Apologetics, The Papacy, And Eastern Orthodoxy

Homiletic and Pastoral Review ^ | James Likoudis

[Polycarp]

 

Apologetics, The Papacy, And Eastern Orthodoxy

By James Likoudis

A sizeable religious literature in Apologetics has grown in past decades as the Catholic Church has continued to be attacked by those Protestants (Fundamentalists, evangelicals, and those belonging to minor sects) who remain influenced by the older Protestant polemics of the Reformation period filled with gross misunderstandings of Catholic doctrines. In an age which in large measure has appeared to have abandoned reason, it is desirable that Catholics restore the proper role of reason and to appeal to reason to establish the credibility of Christianity and the claims of the Catholic Church to be the visible embodiment in this world of the Church Christ Himself founded to be the "Pillar and Ground of the truth" (1Tim. 3:15).

In the opinion of this writer, much of the force of Catholic doctrinal debate with Protestants is rendered ineffective unless a major premise is established first - namely that the Church mentioned throughout the pages of the New Testament is a visible entity, a visible society, a visible body which can be clearly and without difficulty identified as the true Church established by the Savior. Most Protestants do not, in fact, hold the "one Church and one Church only" (Vatican II's Decree on Ecumenism, 1) to be a visible body at all but to be invisible in nature- a Church of the elect, or of the predestined, or of the "saved" who are known only to God, or perhaps- according to some modern ecumenists- are made up of all the baptized who possess a sort of vague spiritual unity sufficient to identify them all as members of the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Consequently, unless the grace of God intervenes to make a Protestant realize that a visible authority (in the form of an authoritative Church) actually exists in this world to teach unerringly and to judge and settle religious disputes, there is no way to avoid the kind of religious anarchy we see manifested among the 28,000 Protestant denominations listed in religious encyclopedias. Protestantism ends in absolute religious subjectivism and in the tragic spread of religious indifferentism and skepticism. The great Catholic Counter-Reformation Apologists were quite perceptive in judging that Protestantism logically led to infidelity or unbelief.

The teaching of the 2^nd Vatican Council with regards to the nature of the Church constitutes the most magnificent Magisterial expression of ecclesiology in the 2,000 years of Catholic Christianity. The central document of Vatican II, its "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" (Lumen Gentium), set forth Catholic teaching on the nature of the Catholic Church as a visible social body built on the Rock of Peter which was at the same time the mysterious Mystical Body of Jesus Christ. Its "Decree on the Catholic Eastern Churches" noted that "The holy Catholic Church, which IS the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government." And "Lumen Gentium" had indeed much to say concerning "the unity of the flock of Christ, in so far as it is assembled under one (visible) head"(L.G. 22) — namely the Roman Pontiff, the Successor of Peter. Concerning that "supreme authority" in the College of Bishops which was established by the historical Christ for His "one and only Church" , Lumen Gentium noted, "The Holy Spirit preserves unfailingly that form of government which was set up by Christ the Lord in His Church." (L.G. 27)

The Primacy of supreme authority and universal jurisdiction of the Roman Pontiff in the Church and the authority of the other Bishops who make up the College of Bishops are therefore both essential elements in the divine constitution of the Church, and this has been the verdict of ecclesiastical history during the Church's 2,000 years. The teaching on Catholic Unity found in Vatican I's "First Dogmatic Constitution on the Church of Christ" and Vatican II's "Dogmatic Constitution on the Church" bear ample witness to this verdict.

It is to be emphasized that the position of the Eastern Orthodox churches (whose called- for- Unity with the Catholic Church is one of the highest priorities in Pope John Paul II's pontificate) is quite different than that of most Protestants. They believe that the Church is indeed visible and that their communion is, in fact, the "one, holy, Catholic, and apostolic Church" noted in the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed. The Primacy of the Pope as defined by the Councils of Florence, Vatican I and Vatican II is the "rock of contradiction" that now clearly serves as the biggest obstacle to the union of the Churches, though in the Middle Ages, curiously enough, it was the dogmatic issue of the Procession of the Holy Spirit and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist which identified for Byzantine dissidents the Pope and those in communion with him as "heretical".

