Replies

There is only one holy Catholic Church who teaches the Faith given by Jesus to the Apostles and handed down to us.

That is a only claim of the Holy Roman Church for one

Negative. It is the understanding of the Catholic Church, not just the Latin branch.

Negative, as each claims to be the OTC while one rejects no less a belief than ex cathedra papal infallibility and universal papal jurisdiction, and other issues. If it is one church with formal divisions then it is akin to what can be seen under SS Protestantism, even if in close communion.

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... After the seventh Ecumenical Council in AD 787, the basic unity of faith and ecclesiastical life between East and West began to disintegrate, due to a variety of theological, jurisdictional, cultural and political differences. This eventually led to the Great Schism between East and West of AD 1054. (http://www.goarch.org/archdiocese/)

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 Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." — 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, 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

Rome's interpretation of Scripture, Tradition and history is at odds with that of the EOs to a degree that there is a formal separation, even if not disallowing substantial communion, and which some other churches parallel.

Again, negative. It was the bickering of bishops, not the discussion of doctrine that led to the schism.

That is superficial, for while i think the Filioque issue may be over emphasized and bickering may have been the occasion, and the feelings due to conflicts run deeps, (http://www.stpaulsirvine.org/html/TheGreatSchism.htm) the schism and other divisions often have real doctrinal issues as like above. And despite the present hugs and minimization of differences, the underlying differences are such that you have Roman Catholics warning against reconciliation. (http://www.waragainstbeing.com/partiii)

I would rather define it as the personal interpretation of Scripture in order to define individual beliefs on a whim.

While this is a reality, the evidence is also that an overall concurrence on core truths which distinguish them from sola ecclesia cults, which are shunned, while personal interpretation of Rome is also a reality under her Rome's sola ecclesia, and in which are less conspicuous than in churches in which doctrinal commitment is more evident, albeit with the risk of division.

While there are some small areas in which the individuals have certain leeway in beliefs, there are the non negotiables of core doctrine.

Likewise with each church.

Sola ecclesia is what Jesus taught, by the way, and reinforced by the teachings of all the Apostles and every book in the NT.

Not as the church alone being the supreme assured infallibility authority, but Scripture as the wholly inspired assured word of God. And which its founder invoked in establishing His claims, and was reinforced by the teachings of all the Apostles and every book in the NT. in preaching Christ , “persuading them concerning Jesus, both out of the law of Moses, and out of the prophets, from morning till evening,” (Acts 28:23) preaching “the gospel of God, which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures," “and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith,” (Romans 1:1-2; 16:26) by which it has its members and continued existence. (1Cor. 12:13) And which foretells and validates its ecclesiology, "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down; and I will build again the ruins thereof, and I will set it up: " (Acts 15:15-16)

The authenticity of Christ and the New Covenant and the church was established both upon textual basis and the supernatural attestation it validates being given to men such as Moses, both of which Christ appealed to, (Jn. 5:36,39; 14:11) The Lord could have proven Deity simply by the latter, by that itself would not established which deity He was, but that He was the God of Israel and prophesied Messiah was established by fulfillment of Scripture in both ways,

"Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The Son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? " (Matthew 22:42-45)

"And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself. " (Luke 24:27) “shewing by the scriptures that Jesus was Christ." (Acts 18:28)

"But this is that which was spoken by the prophet Joel; " (Acts 2:16)

"Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:" (Acts 2:22) "For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved:" (Acts 2:25) "Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear. " (Acts 2:33)

"Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them. " (Acts 15:12) "And to this agree the words of the prophets; as it is written, " (Acts 15:15)

"How shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation; which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed unto us by them that heard him; God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will? " (Hebrews 2:3-4)

"But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows." (Hebrews 1:8-9, cf. Ps .45:6,7)

While the basis of SS means a contest between claimants as it was in the past, yet under sola ecclesia you also can have formal division between churches in which each claims they are the one true Church according to their uniquely anointed interpretation. Under SS this requires more than assent of faith to an assuredly infallible magisterium which decrees they are such, but manifestation based upon Scripture and its evidences. Scripture itself, while being of God, was and is essentially established as being of God due to its unique Heavenly qualities, effects and attestation, and like true men of God and the church by it, and which in turn, evidences that the Scripture are of God insofar as they conform to it in text and supernatural testimony.

This does not negate that Christ was also conformable to “tradition,” but the “more sure word” is that of Scripture. We can see certain persons as being essentially unAmerican in being contrary to “tradition” based on what they say and do, but written documents are what best substantiate what being America represents, and how they deviate from it. And in terms of antiquity, oral tradition by nature is far more susceptible to unverifiable corruption than textual sources, and reliant upon claims of unique esoteric anointing to channel it into doctrines, with its resultant divisions, even if there are other factors involved.

