appearance of the New Testament in the Church as a book, as Scripture, was therefore not a new factor, but a record of the founding tradition. Just because it was identical with the original tradition as the Church already knew it, there appeared at first no need of a canon, or precisely fixed list of accepted records of Scripture.” (Fr. Alexander Schmemann The Historical Road of Eastern Orthodoxy, pg. 44) In fact, for the western Church it was not until 419 AD at the Council of the 217 Blessed Fathers assembled at Carthage that the entire New Testament as we know it today was irrevocably canonised (Canon XXIV). - Editor

---

On Holy Tradition

Ch. 3 from The Truth of Our Faith:: A Discourse from Holy Scripture on the
Teachings of True Christianity, By Elder Cleopa of Romania

Inquirer: What is the Holy Tradition that the Orthodox consider to be the second source of Holy Revelation and coequal with Holy Scripture?

Elder Cleopa: Holy Tradition is the teaching of the Church, God-given with a living voice, from which a portion was later written down. As with Holy Scripture, so, too, Holy Tradition contains Holy Revelation, and is, therefore, fundamental for our salvation. Holy Tradition is the life of the Church in the Holy Spirit and, consonant with the enduring life of the Church, is thus a wellspring of Holy Revelation, such that, consequently, it possesses the same authority as Holy Scripture.

From the time of Adam until that of Abraham, according to the old chronologies, 3,678 years passed, and if we add 430 years when the Israelites remained in Egypt, we have 4,108 years. Throughout this period of time Holy Scripture neither existed nor was the Sabbath considered as a feast among the people. During this period of many thousands of years the faithful and chosen people were guided to the path of salvation only by Holy Tradition, namely, from the teachings about God which they received from a living voice. Only for the duration of 1400 years - from the time of Moses until the advent of Christ - were they guided by the Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament.

Just as before the books of the Old Testament were written the people were guided in the knowledge of God and on the path of salvation only by Holy Tradition (Tradition with a living voice, orally), so too were they precisely before the writing of the books of the New Testament. The Holy Tradition was the guide by which the first Christians were directed to the path of salvation. The first to impart the teachings of the New Testament with a living voice to the ears of the people was our Saviour Jesus Christ Himself, who for three and a half years continually taught the people, distributing His Gospel without, however, writing anything. Inasmuch as He was carrying out obedience to His Father, He didn’t send His Apostles to write but to preach the Gospel to the whole world, saying to them: “Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit: Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen” (Mat. 28:19-20). From the day of its establishment (33 AD) until the year 44 AD, when the the Holy Apostle Matthew wrote the first Gospel [1], the Church was governed without the Scriptures of the New Testament, but only with the Holy Tradition of which only a part was later recorded. Although there were many other writers for whom it was claimed that they were inspired and faithful scribes of the Apostles, the Church is She who did or did not recognise them, for She is unerring. The Church lived the truth of the Gospel even before anything was committed to writing, having lived with the Holy Tradition from the outset.

So then, this is the Holy Tradition: The source and the root of the two Testaments - the Old and the New - and thus the reason why we call it a source of Holy Revelation, since it carries the same weight as Holy Scripture.

Inq.: Yes, but it is said that Holy Scripture as God’s word is not permitted to be substituted or exchanged with Tradition, which is man’s word, as is written in the Gospel: “Why do you also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition? . . . ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Isaiah prophesy of you, saying: ‘This people . . . in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men” (Mat. 15:3, 6-9; Mk. 7:13). Thus, it is not necessary for us to replace or add the tradition of men to the law of God, which is contained in Holy Scripture.

EC: What your friends have told you is not at all true, since the law of God is not only contained in Holy Scripture. Listen to what the divine Evangelist John says: “And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen” (Jn. 21:25). Again the same Evangelist declares in one of his epistles: “Having many things to write unto you, I would not write with paper and ink: but I trust to come unto you, and speak face to face, that our joy may be full” (2 Jn. 1:12). So, you see that the holy evangelist, when he had the ability, taught his disciples more with the living voice of Tradition than by sending them epistles. While your friends keep at all costs only so much as is written, they don’t take into account that both the Saviour and the majority of His Apostles did not leave anything written, but rather taught orally, with the living voice of Tradition.

Inq.: In that case, I don’t know how Christians are to understand the statement that we must not be seduced by the false teachings of men, especially those which are religious and rely on Scripture. After all, the Apostle counsels us: “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ” (Col. 2:8). It is our responsibility, then, to preserve ourselves from the false traditions of men.

EC: Dearest to Christ, you do not discern the difference between the teachings of human traditions and those that proceed from the apostolic and evangelical tradition. You brought here an excerpt from Holy Scripture that refers to the tradition of human teachings and pseudo philosophy that has no relationship whatsoever to the evangelical and apostolic Tradition of the Church of Jesus Christ. Holy Tradition is neither a tradition of men, nor a philosophy, nor some kind of trickery, but is the word of God that He delivered to us personally. The great Apostle Paul teaches and exhorts us to keep with vigour the traditions, saying; “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). On the contrary, some counsel weaker Christians to slander and abandon the apostolic and evangelical traditions, without understanding that Holy Scripture itself is a fruit of the Holy Spirit that grew out of the roots and tree of Holy Tradition.

Inq.: Why isn’t Holy Scripture sufficient for faith and salvation, without having any need whatsoever of Tradition? This appears to be the case from the words of the Apostle Paul to Timothy: “And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Tim. 3:15-16). These words are clear. Any addition to Holy Scripture is unnecessary.