The inability of Eastern Orthodox theologians and hierarchs to understand the proper relationship between Primacy and Collegiality (or Conciliarity) lies at the heart of their doctrinal resistance to the Papacy's Petrine Ministry. As some of them have said- in tune, interestingly enough, with some Protestants- the only Vicar of Christ is the Holy Spirit. In this statement lies the profound error concerning the visible government of the Church that has resulted in what we see among the 16 or so autocephalous (i.e., independent) churches making up the Eastern Orthodox communion - namely, a truncated hierarchy that cannot speak with one voice on doctrinal issues. A Catholic writer some years ago wrote beautifully that "From Christ the Apostles received the Holy Spirit who made them One". Concerning the episcopate in the Church (i.e., the corporate body of Bishops ruling the Church), he noted further :

"The Spirit of Christ present in the episcopal body is the source of its unity. It is He who assists the college in its teaching and prevents it from any substantial error in the matter of faith. He inspires, moves and helps the college in its activity. The one Holy Spirit is holding together the many members of the episcopal body.

The supernatural power of the Spirit is the common possession of the episcopal body, although the head and members do not share it in the same degree. The Successor of Peter posseses it in a way that makes him the principle of unity for the many members. The members possess it in a way that makes them able to act in a corporate manner when the head calls upon them to do so. The Spirit of Christ, says Lumen Gentium 'strengthens the organic structure of the college and its harmony'. The body, of course remains one : one theological subject of this mysterious power, of which the practical or legal manifestation is twofold- either through an act of the head of the college of bishops or through the action of the whole college [as in an Ecumenical Council]." (Fr. Ladislas M. Orsy, S.J., "Collegiality: Its Meaning" in America, May 15, 1965)

Clarifying further the relation between the Pope and the Bishops of the Church, he observed :

"Peter remains the Rock on which the Church is built. On this Rock rests even the college of bishops- not as a foreign body added to it, but as a structure that God has united to the Rock to help carry the weight of the whole edifice of the Universal Church."

And what a weight and burden the Bishop of Rome as the Successor of the Rock-man carries in his Petrine Office as Primate of the Universal Church. This was noted by John of Salisbury in the 12^th century writing in his famous political treatise "Policraticus" of Pope Hadrian IV :

"The cathedra of the Roman Pontiff is a bed of thorns, his mantle, trimmed with the sharpest points all over, is so heavy that it weighs down, bruises, and crushes the strongest shoulders, and the tiara with its crown may well seem bright because it is made of fire."(VI, 24)

Though the Pope no longer wears a tiara, he, as the Chief Bishop of the Church, continues to image his Crucified Master in that Way of the Cross which constitutes the Church's pilgrimage through history. G.K.Chesterton once referred to "the halo of hatred that surrounds the Church of God" in that pilgrimage. In the past centuries of violent Protestant and Eastern Orthodox polemics directed against the Papacy as a, if not the, "Antichrist", we can see, in fact, that "halo of hatred" most glaringly manifested. We may recall the words of that astute 19^th c. Catholic thinker Joseph de Maistre who observed that "the hatred of Rome is the only but universal tie between all the separated Churches." (Du Pape, Book IV, Chapter I)

Though ecumenical dialogue and contacts have greatly softened the polemics of the past regarding the role of the Pope in the Church- and God is to be thanked for that-, serious difficulties remain with regards to both Protestants and Eastern Orthodox coming to a better understanding and appreciation of the role of the Pope in the Church. Moreover, with some Catholics defecting to the Eastern Orthodox communion because of the doctrinal and liturgical disorders of the post-conciliar period, Catholic Apologists can not ignore the renewed intransigence of some Eastern Orthodox towards the "heresy" of the Papacy.

The Eastern Orthodox continue to profess the ancient belief of the "undivided Church" that the Episcopacy continues the apostolic mission of the original Apostolic College. They fail to acknowledge, however, the illogicality of rejecting the communion of the one Bishop, who is the heir of the one Apostle chosen by Christ to be the Rock-foundation, Holder of the Keys of the Kingdom, Confirmer of the brethren, and Chief Pastor of the entire flock (cf. Matt. 16:18ff; Lk. 22:31; Jn. 21:15-17), and thereby given the awesome responsibility to safeguard the visible unity of the one Church Christ had founded for the salvation of all men. As Vatican I and Vatican II have insisted :