There is Catholic teaching versus what a Pelosi or Kennedy might hold, versus what individual Protestants or Protestant churches do hold given their claim of personal interpretation.

Which is based upon their PI of Rome, as the other is of Scripture. And as far as serious deviation of individual members is concerned, Pelosi or Kennedy type Roman Catholics, who see no real manifest discipline, can far more easily refers to themselves as Catholic due to what this commonly manifests (Catholics are more likely to vote them in), rather than evangelicals.

The beliefs of the Pelosis et al are not based upon the personal interpretation of 'Rome'. They are based rather upon the personal freedom to create one's own beliefs or to select them in a cafeteria style.

Everyone’s actions are a reflection of what they truly believe, and if they believe they are right as Catholics then their beliefs are indeed based upon their personal interpretation of Rome, as is Pelosi's Bishop, who fosters such.

there's a question about whether this canon'' – the relevant church law – "was ever intended to be used'' to bring politicians to heel. He thinks not. "I stand with the great majority of American bishops and bishops around the world in saying this canon was never intended to be used this way.'' (Archbishop] Wuerl: Why I Won't Deny Pelosi Communion http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2247058/posts)

Rome could effectually discipline such as a Roman Catholic, but so can another church to its members. Yet the basis must be the weight of Scripture and spiritual power, by which she would be convicted or condemned.

This is one legacy of the Reformation - Luther's any milkmaid.

It is anyone's milkmaid as anyone can also claim to interpret Scripture, Tradition and history to support their church as being the OTC. But as with Scripture, the issue is who can most demonstrate and manifest it. From Moses and the magicians to the super apostles who captured the Corinthians affections (whom Paul poured his out to in testifying of his contrasting manifest apostleship in love — and warning of his rod from God), the kingdom of God is not that of self-proclamation, but of power, (1Cor. 4:20) which requires conformity to the Scriptures as the assured word of God.

The reality is that division is a consequence of being able to interpret the Scriptures under SS does not negate that unity of doctrine can be realized under the same, and that SS upholds ecclesiastical magisterium and pastoral authority and discipline in every body, while being able to interpret Rome also has the same consequence and recourse.

The Eastern branch does not have the same problem that the West did - many bishops started to adopt Protestant mindsets in the mistaken belief that they could keep people in the Faith, without requiring them to actually hold the Faith.

That is your take, but be assured they accuse Roman Catholics of being too Protestant, or the latter being infected by Roman Catholicism.

SS preachers expect adherence to whatever it is that they preach today.
This is what i said. But not based upon the premise of perpetual assured infallibility of men, which is not the basis for the establishment of Truth in Scripture, but upon the weight of infallible Scripture, textual and testimonial, which is why we contend for the Truths we hold together with you, and against those which are a product of Tradition (PTDS, etc.) and thus the assuredly infallible magisterium of Rome by which they have authority.

The basis of the variant Protestant churches (or non denominationals) is selection of verse upon which they choose to rely. Oneness Pentecostals versus Trinitarian Pentecostals come to mind. It is not that Scripture is infallible, it is in the interpretation and the specific selection of Scriptural snippets that differentiate individual belief systems.

I think that also is superficial, and granted, so is the exegesis of many, but rather than being an wild wild west of equally valid exegesis, the reality is (again) that UPC (united penetecostal church) types are manifest as aberrant in the light of the overall unity of SS type churches on core truths, based on manifestly Scriptural exegesis (Jesus is not praying to Himself, and all believers do not speak in tongues, etc.), and thus they are the ones who effectively contend against cults the most.

Meanwhile, as said, under the Catholic model of sola ecclesia, in which one declares their churches interpretation alone is correct, and effectively claims supreme authority over Scripture, you have the more aberrant cults.

But as it was in the past, so it is now. While both the magisterium and formal dissent are scriptural and have their place in confirming men and being instruments of grace, formal decent of office is not how spiritual authenticity was assured in Scripture. As said, the authenticity of prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus and His apostles was not established because those who sat in the seat of Moses affirmed them, but their authority was established upon Scriptural substantiation and its means of attestation. And so it must be now if the church is to be the Church of the living God, preaching the Gospel of grace which effects manifest manifest regeneration, and by which it gains its members, versus its institutionalized counterpart which, like the Pharisees, largely rests upon its pedigree after the flesh.

I would say rather that Jesus' authority came from Himself, not Scriptural substantiation. He taught as one with authority, and not as a scribe, remember?