EC: Here he is speaking only about the Scripture of the Old Testament, for the New Testament had not yet been written. Paul wrote to Timothy that a good teacher could use the Old Testament for the support of his faith in Christ and his instruction in Christianity. According to the notion that you mistakenly asserted, it follows that not one book of the New Testament - from those that were written in the period that followed these epistles of the Apostle Paul to Timothy - should be accepted. Rather, it is enough for us to recognize the Old Testament books mentioned here in the passage to which you refer.

Inq.: Some people don’t acknowledge the Tradition because they say that with the passing of time it yielded to many illegitimate elements, so that, especially today, we are no longer able to discern the true apostolic Tradition from the false.

EC: The Church of Christ determined the truths of the faith, according to the long course of Tradition, through the teachings and canons of the holy Oecumenical Councils, decrees and the Symbol of Faith [The Creed], and with confessions [of Faith] by holy and wonderworking hierarchs such as were made at the many local synods which have been held continuously since the days of old. At these synods the authenticity and genuineness of the holy Orthodox Faith was firmly established, primarily therein where it was attacked by the existing heresies of the time. From the totality of such synods appears the irrevocable and inalterable content of Holy Tradition. This is understood when you examine closely the essence of the following conditions:

- Do not sanction conceptions that contain inconsistencies amongst themselves or contradictions with the apostolic Tradition and Holy Scripture. (A teaching is to be considered worthy of “Tradition” when it stems from the Saviour or the Holy Apostles and is directly under the influence of the Holy Spirit.)

- The Tradition is that which has been safeguarded from the Apostolic Church and has an uninterrupted continuity until today.

- The Tradition is that which is confessed and practiced by the entire universal Orthodox Church.

- The Tradition is that which is in harmony with the greatest portion of the fathers and ecclesiastical writers.

When a tradition does not fulfil these stipulations, it cannot be considered true and holy, and consequently cannot be considered admissible or fit to be observed.

Inq.: Notwithstanding all the efforts which you say the Orthodox Church has made and makes relative to the truth of Tradition, some believe only the teachings which are contained in Holy Scripture. For the first Christians - they say - accepted only such writings as were contained in Holy Scripture, as it is written: “These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so” (Acts 17:11). From this it follows that we should keep those teachings find written in Holy Scripture.

EC: However, the great Apostle Paul commends the Christans of Corinth not because they kept the written teachings, but because they obeyed him and observed with diligence the oral teachings that they had received from him. Listen to what he writes; “Now I praise you, brethren, that ye remember me in all things, and even as I delivered to you, ye are holding fast the traditions” (1 Cor. 11:2). I wonder, what is better to do: for us to keep only the written teachings or to follow the great Apostle Paul who extols those who keep the unwritten tradition as well? Furthermore, we’ve established that the Holy Apostles and Evangelists believed and preach-ed abundantly from Holy Tradition, which they inherited from of old and is not written anywhere in Holy Scripture.

Inq.: Where specifically does it appear that the Holy Apostles taught other teachings aside from those which are written in Holy Scripture?

EC: Here are two testimonies: The Holy Apostle Jude in his catholic epistle, verse nine, among others, says: “But when the archangel Michael, contending with the devil, disputed about the body of Moses, he did not presume to pronounce a reviling judgement upon him, but said, The Lord rebuke thee” (Jude 9). Dearest to Christ, search all of Holy Scripture and see if you will find written this utterance. Still further down in the same epistle the Apostle refers to the prophecy of Enoch, saying: “And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints, to execute judgement upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have committed in such an ungodly way, and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him” (Jude 14-20). Yet, the Apostle Jude is not alone in speaking from Tradition. Listen to what the illustrious Paul says in his second epistle to Timothy; “Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith” (2 Tim. 3:8). And again the renowned Apostle Paul, guiding the priests of Ephesus, says: “Remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he said, it is more blessed to give than to receive” (Acts 20:35). Now, I ask you, who insist on putting faith only in the written word, from where did the two Apostles - Jude and Paul - take the foregoing words, for you will not find them written anywhere in Holy Scripture?

Inq.: Still, I question if it is possible for Holy Tradition to be preserved until today unadulterated and genuine in all respects as in the beginning? Shouldn’t we possess more assurances from the written teachings of Holy Scripture?

EC: You saw above that the famed Paul commends the Christians of Corinth for keeping, with care and mindfulness, the unwritten traditions, such as they had received from his very lips. Moreover, you heard that the Apostles Paul and Jude employed in their preaching words taken directly from Holy Tradition, such as those that referred to the prophecy of Enoch, and others. Further, I also pointed out to you by what means Holy Tradition was preserved throughout the ages. Furthermore, the same Apostle Paul exhorts and directs the Christians of Thessalonica to be very attentive and vigilant to keep the Holy Tradition: “Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle” (2 Thess. 2:15). And in another place he says: “But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed” (Gal. 1:8). In other words, he is speaking of the Gospel that he handed down to them with a living voice and not only by written word.

Inq.: How was this Canon of Holy Tradition in the Church preserved over the span of thousands of years? In our age some allege that from day to day the clergy and ecclesiastical writers alter the truth of Holy Scripture and the Apostolic Tradition, which in the beginning was authentic and genuine? They say that if you have in your hand a book that was published 50 years ago and you put it next to one published recently, they would have nothing in common. It follows, then, that if the hierarchs and priests have done this with the sacred books, they would do the same with the Holy Tradition of which the Orthodox boast as having preserved unscathed from the Holy Apostles.