"In order that the episcopate itself, however, might be one and undivided, Christ put Peter at the head of the other Apostles, and in him He set up a lasting and visible source and foundation of the unity both of faith and of communion." (Lumen Gentium, 18)

Catholic tradition has always seen clearly that if the Gates of Hell ( heresies, schisms, and persecutions, etc.) are not to prevail against the Church built on the Rock-foundation of Peter, Christ's authoritative Invisible headship of the Church must be reflected in the hierarchical order of the Church itself. It is the Primacy of Christ (1 Coloss.1:18) that is manifested in the Primacy of Peter's Successor in the hierarchy of the Church. It is Christ's headship that is reflected in the Bishop of Rome being constituted the. visible head and indivisible center of unity for all the local churches (East and West) making up the Catholic communion.

A recent polemic that is worth the atttention of Catholic Apologists is that of Mr. Clark Carlton, a former Southern Baptist minister who has converted to Eastern Orthodoxy. In his "The Truth: What Every Roman Catholic Should Know About the Orthodox Church" (Regina Orthodox Press, 1999; 270 pp.), he purports to give a "theological analysis of the differences between Rome and Orthodoxy, not a critique of the reforms of Vatican II". This does not keep him from alleging that "the Roman Catholic Church has become highly protestantized in the wake of Vatican II" and from attempting to dissuade "Evangelical Protestants who are considering converting to the Roman Catholic Church" (pages 8-9). He devotes an entire Chapter to criticize especially Catholic convert Scott Hahn for his "appalling ignorance of history", particularly with regards to the crippling influence of the Byzantine Greek and Russian Emperors who dominated the life of the dissident Greco-Slav churches for centuries. Following the lead of the Russian Orthodox Jean Meyendorff, Clark's attempt to discount a "caesaropapism which did not in fact exist" is not convincing.

Interestingly, Mr. Carlton earned an M.A. in Early Christian Studies from the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. His recent book attacking the Catholic Church and the Papacy represents the sorry revival of the worst kind of polemics launched by dissident Byzantines before and after the Reunion Council of Florence (1439). This is evidenced by the author's inclusion of documents expressive of the bitterness and violent invective often hurled against "heretical Rome":

• the 1285 Tome against the "Filioque" of the Council of Blachernae;
• the 1848 Encyclical Reply by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem to Pius IX's invitation to them to attend Vatican I;
• the 1993 Letter of Mt. Athos Monks taking to task the Patriarch of Constantinople, Bartholomew I, for his ecumenical overtures to "the Pope, the man-god and idol of Western humanism".

Mr. Carlton will have no part of Eastern Orthodox ecumenical efforts. [To him] Ecumenism is simply another "heresy". In fact, [he states that:]

• "the Orthodox Church considers the Roman Catholic Church to be in heresy" (page 9)...
• The doctrine of the papacy...is heresy", as representing a radical departure from the ecclesiology of the early Church (page 18).
• "The Orthodox [have] rejected the 'Filioque' [i.e., the words "and the Son" added to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed in the Latin Church] because it was heretical" (page 62).
• "It must be recognized as a heresy and formally repudiated" (page 75).
• "Orthodoxy" rejects Roman Catholic doctrines such as: "Papal supremacy and infallibility"; "changing the Creed (the 'Filioque')"; "worrying about going to a non-existent place (purgatory), paying money to stay out of said non-existent place (indulgences)"; and "the Catholic doctrine of the Immaculate Conception".

This last doctrine is accused of "turning the Virgin Mary into some sort of super-human" (an immaculately conceived Co-redemptrix).

For Mr. Carlton, "Orthodoxy" also rejects the Catholic doctrine of salvation based upon concepts of satisfaction and merit. "To put it bluntly", he pontificates, Eastern Orthodoxy "knows a different Christ from that of the Roman Catholic Church" (page 187). "We simply do not confess the same faith".

Space does not permit here to deal adequately with the many doctrinal misconceptions, erroneous theological arguments, and distortions of historical fact found in this anti-ecumenical work. Its familiar charges and allegations have often been refuted by Catholic scholars, and are very similar in nature and import to another recent book published by the same Press (Michael Whelton's "Two Paths: Papal Monarchy or Collegiality" ) which is similarly directed against the "heretical" Papacy. Not surprisingly, both of these books clearly evidence the results of schism from the See of Peter, namely, doctrinal variations and contradictions among the Eastern Orthodox and consequent confusion as to what (in the absence of any Ecumenical Council since the 8^th c.) constitutes their "official teaching".

