“I have more respect towards the Eastern Orthodox than I do for the Roman Catholic simply because the Orthodox split from Rome when they made it an issue of salvation that all must be in submission to the Pope of Rome”
Of course you do. Did I expect anything different. Let me end by saying........
“You are Peter, and upon this rock I will will build my church”.
The Catholic Church (which Eastern Orthodox are part of) was founded by Christ. Protestants faiths were started by Martin Luther. I belong to the Church started by Christ, that has been around for 2,000 years, not some off-shoot faith started by a disgrunted Catholic priest, who was excommunicated from the church for being a heretic.
The Orthodox Church requires works for salvation. In other words it does not believe in sola scriptura It has the exact same sacraments as the Roman Church and holds Mary in the same high esteem, prays to the dead, and confesses their sins to a priest, and. I think you get my drift.
It is a universal body of Christ that Jesus "founded" and it was built upon the faith that Peter stated that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the Living God. This faith - which is that Jesus is the rock on which our salvation rests and He is the shepherd - is what binds ALL believers to the spiritual house St. Peter described in his letters. Peter NEVER claimed to be what Catholics say he is. That is why neither the Roman Catholic nor the Eastern Orthodox Church can truthfully claim to be THE church Jesus established. This has been stated repeatedly on this forum and this thread, even, I don't understand why some continue to stubbornly refuse to grasp this truth. Pride, I think is why.
Nobody claims the "Protestant" churches are THE church Jesus founded because they, at least, DO get it that it is the faith that determines who is in the body of Christ. The name of someone's church can no more guarantee one is part of that sacred body than registering as a Republican means one is Conservative. Therefore, I also belong to the SAME church Jesus founded that has been around since He came to earth to sacrifice His life for our salvation. Some Catholics need to get over their spiritual snobbery and get used to the idea that there will be brothers and sisters in Christ rejoicing in heaven for eternity that the grace of God is what saved them and where they went to church will be the furthest thing from their minds!
Who am I quoting in the below excerpt -- do you know?
And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
As a hint I can tell you he was a Bishop of the church of Rome.
Cyril of Jerusalem held to Sola Scriptura as did many (or most all) other of the earliest church fathers
This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith...And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts.
A bit further East, if we are to look to the "Orthodox" perhaps Gregory of Nyssa could be looked upon as proto-Orthodox and much subscribed to "sola scriptura" principle, not to be confused with SOLO scriptura, and his own "proto-Orthodox considerations compared that which developed into being Roman Catholic "tradition", which differs particularly in regards to Eucharist -- which difference Jean Calvin would be right at home with. But for putting scripture first -- as in that being the measure against which doctrines must be weighed evaluated, if not more simply and directly derived & established, Gregory of Nyssa says;
"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings."From The Shape of Sola Scriptura By Keith A. Mathison
which below excerpt I had to type out (and code) laboriously by hand...
Until the division between the Eastern and Western Churches, a ecumenical council was defined "as a synod the decrees of which found acceptance by the Church in the whole world." 86 Their acceptance in the early Church is illustrated by the way in which some early Christians referred to the Church as "the Church of the four Gospels and the four councils." 87 Their purpose was, however, was not to supplant Scripture. Their purpose was to defend the apostolic interpretation of Scripture against the attacks of the heretics. Athanasius, for example, wrote the following in response to Arians calling for another council after Nicea: "Vainly then do they run about with the pretext that they have demanded councils for the faith's sake: for the divine Scripture is sufficient above all things." 88Similarly, we find that a patristic appeal to earlier fathers is not an appeal to an authority equal to or above Scripture. As Florovsky reminds us, "it must be kept in mind that the main, if not also the only manual of faith and doctrine was, in the Ancient Church, precisely the Holy Writ."89 Appeal to the fathers was made in order to guarantee faithfulness to the proper interpretation of that authoritative Holy Scripture. As J.N.D. Kelly observes, "the authority of the fathers consisted precisely in the fact that they had so faithfully and fully expounded the real intention of the Bible writers."90 Scripture was the doctrinal norm of the fathers. The clearest indication of this is the fact that
almost the entire theological efforts of the fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it first had to establish its scriptural basis. 91This is why the fathers were cited in the early church ----- because they were faithful interpreters of Scripture. They were not cited as a second source of revelation or a second authority on par with Scripture.
86 Henry R. Percival, The Seven Ecumenical Councils of the Undivided Church, Vol. XIV of A Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series, Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, eds. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1997), xi. Since the split, Rome has redefined the definition of an ecumenical council to emphasize the role of the Bishop of Rome. Cf. Leo Donald Davis, op. cit., 323.
87 Pelikan, op. cit., 335.
88 De Synodis, I, 1,6.
89 Florensky, op cit., 102.
90 Kelly, op., cit., 49.
91 Ibid., 46. Kelly illustrates this by poiting out the difficulty that faced those who championed novel theoligical terms like homoousios. The objection that was vigorously raised in both orthodox and heretical circles was that the terms were not found in the Bible. The opposition was finally overcome only when they were able to demonstrate that, even if the terms were not found in the bible, the meaning of those terms was the meaning of the Bible.
You say;
but that is simply your opinion for Luther remained "Catholic" to his dying day, regardless of the fact there were more than a few among the Romanists who would have burned the man alive --- IF --- they could have gotten their feelthy papist paws upon him.
He and many of the Reformers were "more Catholic than the pope" long before that became de rigueur on the religion forum pages of FreeRepublic.
There comes a heathen and says, "I wish to become a Christian, but I know not whom to join: there is much fighting and faction among you, much confusion: which doctrine am I to choose?" How shall we answer him? "Each of you" (says he) "asserts, 'I speak the truth.'" No doubt: this is in our favor. For if we told you to be persuaded by arguments, you might well be perplexed: but if we bid you believe the Scriptures, and these are simple and true, the decision is easy for you. If any agree with the Scriptures, he is the Christian; if any fight against them, he is far from this rule. -- St. John Chrysostom, (Homily 33 in Acts of the Apostles [NPNF1,11:210-11; PG 60.243-44])