EC: That which your companions have accepted is not at all correct. The teachings of the Church of Christ are safeguarded by the Holy Spirit and cannot err (Mat. 10:17-20, John 4: 16-26, 1 Tim. 3:15). Its very founder, Jesus Christ governs it in an unseen way, until the end of the ages (Mat. 28:20). If some ecclesiastical writers, hierarchs, priests or laity translated the Bible from another language or amended some passage of which an expression does not correspond to the present-day speech of our people, this would be an adjustment and modification of expression and not a serious alteration of the substance of the Biblical text. If today a Romanian from the time of the Elder Mirtsea or Stephan the Great (1504) were resurrected and you wanted to speak with him, you would understand him with difficulty, the language having developed, no longer being exactly that which was spoken then. That’s exactly what happened regarding the books. With the passage of time the writers’ words or expressions were amended with suitable present-day language, without however, changing the meaning of the profound and sacred writings. Previously, I referred you to the foundation upon which Holy Tradition rests and by what means the preservation of its authentic original image is ensured and is conveyed through the ages. This refers to, namely, the ancient Symbol of Faith (The Creed), the apostolic canons and the dogmatic decisions of the seven [2] Oecumenical Councils. To these can also be added the following monumental and meaningful testaments - assurances of the unimpaired preservation of the Holy Tradition:

- The acts of the early Church, the witnesses of the company of the apostles, amongst whom are Saint Ignatius the God-bearer (+104 AD), a disciple of the Apostles and Saint Polycarp of Smyrna (+106 AD). These Fathers admonished the faithful of their day to safeguard themselves from the teachings of heretics and to maintain in the full only the Apostolic Tradition (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Bk 2:36).

- Hegessipus, Eusebius tells us5, attempted to collect the whole of the apostolic traditions and nearly managed it, gathering more than five books worth of material that Eusebius studied. Unfortunately, with the passage of time, these books were eventually lost (Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, Bk 4:8).

- Saint Irenaeus (+202 AD) and Clement of Alexandria (+215 AD) inform us: “Those who explain Scripture without the help of the Church’s Tradition cut asunder the significance of truth” (Stromatis, pg 7).

Behold, further, those brilliant witnesses representing the faith of apostolic times and the period immediately following it up until the fourth century. The acts of the ancient Church are an important testimony to the value of the Holy Tradition and honour shown it from those times until today.

- Origin (+250 AD) says: “Preserve the Holy Tradition in the Church.”

- St. Epiphanios (+403 AD) writes: “It is necessary to hold to the Tradition because it is not possible for everything to be found in Holy Scripture. The Holy Apostles handed down some things via the written word, while others via the spoken.”

- Saint John Chrysostom (+407 AD) says: “Hence it is clear that the Holy Apostles did not deliver everything by epistle; rather many things they handed down via the spoken word which is also trustworthy. If there is the Tradition, then don’t ask for anything more” (4th Homily on 2 Thess. See verse 2:45)

- Saint Gregory of Nyssa (+394 AD) writes: “We have the Tradition set out for us from the Fathers like an inheritance by apostolic succession and transmitted via the saints” (Against Eunomius, Book 40).

- Saint Basil the Great (+379 AD) in his writings provides similar testimony. Here is how he expresses it: “Among the dogmas and kerygma (evangelical truths) that are safeguarded in the Church, some we have from the written teachings while others we’ve received orally from the Tradition of the Apostles by a concealed succession. The later hold the same legitimacy and force as the written texts” (On the Holy Spirit)

We must uphold with great reverence and godliness Holy Tradition since all that is needful to effect our salvation is not found within Holy Scripture. Holy Scripture instructs us to do many things; however, it does not make manifest to us the light. For example, it instructs us to be baptized, but it doesn’t explain to us the method. Likewise, it guides us to confess our sins, receive communion, be crowned (married) - but nowhere does it specify the rite of carrying-out these mysterion (sacraments). Furthermore, it instructs us to pray, but doesn’t tell us how, where and when. It tells us to make the sign of the Holy Cross in front of our chest according to the psalmist “Lord, lift Thou up the light of Thy countenance upon us,” but it doesn’t show us how. Who teaches us in writing to worship facing east? Where in Scripture are we told the words of the epiclesis (invocation) of the Holy Spirit for the sanctification of the all-holy Mysteries? Which teaching from Holy Scripture instructs us to bless the water of Baptism and the holy Unction of Holy Chrismation? Which passage in Scripture teaches us about the threefold denunciation and the renunciations of Satan before Holy Baptism? The prayer of glorification toward the Holy Trinity - “Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit” - from which passage did it come to us?

Posing these questions to the slanderer of Tradition, Saint Basil the Great says: “If we consent to abandon the unwritten traditions on the pretext that they don’t have great worth, we err in great and elevated matters, rejecting the Gospel.”

The ordering, therefore, by which the Church upholds the unwritten is: whatever is of apostolic descent and is practiced by the Fathers receives the validity of tradition and has the power of law in the Church of Christ (The Rudder, Neamts Monastery, 1844, Canons 87, 91). Accordingly therefore, it must safeguarded since its importance and benefit springs from the relationship that exists between it and Holy Scripture. It is true that both have remained within a reciprocal unity and intimate relationship - a relationship based on the fact that both comprise the holy revelation of God and for us are the fount and source of Revelation. Hence, it is not possible for there to exist an inner contradiction between the two or for us to exclude one from the other. Holy Scripture possesses its unique witness of the scriptural canon and its dogmatic character (its divine inspiration) only in and with Holy Tradition, while Holy Tradition is able to prove the authenticity of its truth only together with Holy Scripture.