Mr. Carlton says he converted to Eastern Orthodoxy rather than to the Catholic Church because he saw in the former's theology and life " a pure witness" to the religion of the early Church. Yet he is forced to acknowledge with the monks of Mt. Athos an "already disunited body of Orthodoxy"- one racked with the heresy of "phyletism" (a heresy condemned as such in an l872 Council at Constantinople). Phyletism is defined as "the theory that the Church should be organized according to ethnic make-up rather than according to territorial dioceses"- an innovation quite contrary to the ancient canons. The sorry result has been - in the words of the Mt. Athos monks- "ensuing chaos", now strikingly manifest in multiple Orthodox jurisdictions, a number of which are declared "uncanonical" by some and "schismatical" or "heretical" by others. Whereas Carlton insists that each of his "national churches" professes "one and the same Orthodox faith", he fails to see the flagrant contradictions into which he falls. The Church's ecclesiology, he declares, is "not subject to change". Yet he admits that Rome's claims to a primacy of universal jurisdiction is already found in the 5^th century when the orthodox Eastern churches were in full communion with Rome. The 'Filioque", he charges 'ad nauseam' is "heretical", but he admits the doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and from (or through) the Son was already widespread in the Western Church since the 5^th century (and when the orthodox Eastern churches were in full communion with it). In claiming that the Eastern Orthodox profess "one and the same Orthodox faith", he ignores the brute fact that theologians (both past and present) are found who believe that the 'Filioque' is not heretical; who have expressed belief in the Immaculate Conception of the Mother of God so venerated among them; who believe in a "purification or cleansing of the soul "in the after-life (with its pains and torments)- a teaching practically indistinguishable from our Catholic doctrine of purgatory ; and who believe that Papal supremacy has deep historical roots in the early Church being clearly admitted in the East long before the 11^th century estrangement between Rome and Constantinople.

Fortunately, Mr. Carlton does not speak for all Eastern Orthodox bishops, theologians, and Laity; some will surely find his views quite extremist and strident, and will be embarrassed by his and fellow zealots' denunciation of ecumenism as "heresy". Also, readers of his book may find quite questionable his elevating the 14^th century theologian Gregory Palamas' controversial teaching on the essence and energies of God to the status of dogma (and this without benefit of an Ecumenical Council !). Nor do his views on the nature of the Church find approval with a writer of the Russian Orthodox Church Abroad.
Reviewing an earlier book by Mr. Carlton ("The Faith : Understanding Orthodox Christianity- An Orthodox Catechism", 1997), Fr.Alexey Young (himself a former Catholic) observed:

"The author says that 'the Orthodox Church has faithfully maintained the apostolic faith once delivered to the saints (Jude 3), neither adding to nor subtracting from it.' A fine statement, but one which is, in this context, at best an optimistic generalization, for some Orthodox jurisdictions have in fact departed significantly from the Faith 'once delivered to the saints', as even a cursory study will reveal."("Orthodox America", 1997)

Mr. Carlton must also be said to live in quite another theological world than that of the late Panteleimon, Metropolitan of Chios, who observed many years ago (in words that have been echoed by other Eastern Orthodox prelates) that:

"Between the Orthodox Church and the Catholic Church, it is fanaticism alone, that has emphasized the insignificant differences, differences that were never serious, that existed in former times without bringing on a schism." (Le Monde, January 26,1952)

Then, too, it can be perceived that behind many of the author's erroneous statements lies a residue of centuries of old Protestant prejudices and fanatical animus against "Romanism" and "Mariolatry". A number of Eastern Orthodox theologians he quotes (such as the 19^th c. lay theologian Khomjakov) were undeniably influenced by Protestant negations of Catholic doctrines.

In conclusion, Mr. Carlton has rehashed old doctrinal grievances and complaints against the Catholic Church by Byzantine dissidents who have misunderstood and misinterpreted the Tradition of their own Eastern Fathers on those dogmatic matters where they choose to find themselves at odds with Catholic teaching. Ironically, his book has served to highlight the irreconcilable doctrinal divisions, disputes, and schisms currently found in the 16 or so autocephalous (jurisdictionally independent) churches making up the Eastern Orthodox communion.

