All supernatural powers claimed by Apostolic clergy that are related to Apostolic succession are extra-scriptural. No where does the Bible state that the Apostles transferred their unique powers to "forgive sins", or raise the dead, or physically heal, etc. In current Orthodox practice, the extra-scriptural banner would include the clergy ONLY requesting without fail that the bread and wine be transformed, the clergy ONLY requesting without fail that the Holy Spirit enter a specific individual, the clergy ONLY requesting without fail that sins be forgiven, etc.
In addition, while I understand that in Orthodoxy nothing the hierarchy comes up with stands without the consent of the laity, however, it seems just a fact that the hierarchy has taken it upon itself to DECLARE what God means by His own word, IN CONTRADICTION to God's own word. Therefore, the claimed power to do that must be extra-scriptural. When Philip taught the eunuch, I presume that when he told the Good News that he only told what would later become the NT, not the extra-scriptural interpretations of the Apostolic Church. For example, I presume that Philip taught the eunuch that he must understand that he is a sinner because all people are sinners and need forgiveness and a Savior. I can't imagine Philip explaining this and adding "that is, except for this woman named Mary". That would have been an extra-scriptural addition:
Prov 30:5-6 : 5 "Every word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. 6 Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar.
Philip was directly being led by the Spirit when he taught the eunuch so no doubt he was aware of this verse (truth).
And while we are on the subject of 'extrascriptural," please find where do the scriptures talk about the "power" ascribed to "sola scriptura?"
Well, as I understand it we don't agree on what the "scriptures" even ARE as portrayed in the scriptures. So on this subject I would assume you throw out the entire NT. But even so, there are plenty of OT verses that talk about the power of God's word, such as the above. Here are a few of others:
Deut 4:2 : Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. KJV
Deut 12:32 : What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. KJV
Ps 119:160 : All your words are true; all your righteous laws are eternal. [i.e., as opposed to the words of men]
I don't know of any scripture that says that we should follow the later teachings of men that are not found in the scriptures, and which are equal with scriptures. That is an extra-scriptural authority created and claimed by men.
I'll bet you'll want to throw at me some verses having the Apostles saying that we should "follow these teachings". You will assume that includes your unspoken-of-in-scripture-Tradition, and I will say it doesn't. My evidence is that those Apostles knew the OT and the verses I quoted above. Your argument would have to be that they were completely unaware of those verses or ideas [that God's word should not be added to, or that it was singularly true].
How is it that the Church could canonize the NT, yet not understand it, FK?
Well, I think you see the writing and Canonizing of the Bible to be mostly a work of men. I judge by how often your side claims personal human credit for both. STF even insists that my side agrees that we owe thanks to your men. :) However, we actually believe that God determined what His own word would be and that He controlled what the correct books were to be for His revelation (our Bible). Therefore, whether any particular Bishop understood it or not is not really relevant. What was relevant is what the Church as a whole understood, including the laity, led by God, at the time.
I disagree with the Orthodox contention that what you believe today is the same as what "the Church" always and everywhere believed. You can probably show me liturgies that show what was preached in some churches was the same, but I'm not sure how you can conclude that is what "all good Christians" believed. As Harley, WM, and others say and show all the time, there were Church Fathers who wrote and taught things very different from what you believe today. Depending on what you mean by "the Church" (the definition seems to change every time the term is used :), that would break "always and everywhere believed".
[continuing:] ... or, worse, how could it know the truth of the NT and express something other than that in its liturgical prayers?
You have stated a few times before your belief that the actual books that were to be included in the Bible were literally horse-traded among men. Obviously this process would be wholly apart from God, so on that basis I cannot vouch at all for what level of truth the hierarchical "voters" held at the time.
The Apostolic Church knew the word of God from the beginning because the Apostles were there when it was received and the Apostles were there when their successors were ordained to carry on the worship which expresses our belief, and their successors' successors were there and so on to this day.
You assume perfect transfer of belief ALONG with perfect transfer of supernatural powers, and we both know that history does not reveal that, in fact, in shows something VERY different. We have all those Bishops' skulls, etc. :) We know for a fact that laying on of hands, or whatever ritual is used to transfer power, does NOT do so perfectly in faith and is NO guarantee at all that what the student teaches will be anything like what the master taught.
Wow, is THIS ever an example of the concepts we bring to the table determining what we see on the table!
Speaking for myself, when I credit the Church with doing something, I do NOT think of myself as saying the thing they did is "mostly a work of men." On the as-far-away-from-it-as-you-can-get contrary!
I think more along the lines of, "Despite the Bozos whom God suffers to be members of and even to exercise leadership in His Church (and when I say "suffers" I mean in every possible sense that is not incompatible with God's impassability) By the prevenient and concomitant and ex post facto (to keep us from coming back and messing it all up when He isn't looking) grace of God, the Church managed not to make a total hash out of something.
When I say, "Dominic was a great example of a loving evangelical man," I do not mean to take anything from God but to note that God did something amazing in Dominic.
Works of men -- pheh! It is God who worketh in them, both to will and to do for His good pleasure; otherwise it's a complete mess.
Good work but I have trouble with this.. The Apostles were "mostly" teenagers not at all educated in the sense of a Rabbi.. thats why they chose Mattias and not waiting for God to chose another Apostle.. which became Saul(Paul)..
They didn't even have Bibles, probably.. if even they could have read them.. However they did have the Holy Spirit who could have educated them by other means.. The Holy Spirit choosing Paul was a master stroke, I believe.. "He" WAS educated in the classical sense.. Schooled in several languages member of the proper "class", and trained in the semantics and sophistry of the Rabbis.. It is possible that the Holy Spirit could have made copies of the scriptures available to "the Apostles".. or by some other way.. But lumping all the Apostles into the same knowledge class is a mistake I believe..
The various so-called kinds Catholics revere the "Apostles" as a clerical caste too much I think.. Probably to lend credence to "Solo hand me down" authority.. and to verify that Jesus nicknamed Cephas "peter" instead of just calling him "a Rock"(metaphorically).. which he did.. The Apostle Cult is an "error" thats been given too little attention..
"The Apostle Cult".. I think I've just coined a phrase...Thats not to diminish the Holy Spirits work in the "the Apostles".. BUT it was/is/and will be the Holy Spirits work in those brothers.. and sisters by the way..
Transubstantiation MOCKS the Holy Spirit by saying Jesus re-en-fleshs when thats the reason for the Holy SPirit to even BE HERE because Jesus is with the Father.. The Seven Spirits of God (Revelation) must not be happy about that.. You know; cutting the Holy Spirit right out the so-called sacrament loop.. if indeed it even is a sacrament.. and not just an object lesson(communion)..