Endnotes

1 There are scholars who believe that, in fact, “the writing of the three first Gospels is placed. . . around the year 70 AD.” (J. Karabidopoulos, Introduction to the New Testament, p. 104 (In Greek))

2 The Elder here is referring to the well-known seven Oecumenical Councils, however, in essence the Church also accepts an eighth (879), which confirmed the rejection of the “filioque” clause in the presence and with the support of the Church of Rome, and a ninth (1341), which rejected the humanistic-scholastic theology of Barlaam in support of the Hesychasts and St. Gregory Palamas. The truths expounded by these two councils have helped to uphold the Church against the theological distortions which have been brought to bear over the past 650 years, first in the West, and soon thereafter in the East.

[ladyinred]

I apologize as you are not the one who wrote the post I was speaking of! Blonde!

[annalex]

I am definitely discussing the "proper roles of Scripture and Tradition, as is the topic".

Of course you are. I apologize, -- I only meant to prevent the usual sidetracking into mariology, which for some reason excites people too much and all such threads look alike. It is wholly understandable to discuss Mary too, just that I want the thread to be primarily about what the head article is about.

When individuals have the same holy power over their destinations that the church claims, the church must be just another organization.

The Catholic or Orthodox do not disagree that the individual reaches final justification based on what he individually does. Indeed, this follows from the "Kingdom is within you" verses that you cite so often. But you seem to read these two verses and discard everything else. I read these verses. I do not discard them. But I also read the scripture that describes the Church that I offered to you, -- the Matthew "bind and loose" passage, and the entire spirit of 1 Corinthians, and Timothy, and Titus. Moroeover, I showed you (maybe on the Rome thread) that some aspects of the Kingdom of God are social and not pertaining to the individual. As a Catohlic I cannot take just a few verses I like and build a theology on them alone.

The Catholic teaching on the Baptism is that anyone can baptize if a priest is not available, ad that specifically Protestant Baptism (excepting some far-off denominations) is valid. Protestant converts are not re-baptized. So on this score you probalby won't disagree as it is one case where the priestly function is not necessary (marriage is another). Further, we teach that thus defined baptism accepts one into the Catholic Church and washes off his original sin, as well as all personal sin up to that point. But it does not guarantee eventual salvation and it does nto protect from committing future personal sin. We believe that it is Christ who baptizes and the will of either the sponsor or the baptizee himself is sufficient; for that reason, it is possible to baptize an infant. We do require repentance and a statement of faith in an adult who gets baptized.

Most of it is tradition, as the specifics of baptism are not elaborated upon in the Scripture, and what is said about it we adhere to.

Who judges that it was or was not in Jesus' orderly fashion when He did [effect the adoption of St. John by Mary]?

The scripture indicates that it was next to last word of Christ before death, so to think that it was some trivial economic arrangement would be strange. Also, St. James was related to Mary and would have been a natural caretaker. Also, Mary is likened to any other disciple who "keeps the word" in two other passages in the gospels, so the familial connection between Mary and the body of the disciples is a scriptural fact. Of course, the Church decides how to interpret this, just like with anything else.

[annalex]

nowhere in Biblical Scripture is the word "church" capitalized

The entire Greek original has no capitalization, not even for personal names.

All disciples of Christ are part of the Body of Christ

Do you disagree that that body is formed through baptism? Because every time a conversion is described in he scripture, the convert is immediately baptized.

Do you disagree that through one's actions one can leave the Church? Examples are Simon Magus, Hymeneus and Alexander (1 Timothy 1), Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5), and we have to assume many more, as St. Paul in 2 Timothy complains that most have left him.

[Kolokotronis]

"I apologize as you are not the one who wrote the post I was speaking of! Blonde!"

Think nothing of it, dear lady!

[wmfights]

"I do not believe that it is the first and only Church, but that it is one of the Churches of the Lord."
______________________

Your absolutely right. Clearly when someone goes out of their way to insult you you've won the argument.

[kosta50]

Your post #109, unbelievably offensive to me

I regret that, but my post was not personal. I stand by my statement, namely that behind every Protestant sect there is a man who established it. The same is true of Islam.

This does not compare Protestants to Islam as far as their faiths are concerned. If you disagree, please provide some proof that this is not so.

[kosta50]

Your position is full of very (marginal) circular reasoning

Oh? What is "marginal" and what is "circular" about it?

John's letter (1 John 2:27 DOESN'T say we do not need leaders and instructors...

No, it says "but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things..."

If something teaches you "all thing" you don't need anyone or anything else to teach you, do you?

we are disciples of Jesus Christ

Gnostics, Jehova's Witnesses and Latter-Day-Saints claim the same thing. So, do Arians and Nestorians for that matter. What does that mean "we are disciples of Jesus Christ?"

Have you ever noticed that the terms "elder" and "deacon" are never capitalized

Of course, because the original Greek text didn't use such orthodgraphic niceties as capitalization.

This ESPECIALLY includes the doma ministry gifts you have listed

I have no idea what "doma ministry gifts" are or how this applies to the fact that the New Testament establishes Church hierarchy.

These are mature spiritual gifts, and the completely configured gifts...

Huh?

For all the zealous defense of "orthodoxy" and tradition here -- These same apologists seem to constantly: 1. Add to (or take away from...) the canon of Biblical truth

Examples, please.

2. Invent/re-invent more hierarchical religious offices,

Examples, please.

3. teaxh and/or endorse un-Biblical (occasionally CLEARLY forbidden!) spiritual practices,... Examples, please!!!!

AND...4. Additional rites, ordnances rituals and traditions that remain a very long way from and sound foundation in the simple Scriptural premises of the New Covenenant

I suppose you have gotten the clue by now...please.

All of which begs the original [sic] question: Is following Jesus Christ through Biblical Christian faith more of a "religion" or a relationship?