Though by the grace of God, the Eastern Orthodox have kept in almost complete measure the Catholic faith as defined in the first seven Ecumenical Councils, they have departed from the fullness of that faith in sadly separating themselves from the communion of the Rock-foundation of the Church, Peter and his successors, the Roman Pontiffs. Readers will recall Cardinal Newman's famous aphorism : "To go deep into history is to cease to be a Protestant". It is also true that for those who seek integral orthodoxy, love the Catholic unity of the Church, and meditate seriously upon the role of the Papacy in the First Millenium, "To go deep into history is to cease to be Eastern Orthodox."

(c) James Likoudis. All Rights Reserved. This article was originally published in "Homiletic and Pastoral Review" issue of January 2001

_________________

Today's Catholic Reflections (c)

www.tcrnews.com

TCR Home</center

[patent]

The good part is that unlike the Pope, the EP doesn't get to make any sweeping pronouncements that stick.

That is the fundamental difference, and why Papal history is full of such notable as Leo X, Borgia, etc.

And what sweeping pronouncements that stuck did either of them make?

Your fast on your way to garden variety bigotry. Congratulations.

patent  +AMDG

[maryz]

Please remove my name from your ping list.

[Wrigley]

Would that be some poor sod that refuses to accept the traditions handed down by the Apostles? ;-)

Those traditions would include what exactly? I don't remember ever seeing in the Bible anything about no meat on Friday's, or asking Mary to interceed for us in our prayers (which leads many to pray to Mary instead of our only mediator, Jesus Christ), selling of indulgences, or your veneration of saints that borders on idolitry. So which traditions are you talking about?

[Matchett-PI]

RS: "I think it is you who claims that the Bible "contains" the Word of God."

Really? Quote me (exact thread reference and reply #) or apologize for misrepresenting what I "claim".

My comment in #276 should be one of your clues about what I claim: "Neo-orthodox Arminians do believe that the Bible merely "contains" the Word of God --- but that it isn't the infallible Word of God, so what you believe doesn't surprise me."

In #275 you wrote: "I believe that the words recorded in the Bible ___and attributed to Our Lord___ are divine".

First: It must be determined _which bible_ you are talking about. Is it "The Word of God" in print, (also known as "The Bible" - a publication that is preeminent in authoritativeness) composed of 66 books?

Secondly: If so, then it must be determined if you are saying that there are some words (contained therein) that are divine but there are some others (as implied in your statement above) that aren't divine.

If it is indeed your claim that the 66 books that make up "The Bible" contains some truth and some error, then you ARE saying (along with all neo-orthodox Arminians) that "The Bible _contains_ the Word of God", but that the whole Bible isn't "The Infallible Word of God".

You also wrote: "You don't say how the Word speaks to you."

I didn't??? Here again I will ask you to quote me (exact thread reference and reply #'s). If you can't do that, then apologize for misrepresenting what I "say".

You may begin your search here: http://www.freerepublic.com/fo cus/religion/704064/posts?page =33#33

When you go there you will find __just the opposite__ of what *you say* I *don't* say.

You also wrote: "You say that the Word of God is limited to what is found on the pages of a book."

Unless you can provide the exact thread reference and reply # where I said any such thing, you need to apologize for misrepresenting what I "say".

In #261 and elsewhere in this thread, you will PLEASE NOTE EXACTLY WHAT I DID SAY. *I said* that within the closed canon of Scripture God saw to it that (excerpted): "..we have everything we need to know about the life, death and resurrection of Christ, and its meaning for the lives of believers for all time."

You seem to have problems with reading comprehension / perception, so from now on, if you want to make statements about what I "say", what I "claim", or what I "believe", you must use my own words by quoting me with thread reference and reply #.

Here is more of what "I say" on the matter of the closed canon of Scripture, and you may only _quote me_ as I quote and paraphrase these excerpts:

"If we would stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free, we must adhere to the principle that in matters of religion and morals the Scriptures alone have authority to bind the conscience [Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977, vol. I, pp. 182?3]."

"In addition to the over-emphasis that Rome placed on tradition and church hierarchy in interpreting the scriptures ---

the Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura also set itself against this notion [of Rome] of the Bible as a _magical_ wisdom book."

