J
joe370
Guest
I dare you to say the word tradition to the typical Protestant…LOL…
- Status
F
FabiusMaximus
Guest
Especially with regards to the Oriental Orthodox.
E
EIF5A
Guest
Regardless, the pope was still an emissary/ambassador for Christ given a certain authority, even if it’s not infallibility. It seems like an affront to Christ to send His servant into prison, especially by a fellow Christian.
(Never thought I’d actually defend a Catholic pope.)
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Christ never gave authority to his Apostles. Can you point wherein Scripture that is? Christ said that whoever wants to be greatest must become the least and serve. Christianity is about service to others, not about authority over them.
E
EIF5A
Guest
Perhaps authority in this situation is not the right word. But maybe respect and reverence for a servant of God, the head of the Church under Christ.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
John 20 indicates that Jesus gave a special authority to the Apostles. It is interesting to note that this is the second time that God breathed on man, first to bring life into man at the creation, and then here, to give authority to the Apostles.
19 So when it was evening on that day, the first day of the week, and when the doors were shut where the disciples were, for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood in their midst and *said to them, “**Peace be with you.” 20 And when He had said this, He showed them both His hands and His side. The disciples then rejoiced when they saw the Lord. 21 So Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you; as the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” 22 And when He had said this, He breathed on them and *said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. 23 If you forgive the sins of any, their sins [c]have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained.”
Also, in Matthew 18, Jesus describes how to handle conflict and he describes the Church as being an authority for solving disputes. He then gives the apostles the power to bind and loose, which is a special authority granted to them.
15 “If your brother or sister** sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector.
18 “Truly I tell you, whatever you bind on earth will be[e] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[f] loosed in heaven.****
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
Nope, there’s nothing of that in Scripture too. Christ told his disciples they will be hated and beaten and tortured, and some will be killed.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Many of the 21 Roman Catholic Councils have been ecumenical, and included members of both Protestant Traditions and Orthodox, although these groups were observers rather than decision makers. So in a way, I guess it does still happens as best as it can. I believe their were 17 Orthodox Churches represented at Vatican II.
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I see where you can come up with that conclusion, but I don’t think it is in line with other incidents in the New Testament. For example, I would be interested in how you would say they did not have authority to declare doctrine when, they did exactly that in Acts 15, pay particular attention to how they address the letter they sent out to everyone to let them know of the decision that they made. Surely you would say they exercised a special authority to make this decision and did not leave it up to the individual churches.
Acts 15: 5 onward
Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
6 The apostles and elders met to consider this question. 7 After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed them: “Brothers, you know that some time ago God made a choice among you that the Gentiles might hear from my lips the message of the gospel and believe. 8 God, who knows the heart, showed that he accepted them by giving the Holy Spirit to them, just as he did to us. 9 He did not discriminate between us and them, for he purified their hearts by faith. 10 Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? 11 No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.”
12 The whole assembly became silent as they listened to Barnabas and Paul telling about the signs and wonders God had done among the Gentiles through them. 13 When they finished, James spoke up. “Brothers,” he said, “listen to me. 14 Simon[a] has described to us how God first intervened to choose a people for his name from the Gentiles. 15 The words of the prophets are in agreement with this, as it is written:
16 “‘After this I will return
and rebuild David’s fallen tent.
Its ruins I will rebuild,
and I will restore it,
17 that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord,
even all the Gentiles who bear my name,
says the Lord, who does these things’**—
18 things known from long ago.[c]
19 “It is my judgment, therefore, that we should not make it difficult for the Gentiles who are turning to God. 20 Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood. 21 For the law of Moses has been preached in every city from the earliest times and is read in the synagogues on every Sabbath.”
The Council’s Letter to Gentile Believers
22 Then the apostles and elders, with the whole church, decided to choose some of their own men and send them to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas. They chose Judas (called Barsabbas) and Silas, men who were leaders among the believers. 23 With them they sent the following letter:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
24 We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. 25 So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— 26 men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 27 Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. 28 It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: 29 You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
30 So the men were sent off and went down to Antioch, where they gathered the church together and delivered the letter. 31 The people read it and were glad for its encouraging message. 32 Judas and Silas, who themselves were prophets, said much to encourage and strengthen the believers. 33 After spending some time there, they were sent off by the believers with the blessing of peace to return to those who had sent them. [34] [d] 35 But Paul and Barnabas remained in Antioch, where they and many others taught and preached the word of the Lord.**
A
Anthony_V
Guest
Of course, the belief in certain dogmatic mysteries of our Faith were not binding to those before the dogma was revealed in a particular Ecumenical Council, right? So, the Church is temporal as well as eternal; struggling, as well as triumphant, and mysterious as well as revealed. And yet those mysteries of faith are binding to us now. We must universally understand revelation for the Church to be catholic. In much the same way that the Word of God continually feeds himself to us in the Holy Eucharist and we are filled with his charity and without fail nourishes us by his grace, the Church must continually consume sacred revelation which God has given to us in an infallible and dogmatic way.