Whose question was that?

[kosta50]

So many of your positions are approaching the absurd....

I wish you'd mention which "so many" so we can establish how absurd they are. If you mean the underlined section, namely that the Protestants are not part of the Church, then I beg to differ with you.

This was not meant as an insult, and I made that abundantly clear. Nor was it meant to question their faith. I question no one's faith. But, you will have to consider a historical fact that followers of Luther left the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, the only Church (which is why it is capitalized) we know that was established by our Lord Jesus Christ in Person.

Aside from the historical aspect of this being outside of the Church, it is clear that the Church considers Protestants as "separated brethren" even though, by virtue of their Baptism (those that are Trinitarian) they are still Catholic, even if their practices are not.

The Church considers Protestant churches as Christian "assemblies" and "communities" that are outside the Church. And, the Orthodox Church does also.

So, if there is anything "absurd" in all this, it is not "mine" and it is not even absurd.

For someone who constantly makes snide remarks and sneers at sincere followers of Christ concerning the use of "your Christian Bible" -- I suggest you read it from cover to cover

Obviously you are not aware that Luther changed the Christian canon. His ambition was to do a lot more damage than he did. But one thing he certainly did accomplish and that was to switch ti the Hebrew-language OT canon rather than the OT quoted by the Apostles (in over 95% of the cases), which is the Septuagint (or LXX).

So, to be honest with you, we do NOT read the same Bible. There is nothing snide about it. You are just being introduced to some realities which you were not aware of, and which are fully verifiable.

To see how different the two Bibles really can be, consider Isaiah 9:6

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace" [KJV]

"For a Child is born to us, and a Son is given to us, whose government is upon His shoulder; and His name is called The Messenger of Great Counsel; for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to Him." [LXX]

Clearly, someone's fingers have been in some of these verses, don't you think? The two verses are unrecognizable!

And what about, moving on just two verses down, Isa 9:8

"The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it hath lighted upon Israel" [KJV]

"The Lord has sent death upon Jacob, and it has come upon Israel." [LXX]

Reads like two different books, doesn't it?

I also strongly suggest you repent of your arrogant but ignorant religiosity -- and seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness --

Now, that is personal. You are calling my religiosity "ignorant" and "arrogant." Why? To which I simply say: please prove it now that you qualified it.

[kosta50]

Clearly when someone goes out of their way to insult you you've won the argument

I certainly did not go out of my way to "insult" ladyinred personally (she wasn't even on the list of individuals I responded to). I was expresisng an opinion based on historically verifiable facts. I regret ladyinred was upset by that. She was neither the subject nor the target of my post.

[kosta50]

The entire Greek original has no capitalization, not even for personal names

Thank you Alex. I responded to this unware that you did too. You are absolutely right.

[kosta50]

WnW: All disciples of Christ are part of the Body of Christ

Alex, I have already answered this one too. The point is that it is not enough to simply "adopt" Christ as your Savior. Gnostics, Jehova's Witnesses and Latter-Day-Saints claim the same thing. So, do Arians and Nestorians for that matter. There is a lot more to it.

[annalex]

a lot more to it.

You bet.

I really would like to understand better how in the Protestant mind that Body of Christ is formed, so I inserted myself in your conversation. I know you would not mind.

[kosta50]

I really would like to understand better how in the Protestant mind that Body of Christ is formed, so I inserted myself in your conversation. I know you would not mind

No at all. By all means please do. And that goes to our Protestant friends as well. It doesn't mean I agree with them. But we all learn from each other. So, talk is good.

[Wings-n-Wind]

To succinctly answer your propositions:
(1)Do you disagree that that body is formed through baptism?
Acts 2:27-31
1 Corinthians 12:12-27
Ephesians 4:11-16

(2) Do you disagree that through one's actions one can leave the Church?

The isolation of broken fellowship... yes
The rebuke and discipline/consequences of broken faith... yes
A broken covenant... No
(See Romans 8:38-39)

MY TURN...

Do you disagree that accepting the Lord's invitation to life in the Kingdom of God requires an active commitment of the free will, irregardless of affiliations, acts, rites or rituals performed outside or in the stead of the active free will of man?

Do you disagree that Jesus had half-siblings (at least four brothers, and at least two sisters) that were the issue of the marriage of Mary by her husband Joseph the step-father of Jesus?

Do you disagree that the repentant thief on the cross experienced a complete acceptance in the paradise of God through his faith in Christ?

Do you disagree that Christians can be found in broken fellowship, and later found restored to favor and service by the extension of God's grace through the ministry of reconciliation, and appropriate expressions of repentance and forgiveness?

Do you disagree that the dogma of Purgatory is an un-Biblical doctrine?

Do you disagree that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as well as the purported Assumption of Mary are un-Biblical doctrines?

Do you disagree that Christians other than orthodox liturgists are indeed true believers, accepted of God by their baptism in water and Spirit with sincere faith in Christ; thus members of the Body of Christ and therefore welcome at the communion table in this life as they will be at the marriage supper of the Lamb?

Do you disagree that the human psychological phenomenon known as "group think" can be a very deceptive, if not dangerous enterprise?

[William Terrell]

Fantasy. He taught mostly to the Apostles. To others He spoke in parables.

So only the apostles had the Kingdom of God within? Only the apostles could seek first the Kingdom of God and all else would be added to them?

Jesus spoke in parables by His compassion. Once knowledge is known, it is the responsibility of the knower to exact it. Many were not ready, but many were, hence "For him with ears let him hear."

The apostles were ready, too. So what?