"The Reformation reminded the church that __Scripture's primary purpose is to point people to Christ, to tell his story of redemption, and to provide general guidance for Christian life and faith ---

--- rather than to serve as a sourcebook of proof-texts that can help individual Christians settle the *daily details* [minutia] of their lives. [As a "Master" (dictator) trying to lord it over his "brethren" would use it (see reply #33 in this thread)].

The Westminster Confession's first chapter, on Scripture, was framed in a historical context that involved two controversies. Against the papists, the Westminster divines affirmed that Scripture itself, without any papal additions, sufficiently governs the church.

Against the enthusiasts [today known as Pentecostals], they affirmed that Scripture itself, without any additions from private revelation, sufficiently governs the church.

WCF 1:6 alludes to this historical context: "The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men".

The issue expressly addressed was not whether Scripture was sufficient to govern creatures in every creaturely task, apart from the light of nature or wisdom; the issue was whether there was any "counsel of God" regarding "faith and life" that would be found other than in Scripture.

What the Assembly meant by "faith and life" in WCF 1:6. Did they mean that everything the creature needs to fulfill his created calling and mandate would be found in Scripture?

Did they mean that we could exercise dominion over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and the creeping things merely by reading Scripture? Would they have discouraged biologists peering through microscopes, or ornithologists inspecting hawks' nests, on the ground that everything necessary to fulfill the mandate to exercise dominion could be found in Scripture?

To raise these questions is to answer them.

The divines did not mean by "life" everything needed to sustain, improve, or nourish human existence, whether in its biological or social senses. They meant what their Shorter Catechism says about Scripture's teaching -- that it principally teaches "what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man." God's revelation regarding what we are to believe about him ("faith") and about what duty he requires of us ("life") is to be found in Scripture alone, apart from any additions of tradition or private revelation.

Many other matters, useful in our quest to exercise dominion over the created order and to frame productive societies, will only be discovered by what the divines called "the light of nature."

Confessionally, we affirm both the existence of such natural light and its necessity for properly ordering our lives. We affirm that the Creator has given us "light" not merely, not exclusively, and not sufficiently for all tasks in Scripture; he has also given us "light" in the natural order he created.

Many other matters, useful in our quest to sustain and nourish human life and existence, will only be discovered from the natural order or by the additional sources of a multitude of counselors, the counsel of older/wiser people, etc. We will not cure cancer (the cure to which is necessary for biological "life") by reading the scriptures; we will cure it by investigating molecular biology, organic chemistry, and other related disciplines.

"Nevertheless, we acknowledge . . . that there are some circumstances concerning the worship of God, and government of the church, common to human actions and societies, which are to be ordered by the light of nature, and Christian prudence, according to the general rules of the Word, which are always to be observed" (WCF 1:6).

Excerpted and paraphrased from: http://www.modernreformation.o rg/

[JMJ333]

I am not participating on this thread and would like to be removed from the bump list. Thanks.

[RobbyS]

The Reformation doctrine of sola Scriptura also set itself against this notion [of Rome] of the Bible as a _magical_ wisdom book." Whatever Luther, et al. may have hoped, the ordinary Protestant Bible-reader came to think of the Bible as an icon and itself a source of truth. The pulpit displaced the altar and one kind of clericalism replaced the other,with congregations depending on preachers to authoratively to interpret the Scriptures. The Quakers tried to get away from this, but you can see how popular they are.

[Matchett-PI]

Based upon your statements in this thread misrepresenting what I claim or what I say --- your *perceptions* about things don't carry much weight with me.

I noticed that you totally ignored my pointed questions in #284 that would have pinned down exactly what *you* believe about "The Bible" (the 66 books that comprise the closed canon of Scripture).

I perceive that you have a problem with being clear about what *you believe* regarding the infallibility of the whole Bible. Is that a wrong perception?

[RobbyS]

The Bible is an historical "given." I reject the fundamentalist notion that it was dictated by God in the sense that Muslims believe that the Koran was dictated by God to Mohammed. I do not believe the Christianity is a "Religion of the Book,"like Orthodox Judaism or Islam. The Bible is the record or witness of God's people to God's self-revelation. It is they--the Jews and later the Church--who guarantee its authenticity. If one does not belong to that faith, one cannot know with an assurance what God's word is.