A mentality of “we will do what we have always done” did not work for those times of turmoil before the Councils. I am not challenging the static nature of faith. I simply do not believe it can become one-sidedly static because of human failure. Nations and societies have not ceased changing, but do so ever more rapidly. In response, the Church should hang onto her Faith ever more tightly without trying to deny its dynamic and organic nature; believing that God has revealed all, and that there are answers to the questions which challenge her life of μετάνοια and θέωση–not simply entertain the questions and then refuse to procure a catholic and orthodox answer.
This dynamic/static relationship, which has its origins in the Holy Trinity, seems to be a more complete paradigm when an infallible presence allows the Church to be more dynamic, creative, and uncanny than the world which challenges it. I am not saying the Church has two heads, but that, as in all things, the Church participates more and more fully in the Life of Christ. Nor am I saying that the Ecumenical Councils were insufficient, as if to say in the same way that we receive Holy Communion more than once in our lives because it is not enough. Or to say that Tradition is insufficient. Rather, we, as an elect race in Christ, are insufficient, and so we feed on the Word of God in a holy union with Christ both dynamic and static, catholic and orthodox, human and divine.
I suppose the bottom line is this: I don’t understand how we can treat our Faith as alive if we do not believe it is dynamic as well as static, lest we fell into some sort of ecclesiological deism or agnosticism. Sorry if I sound preachy. I develop ideas extrovertedly
E
EIF5A
Guest
That doesn’t mean a Christian can or should imprison another Christian for not attending a council. Yes, pagans and dictators have persecuted, imprisoned, and killed Christians for their faith, but for a Christian emperor to do that?
We are to love even our enemies. How does imprisoning the pope accomplish love or even brotherly respect?
Can you imagine a Metropolitan being imprisoned by the president of France or Italy?
Can a Catholic provide their insight into this? I’m sort of baffled by the justification of imprisoning a pope. (I’m not Catholic.)
J
joe370
Guest
If Paul, as an apostle, was granted no authority, then what gives him the right to delegate authority:
“Have confidence in your leaders and submit to their authority, because they keep watch over you as those who must give an account. Do this so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no benefit to you.”
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
No. Unless you are claiming that Ecumenical Councils teach something new, rather than clarify what is already believed. It makes no sense to have a teaching that someone like Mother Teresa who lived in the 20th century must absolutely accept, otherwise be condemned or anathemized, and the same belief is not required of St. John Chrysostom or St. Ignatius of Antioch. Remember, tradition is passed on. If there is something the Apostles or Church Fathers didn’t know that we know today, then there is something wrong. It means we made stuff up. As I pointed out, St. Maximos in the 6th Council used the teachings of St. Athanasius who lived during the 1st and 2nd Councils. St. Maximos’ teaching was accepted because he proved that what he taught was what the Father believed all along. It was never because, “oh, we realize something they didn’t realize.” That is how stuff are invented, which is a no-no to True Apostolic Christian faith.
J
joe370
Guest
There have been (and always will be) wolves in sheep’ clothing in both the catholic and eastern orthodox churches, sadly. Perhaps this was as simple as that: a wolf (Christian emperor) in sheep’s clothing not behaving in a Christian way?
"Beware of false prophets who come disguised as harmless sheep but are really vicious wolves.’
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
And that is the sad reality of history, that people who claim to be Christians are often the persecutors themselves. And it is not only in the Byzantine Empire, it happened in Russia, it happened in the Western Kingdoms.
I’m pretty sure the emperor wasn’t going for brotherly respect.
Yes.
It wasn’t until the turn of the Millennium that the Pope exerted his authority over the temporal rulers.
Also, this is why despite an 1100 year history of being a Christian Empire, only a few (I think about 7) Emperors and Empresses are canonized saints in the Orthodox Church. Most of them weren’t really holy.
M
MacroConnectome
Guest
I’m sorry Constantine, but I’m having a little trouble following your posts.
You seem to be claiming that the Tradition speaks for itself, and only Apostolic Tradition is itself infallible. Any and all ecumenical councils are in themselves not infallible?
You seem to be claiming that the Tradition speaks for itself, and only Apostolic Tradition is itself infallible. Any and all ecumenical councils are in themselves not infallible?
C
ConstantineTG
Guest
I’m not claiming that anything other than God is infallible. This concept of someone or something other than God being infallible is completely foreign to the Orthodox mind.
J
joe370
Guest
Most Christians believe that God is responsible for the preservation and transmission of truth via the aforementioned ecumenical councils, comprised of all fallible men. Of course, an atheist would never believe that, speaking as a former agnostic…
M
MacroConnectome
Guest
I find that quite strange. Every Orthodox person I’ve ever met has considered the Ecumenical Councils infallible. The only question that arises is which councils can properly be considered infallible.
Even OrthodoxWiki seems to disagree with you
orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils
Even OrthodoxWiki seems to disagree with you
orthodoxwiki.org/Ecumenical_Councils
- Status