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit" [Mat 28:19, NAB]

You already quoted that passage and I told you what it meant. A nation is a corporate entity, artificial, that is, composed of its individual members. The is hard material physical reality like the law of gravity.

You can't access a "nation" as a person. The closest you can come is access to the leadership, the government and the corruption that always therein, and the leadership cannot commit a spiritual pathway for the citizens of that nation. This is what America is founded on. You're American, right?

You must access each individual in the nation. You are dealing with a figure of speech, poetic imagery, which the Bible is full of.

I have a hard time believing you are using these mediocre arguments to support a human run organization having spiritual sovereignty of all the people in the world and a gatekeeper to God Almighty Himself.

If Christ wanted everyone to read the Bible and interpret it as they please He would have made that happen. Instead, He clearly chose not to, but to commission His Apostles to teach others. It was not a Jewish practice to read the Bible and, being a pious Jew, Jesus would have never said otherwise.

He did make that happen. I can, right now, kneel and pray to God and He will meet my need, unless it is selfish. I do and He does. I have endless testimony over the course of my life. I am not Catholic.

So what if he commissioned people to teach others? His mission was to spread the Gospel. You are in the silly position of claiming only those who He chose to spread it have the authority to send a person to Heaven or to Hell.

As for "sola scriptura" vs Tradition. We know what we read is from those ancient times. How do we know any oral "Tradition" was really preached? It wasn't written, because it was oral. Because the Catholic church says so, to its benefit and increase?

I don't think so. God condemns fools.

Sola scriptura is simply not scriptural.

Neither is "Tradition". Oh, the word "tradition" may be used in the scriptures, but who knows what it meant? The word "scriptures" is used, too, and references to using them to teach. We know what that means.

Hardly. The only breaking is in the Protestant world where the never-ending search for the "true church" results in ever-increasing "denominations" (somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-plus thousand known ones to this date).

So what if there 200,000?

When an individual, thought his own agency, can reach salvation and eternal life, by seeking the Kingdom, which is within each individual, any church that claims sovereignty over a person's soul, Catholic or Protestant, is broken.

Not in the Protestant world.

Yes, in the Protestant world. All that is specifically needful is agreed upon, unless it be some Jim Jones sect. As for individually enacted techniques, well, every person is different, like every blade of grass. God knows what is in the heart.

I will agree with you that some sects are drifting toward the heretical fringe, but, then, the Catholic church is awash is sin and sodomy.

No man has authority to save himself. You do have options. But salvation comes only from God.

Salvation indeed comes from God. Not any church. The Kingdom of God is within, and there you seek it. It is not inside a church, Catholic or Protestant. The scriptures are clear.

LOL

So you can't refute what I said? Do you understand what I said.

Yes, that's obvious, where "thinking man" is the final arbiter of what is God's and what is not, by virtue of reason. Yup, mankind will figure everything out, even God. No lack of pride and arrogance there in our "supreme" ability to understand and know everything and all by creating rationalism as a form of religion.

Acts 17:2 And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures

Acts 18:4 And he reasoned in the synagogue every sabbath, and persuaded the Jews and the Greeks.

Acts 18:19 And he came to Ephesus, and left them there: but he himself entered into the synagogue, and reasoned with the Jews.

Acts 24:25 And as he reasoned of righteousness, temperance, and judgment to come, Felix trembled, and answered, Go thy way for this time; when I have a convenient season, I will call for thee.

Jesus was all the time reasoning with the scribes and Pharisees over scripture.

God gave man a mind and reason. He meant us to use it.

Sometimes. IN the case of making all nations the disciples of Christ, it is crystal clear indeed. I wish you would see it too.

The scripture that teach individuals to have faith (only an individual can do that) seek the Kingdom (only an individual can do that) and other things only an individual can do to reach salvation, the scripture are crystal clear. Only in those which may be open to interpretation can the church gain foothold, but doing so, it drifts outside the crystal clear communication of the the vast majority of the scriptures (scriptural crisis).

The difference is that you are invested in the Catholic church, linked through the natural human being's desire to feel superiority and the fear of eternal damnation if not invested in the church. You cannot hear what I say. But, perhaps others, not so programed and conditioned, will.

I find it interesting that church plays upon the specific negative aspects of our sinful natures to project itself to gain power.

[annalex]

Acts 2:27-31

The passage does not speak to the question at all.

1 Corinthians 12:12-27

This agrees with me, one enters the mystical Body of Christ through baptism ("all baptized into one body", 1 Cor 12:13)

Ephesians 4:11-16

This passage speaks about the Mystical Body of Christ, but it does not speak abouit entering it in any particular way.

Romans 8:38-39

Speaks of external powers not being able to separate a believer from the love of God (there is a similar passage in John 10). Does not speak of a believer separating himself though loss of faith. However, we agree to the extent that baptism is an indelible seal or mark.

Do you disagree that accepting the Lord's invitation to life in the Kingdom of God requires an active commitment of the free will, irregardless of affiliations, acts, rites or rituals performed outside or in the stead of the active free will of man?

Baptism requires a free-will commitment from either a parent or sponsor of a child, or form the baptizee himself if he is capable of reason. Baptism is ordinarily necessary for participation in the eternal life of Christ. Exceptions are possible when actual physical baptism with water is inavailable.

Do you disagree that Jesus had half-siblings (at least four brothers, and at least two sisters) that were the issue of the marriage of Mary by her husband Joseph

I disagree. The scripture is silent on whether Mary had physical marital relations with Joseph following the birth of Our Lord, however, those relatives that are mentioned by name in the Gospels are clearly children of Mary Cleopas and not Our Lady. The tradition of the Church teaches that Our Lady was ever virgin.