[Catholicguy]

Please remove me from your bump list permanently.

[patent]

What, no references to “subserving ourselves to a pederast clergy, their apologists and blackmail targets in the hierarchy, "infallible" pronouncements from hierarchs in [Ecumenical Councils] and no concern for the laity” type talk when the abuse is by an Orthodox? Not going to say that “it is safe to say that the main problem that the [Orthodox Chuches] face in the sexual scandal is the imperial attitude, dogma, deference to hierarchy and laity that it has encouraged in liberal, moderate and conservative Orthodox? Not going to refer to Orthodox parishioners who stuck with it in the face of this abuse and inaction, and who yet dare to defend their Church as brainwashed and theologically screwed up?

Right, that language only goes for Catholics. When we discuss the Orthodox you calm back down.

A Catholic Jerk hurt you. There is no need to become an Orthodox Jerk in response.

patent  +AMDG

[MarMema]

Those traditions would include what exactly? I don't remember ever seeing in the Bible anything about no meat on Friday's, or asking Mary to interceed for us in our prayers (which leads many to pray to Mary instead of our only mediator, Jesus Christ), selling of indulgences, or your veneration of saints that borders on idolitry. So which traditions are you talking about?

Wow. Formerlib is Orthodox.

"The roots and the foundations of this sacred tradition can be found in the Scriptures."
From here

[MarMema]

Here is another site about our Tradition.

[MarMema]

And just one more.

[Wrigley]

Links didn't work.

[FormerLib]

Those traditions would include what exactly?

The Liturgy, for one. Fasts and feasts were a part of Judaism that the Apostles carried over.

Yes, there are some in the Roman Catholic Church that carry the veneration too far, but that isn't any worse than those who chose to ignore her completely.

The Eastern Church never sold indulgences so we are in agreement about that.

However, Stephen the first Martyr was remembered by the faithful from the time of his death. Veneration of the Saints is verification of our belief that those who follow Christ have eternal life. Protestants always tell us the Saints are just dead people, but we know them to be alive in Christ.

And, oh yes, infant baptism! Origen wrote of that being the practice in only the 2nd Century. There was never any Biblical or Traditional mention of withholding a child from the Body of Christ until some man-made determination about an "age of reason!" Jesus said to let the children come to Him and we obey!

[FormerLib]

Links didn't work.

Odd, they all worked fine for me.

[Wrigley]

It may be my machine. The first two didn't open after repeated attempts. The third one opened. To a ton of reading, but it opened.

[Wrigley]

The Liturgy, for one. Fasts and feasts were a part of Judaism that the Apostles carried over.

Not sure what you mean by Liturgy. Do you mean Mass? Which fasts and feasts, besides the Lord's Supper, do you mean. I don't recall any others.

Yes, there are some in the Roman Catholic Church that carry the veneration too far, but that isn't any worse than those who chose to ignore her completely.

In what way to others ignore her completely? What veneration does she need? Besides being the mother of Jesus, what is so special about her? Was she not a sinner like you and I?

The Eastern Church never sold indulgences so we are in agreement about that.

Excellent. However, Stephen the first Martyr was remembered by the faithful from the time of his death. Veneration of the Saints is verification of our belief that those who follow Christ have eternal life. Protestants always tell us the Saints are just dead people, but we know them to be alive in Christ.

All those who saved are alive in Christ. Stephan no more than you or I needed Jesus to save us. There have been many faithful men and women who have died proclaiming Jesus on their lips, are they any more special than Stephan or other martyrs? Should we not instead of praising those, praise God who gave them their strength. I see an opening to praise others instead of God when we venerate these saints.

And, oh yes, infant baptism! Origen wrote of that being the practice in only the 2nd Century. There was never any Biblical or Traditional mention of withholding a child from the Body of Christ until some man-made determination about an "age of reason!" Jesus said to let the children come to Him and we obey!

What does infant baptism do for the infant? The church that I attend practices infant baptism so I don't have a problem with it per se, but I would depending on what you think it does for the infant.

[RobbyS]

The Eastern Church never sold indulgences so we are in agreement about that.

Don't mention the holy icons: he is an Iconaclast and would have a fit if he knew about them.