My word was not that Jesus authority came from the Scriptures, as He was/is Divine and thus assured infallible word of God and revealed in Scripture, but that His authenticity was established, that is, before men, in conformity with Scripture and its means of attestation, which is what the chief priests, etc. lacked. Regarding deacon Stephen, “a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost,” faith coming by hearing, with Scripture being the standard on what is from God, and the Holy Spirit being its author, and the opposition also "were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake," (Acts 6:10) and who also heavily alluded or referenced Scripture as authoritative in reproving the Sanhedrin. "Then God turned, and gave them up to worship the host of heaven; as it is written in the book of the prophets, O ye house of Israel, have ye offered to me slain beasts and sacrifices by the space of forty years in the wilderness? " (Acts 7:42)

He talked with the chief priests and the rabbinical and religious authorities who memorized huge swathes of Scripture, if not the whole Torah or even Talmud. They had the words; they did not have the understanding.

Rather than chastising them for their knowledge of Scripture, Jesus appealed to it and its attestive means, and held souls accountable for their ignorance or hardness of heart in not understanding Scripture and in His fulfillment of it. And as you cannot fault creation because atheists cannot realize there is a designer behind obvious design, and hear its universal “language, (Ps. 19:1-6) nor can the blindness of the Pharisees impugn the ability of the Scripture to make one wise unto “salvation which is in Christ Jesus,” “converting the soul..making wise the simple,” (Ps. 19:7) and which Scriptures Jesus Christ referred to so abundantly. And when it came down to Jesus' Deity, the Pharisees well understood what the Scriptures taught about blasphemy, but in their blindness of heart of they failed to comprehend that Jesus Christ was indeed the God they were blaspheming.

..and despite the charge of the atheists that Christians are required to give blind faith, the Lord Jesus asked a lot of questions, and appealed a lot to analytical reason in saying and doing things which enabled and required men to conclude as to who He really was and what the truth was based on the evidence. As does the Holy Spirit in Scripture. I think one the most subtle examples regarding his deity begins in John 12:34b (cf. Is. 6:1-10)

But men, too, are fallible. Remember that most of the disciples abandoned Jesus and one who followed (Peter) denied Him three times. Words, as the Pharisees, Sadducees, and the religious authorities show, are insufficient by themselves. Jesus never told us to read Scripture. He told us to have faith.

Indeed men are fallible, and thus the need for Divinely established Scriptures, and God did not need an assuredly infallible magisterium of men to establish writings as Scripture and preserve truth, and which was the authority for truth claims.

In addition, when Jesus said things like, “have ye never read?,” (Mt. 21:16; Mk. 2:25) and “search the Scriptures” (Jn. 5:39, and which was a reproof of their ignorance in the light of their conceit), and chastised souls for not knowing (Mt. 22:29) or understanding the Scriptures due to their hardness of heart because they spoke of Him, (Lk. 24:25-27) and referring to them so abundantly, then He certainly can be said to be saying “read the Scriptures.” And “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God,” (Rm. 10:17) and the Scriptures, being wholly inspired of God, they are the assured word of God and the material means by which all must be tested. "To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. " (Isaiah 8:20) "Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. " (Matthew 22:29)

The work that He requires of us is to believe in Him. We are to love the Lord our God with everything we have, and to love our neighbour as ourself - and by extension, everything that comes from that.

That is all sound, and as i tell the atheists, even “love thy neighbor as thyself “ presumes an underlying moral authority for determining what constitutes love and its actions, which Scripture authority is uniquely enduringly established to be. And by which the first commandment must come first before the second if it is to be effectual as it should be.

We must also realize that there are many verses that describe Jesus as a super David, a most favoured of God, and not God at all. Those who do not believe that Jesus was anything more than a favoured man (or a rabble rouser who caused a split in Judaism) also draw from Scripture.

This is true, but rather than being like they typically example, and asserting a unique esoteric anointing, and or relying on manipulative tactics, we must overcome evil with good, persuading souls by “the manifestation of the truth,” (2Cor. 4:2) and demonstrate by the collective weight of Scripture that the conclusion that Jesus is God is what is most warranted, being demanded i would say. But as in times past, this should include both text and Scriptural testimony of the power of the gospel (examine what the WTS produces). That is how men of God came to be established as such under Scripture.

It can be said here that the Reformers did look to tradition in how and why something was understood in the past, and we also can look to historical exegesis, but its value only correlates to its demonstrable warrant from Scripture. The error is when “fathers” of the faith or leaders are given inordinate weight as determinative of doctrine based upon claims made for them, over that which is written. (1Cor. 4:6)

I need to work on some computers so i may not get back to your reply quickly.