Do you disagree that the repentant thief on the cross experienced a complete acceptance in the paradise of God through his faith in Christ?

Not though faith alone: he professed his faith, repented of his sin, received baptism of blood through his suffering, and did the work of charity defending the innocently accused Jesus.

Do you disagree that Christians can be found in broken fellowship, and later found restored to favor and service by the extension of God's grace through the ministry of reconciliation, and appropriate expressions of repentance and forgiveness?

Ordinarily, a sacramental confession is necessary from a priest, but otherwise I agree.

Do you disagree that the dogma of Purgatory is an un-Biblical doctrine?

The doctrine was formulated by the Church through her Teaching Magisterium relatively late, however, the fundamentals of the teaching: the necessity of the prayer for the dead and the need for purification after death is patristic. The scriptural basis for the doctrine is 1 Cor 3:9-15, Matthew 18:23-35, Matthew 5:26.

Besides, from experience I know that "un-Biblical" is sometimes used in the sense "not described in the Bible", and sometimes in the sense "contradicting things stated in the Bible". The Church teaches, and I beleive, that the absence of a teaching in the Bible does not invalidate it (e.g. the Holy Trinity is not defined in the Bible), and only contradictions with the patristic interpretation of the Bible count as invalidating factors.

Do you disagree that the dogma of the Immaculate Conception of Mary, as well as the purported Assumption of Mary are un-Biblical doctrines?

The dogma of immaculate conception derives from the past tense used by Archangel Gabriel in referring to Mary as "filled with grace (kecharitomene)" in Luke 1, but otherwise these are magisterial teaching.

Do you disagree that Christians other than orthodox liturgists are indeed true believers, accepted of God by their baptism in water and Spirit with sincere faith in Christ; thus members of the Body of Christ and therefore welcome at the communion table in this life as they will be at the marriage supper of the Lamb?

Non Catholics and non-Orthodox, and even unbaptized can be saved depending of their works and obedience to the law as revealed to them. Baptism is by the water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost (Spirit). We welcome the Orthodox at the Catholic Communion in principle, even as we urge them to obey their bishops who disallow them to do so. We do not offer the Holy Communion to the other communities of faith because we do not have sufficient unity of faith with them, to which this discussion is evidence.

Do you disagree that the human psychological phenomenon known as "group think" can be a very deceptive, if not dangerous enterprise?

I agree, it is very dangerous to engage in group-think.

[William Terrell]

The reason I use those two verses is because they pretty much sum up the scriptural relationship of man and God, and man's access to God. They reflect the spirit of the rest of the scriptures, and indeed, our observation of ourselves and the world around us. I believe that the foundational things of human spirituality written of in the Bible can be observed in every day life.

Let me say, if my seeming truculence has you fooled, that I find most every Catholic I meet good folks, grounded in the things of the spirit. I expect, and know I will see, them standing shoulder to shoulder with me and mine when we face the evil of Islam. In the final analysis, we are all brothers in Christ and make up His body.

I agree on your writing about baptism. I do think that to baptize, the one must be on the true path to the Kingdom and hold the teachings of Christ sincerely in his heart, and so must the baptized. And that's all that's needed.

I don't think statements of repentance are much good. Repentance of past sins before receiving Christ is a long process, and only when the truth of your behavior come clear do you feel that gut wrenching need to fall on your face and confess your wrongness, and it that state can you be open for forgiveness. The forgiveness is what matters. Only then are you clean.

In my experience, you hurt when you've realized your past wrong, and when you repent, you actually feel the forgiveness of Christ come to you.

As for Jesus charging a disciple with the car of His mother, it don't see how, even if He waited to the last minute, it confers anything other that her as His mother to her. In at least three other scriptures, there is the appearance that he didn't esteem her greater than any other that came to him to learn the ways of God.

You could even interpret this act on the tree interpret like that. I don't believe that that, though. I believed Jesus loved His mother, and acknowledged that the Holy Spirit used he to build His earthly body.

I don't believe that accorded her status to be prayed to, or worshiped in any way, which acts of faith are reserved for Him and His Father. I think the Catholic church leadership errs in that, and errs in arrogance.

And we must remember Paul's opinion, which I happen to share. Of faith, hope and charity, charity is the greatest, and no matter what miracles you do, if you can't love with pure agape love, you are not alive, just your body.

[kosta50]

So only the apostles had the Kingdom of God within? Only the apostles could seek first the Kingdom of God and all else would be added to them?

Christ designated only a handful of individuals and gave them the powers to bind and loose (the "keys"), and they, through the Holy Spirit, in turn to those they designated to succeed them.

The New Testament is clear on that, as it is clear that the Church, left in the hands of Christ's hand-picked Apostles, established hierarchy.

The Faith celebrated in the Apostolic Church which was established by Christ in Person, was and is a continuation of one and the same faith handed down to the Patriarchs onward, and the liturgical makeup of the service (liturgy) is a continuation of the Jewish liturgical tradition.

As such, the Church never understood the service to be anything but that done by designated priests in a manner of offering a sacrifice, and not by self-styled bible-thumping "ministers."

Likewise, the Torah was not something everyone could just read and make up his or her own religion out of. That concept of scriptural interpretation by the priestly class was carried over into the Church of the New Covenant seamlessly.

Therefore all this is not some "invention" of the Catholic church, but a continuation of Judaic practices.

You are dealing with a figure of speech, poetic imagery

Really? And this is your interpretation I suppose, and therefore must be right? I don't see anything poetic in His commandment, nor any need for poetic license, but a simple command which is very clear: ethnos means a tribe or nation, and His Apostles were to make disciples of all the nations of the world (Jews and Gentiles alike).

I have a hard time believing you are using these mediocre arguments to support a human run organization having spiritual sovereignty of all the people in the world and a gatekeeper to God Almighty Himself

And I have even greater difficulty believing that some people can be so in love with themselves as to believe they are the true interpreters of everything and all, dismissing corporate knowledge of 2,000 years of an unbroken organism.

Contrary to your imagination, the Church carefully recorded everything it did. Fragmentary and complete documents serve as verifiable recordings as to what the early Church did, what the liturgy looked like, how it was done, etc.

The only oral Tradition you so vehemently object to is that of our Lord Jesus Christ, for He wrote nothing, and what was written about His unwritten teaching is in the Gospels, reduced to writing anywhere from 30 to 60 years after the Pentecost. Until the Gospels were written, the entire Church was run on oral tradition passed on by the Apostles' memory.

He did make that happen. I can, right now, kneel and pray to God and He will meet my need, unless it is selfish

He did NOT! And your example is disingenuous. I wrote "If Christ wanted everyone to read the Bible and interpret it as they please He would have made that happen." Clearly, historically, verifiably, He did not! Otherwise He would have given everyone a Bible, with the New Testament in it, just as he multiplied the fish, He would gave given enough Bibles for everyone to read. And He would have said "Read and understand!" He did not do that. He commissioned hand-picked men to do the work of "making disciples of all nations."

How do we know any oral "Tradition" was really preached?

Simple: we believe it. The Apostles preached orally what Christ preached orally until they wrote the Gospels. By all accounts, the earliest Gospels were not written until about 65 A.D., some 30 years after Christ, and for those 30 years all the Apostles who knew Him preached what he said from their memory. But, we believe that, guided by the Spirit, sent by the Father through the Son, at the pentecost, the Apostles' memories remained true and incorrupt. Otherwise, we couldn't trust the New Testament. We must presume that the authors of all the books of the Bible were "insipred" by the Holy Spirit; otherwise everything is up for criticism and doubt in the Bible.

You need to read the history of the Bible to get an idea when things came into play. Needless to say, after the Gospels were written, the Church never preached anything based on oral tradition.

When an individual, thought his own agency, can reach salvation and eternal life, by seeking the Kingdom, which is within each individual

What you are saying here is not Christianity. This is closer to Buddhism, imo. An individual can not reach his or her own salvation. Christianity teaches that only God saves. We are not instruments of our salvation.

I will agree with you that some sects are drifting toward the heretical fringe

Really? And how do you define "heresy?"

but, then, the Catholic church is awash is sin and sodomy

I am pinging annalex to answer that. This comment is out of line. I will ask you to prove that the "Catholic Church is awash in sin and sodomy." [but be careful lest you eat your own crow with feathers on this one].

So you can't refute what I said?

No, it was so silly I had to laugh out loud.

Jesus was all the time reasoning with the scribes and Pharisees over scripture

Then, maybe, you can explain to me by virtue of reason the mystery of Incarnation, or Resurrection, for starters.

Truth is, Christ never reasoned with anyone. He simply told them the correct interpretation and the truth. That's what we believe, and that's not something we arrived at by virtue of reason, just as we blindly believe that He was and is God the Word Incarnate, that He suffered and died on the Cross and on the third day resurrected. We have no logical or rational "explanation" for this. Faith based on reason is not religion but rationalism.

You cannot hear what I say

You are saying the only church is you (self). Actually, Christianity is a communion of souls. We are one in Christ, but the NT is also clear that this means one theology not billions of individual and relative theologies, just right for everyone's taste and comfort. Relativism is not what Christ preached. Relativism is what you preach, or so it seems to me.

You also deny that there is One true Church, the one that was founded by Christ and given to the Apostles. This, then, Apostolic Church, established by Christ, holds on to the teachings and traditions of the Apostles, and their unbroken line of episcopal successors, as documented in great detail, draws its authority from the Apostolic commission of its clergy, has been universal before the last of the Apostles died at the very end of the first century A.D. (we know because it was written, among others, by +Ignatius, bishop of Antioch — ordained bishop by none other than +Peter, the Apostle who walked and talked with Christ — who called it catholic) and ever since.

This, then Catholic and Apostolic Church, the only One commissioned by Christ, is the true Church which you deny and offer instead a multitude of "personal" churches, based on "inner feelings," and God knows what else.

I hear you. Trust me. I hear every word you say.

[annalex]

Likewise, I do not feel any personal animosity to the Protestants, who, after all founded this country which I love. I also agree that we find very much in common and are all attacked as Christians from several quarters. Besides, it is in discussions like these ones that we understand better our own belief system, as well as other Christians'.

I use those two verses is because they pretty much sum up the scriptural relationship of man and God, and man's access to God.

If that were true, there would be no need of any other scripture. Since the other scripture is there, -- let alone since questions like that of the Purgatory or the role of Mary vex us and they are not fully explained in the scripture, -- we need the entire revelation available to us, and much of it speaks of the social character of Christ's teaching. Catholics are often accused of basing their entire theology on John 6 and Matthew 16. If we were, that would have been wrong.

I don't believe that accorded her status to be prayed to, or worshiped in any way, which acts of faith are reserved for Him and His Father.

Of course not. Mary is not to be worshiped and her powers are all secondary to Christ's. A prayer to Mary is always intercessory prayer for graces that come from her Son alone.

I don't find much, if anything at all, to disagree regarding the rest of your post.

[William Terrell]

Have it your way. I know when I'm wasting my time. I've said all I have to say. God bless you and I hope He leads to the truth.