B
Bballer32
Guest
I really recommend you read R_C’s quote above your statement
- Status
T
Trebor135
Guest
No.YESSS
None of us believes in sola scriptura. So, why is it that Catholic participants in discussions about the papacy so often turn into Protestants on this issue, when they would so readily cite the Early Church Fathers on, for instance, the sacraments?
R
R_C
Guest
On the other hand, we aren’t “sola traditio” either…sometimes Sacred Scripture suffices to justify the validity of an argument.None of us believes in sola scriptura. So, why is it that Catholic participants in discussions about the papacy so often turn into Protestants on this issue, when they would so readily cite the Early Church Fathers on, for instance, the sacraments?
Early Church Fathers were cited earlier on, or on different threads. Tradition fully justifies the authority of the Apostolic See as understood by the Catholic Church - yet clearly that does not seem enough for our Eastern brothers, which is why Scripture would be presented to reinforce tradition.
B
Bballer32
Guest
Because what most of the Church Father’s said are not considered divinely inspired like scripture. They can be quoted to help us understand what the early church believed and can even be used to help us shape our understanding of church teachings.No.
None of us believes in sola scriptura. So, why is it that Catholic participants in discussions about the papacy so often turn into Protestants on this issue, when they would so readily cite the Early Church Fathers on, for instance, the sacraments?
Scripture can be used to help us back up what the Church Father’s said because the Church has declared it to be divinely inspired.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
The way you relate Scripture to Tradition is erroneous. The Scriptures can only be interpreted in the context of the Tradition. This, for example, is what St. Basil taught regarding Scriptural challenges to the divinity of Christ. Even though it is written that the Son is the “firstborn of all creation,” or that “the Father is greater than I [the Son],” St. Basil rightly pointed out that the tradition holds that Jesus is to be worshipped, and thus the Arian reading of these verses (which are definitely very plain and literal readings) were incorrect, because they were innovative interpretations which contradicted the Tradition of giving worship to Christ. The way you understand the relationship between the two is very close to classical Sola Scriptura, which distorts this delicate relationship, by arguing that Scripture is superior to the Tradition as a source of doctrine, even though the two are supposed to form an indivisible continuity.
T
Trebor135
Guest
You said it better than I could have.
B
Bballer32
Guest
Good point. I’m ashamed at what i said. Thanks for that help.
S
steve_b
Guest
Well said. You’re correct. If one is first all aren’t equal, if all are equal one can’t be first. It was a term used by other bishops in the 5th century to try and equalize power away from Rome and give it equally to themselves.
From then Card Ratzinger Re: 1st among equals
- In Christian literature, the expression begins to be used in the East when, from the fifth century, the idea of the Pentarchy gained ground, according to which there are five Patriarchs at the head of the Church, with the Church of Rome having the first place among these patriarchal sister Churches. In this connection, however, it needs to be noted that no Roman Pontiff ever recognized this equalization of the sees or accepted that only a primacy of honour be accorded to the See of Rome.It should be noted too thatthis patriarchal structure typical of the East never developed in the West.
- The expression appears again in two letters of the Metropolitan Nicetas of Nicodemia (in the year 1136) and the Patriarch John X Camaterus (in office from 1198 to 1206), in which they protested that Rome, by presenting herself as *mother and teacher, *would annul their authority.In their view, Rome is only the first among sisters of equal dignity.
We saw that same argument before over primacy, in the upper room the night of the last supper.
[Lk 22:24-32] paraphrased
The apostles were in an argument over who was the greatest among THEM (iow argument over primacy). Jesus validated one of THEM would be the greatest and the one Jesus names is the one who would be the greatest among THEM. It’s Peter. And Jesus then told His apostles that they were in this argument because Satan wanted to sift THEM like wheat. But notice how Jesus told them. Jesus said that to Peter for all of their knowledge. iow, as so often Jesus did, He told His apostles, what was happening or what would happen, by saying it to Peter for them. Jesus said He would pray specifically for Peter, so that after the sifting by Satan, it would be Peter to confirm and strengthen THEM his brothers. Bottom line, Jesus answered their argument. They were to follow Peter’s lead. Case closed? Well…not quite. Problem is, Satan never stops sifting. So Peter’s primacy is always needed.
Bishops in the 5th century were in the same kind of argument over authority, and balked at the idea one bishop is greatest among THEM. As the link above states, they came up with the phrase 1st among equals, to equalize authority, a term nor dynamic, no pope ever accepted. Yep
Ole Satan was at it again with his sifting. And he keeps sifting.PIC:
good for you.
S
steve_b
Guest
Just for clarification of terms
The Catholic Church is both Western and Eastern.
Bp John says it well .
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/how-do-the-popes-encyclicals-and-teachings-impact-on-the-melkites Note: Code of Eastern canons #'s 597 &599
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/are-we-orthodox-united-with-rome Note: canon 43 Code of canon law
melkite.org/eparchy/bishop-john/why-is-it-that-we-pray-for-the-dead-what-is-the-eastern-view-of-indulgences
Melkites are 100% Catholic
The E Orthodox otoh, are not Catholic, nor are they the Catholic Church. On these forums they are refered to as non-Catholics
As Cardinal Kasper points out Re: the Orthodox
“We are increasingly conscious of the fact that an Orthodox Church does not really exist,” he contends. “At the present stage, it does not seem that Constantinople is yet capable of integrating the different autocephalous Orthodox Churches; there are doubts about its primacy of honor, especially in Moscow.”
http://www.zenit.org/article-3885?l=english
R
R_C
Guest
Thanks!
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
What an interesting loaded question.
D
devoutchristian
Guest
How is it a loaded question?
R
R_C
Guest
@devoutchristian: Cavaradossi possibly foresees that some may claim that it is not a true religion (though in fact the term “religion” is a bit vague) which is incorrect and would spark a big debate.
The Orthodox, then, are the Christians in the East of Europe, in Egypt and Asia, who accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (are therefore neither Nestorians nor Monophysites), but who, as the result of the schisms of Photius (ninth cent.) and Cerularius (eleventh cent.), are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
Furthermore, in the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of 1965 between Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I, both “regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication …] and they commit these excommunications to oblivion” - thus making our communion much more profound than it had been in a thousand years.
Of particular importance and relevance is the fact that the Orthodox Church is apostolic - meaning the clergy have valid Holy Orders.
Sources: Catholic Encyclopedia and Catechism.
The “Orthodox Church” is the body of Christians who use the Byzantine Rite in various languages and are in union with the Patriarch of Constantinople but in schism with the Pope of Rome. How “Orthodox” became the proper name of the Eastern Church it is difficult to say. Gradually, although of course, both East and West always claimed both names, “Catholic” became the most common name for the original Church in the West, “Orthodox” in the East.
The Orthodox, then, are the Christians in the East of Europe, in Egypt and Asia, who accept the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon (are therefore neither Nestorians nor Monophysites), but who, as the result of the schisms of Photius (ninth cent.) and Cerularius (eleventh cent.), are not in full communion with the Catholic Church.
Fully incorporated into the society of the Church are those who, possessing the Spirit of Christ, accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who - by the bonds constituted by the profession of faith, the sacraments, ecclesiastical government, and communion - are joined in the visible structure of the Church of Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops.
The Church knows that she is joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of Peter.
With the Orthodox Churches, this communion is so profound “that it lacks little to attain the fullness that would permit a common celebration of the Lord’s Eucharist.”
Furthermore, in the Joint Catholic-Orthodox Declaration of 1965 between Pope Paul VI and the Ecumenical Patriarch Athenagoras I, both “regret and remove both from memory and from the midst of the Church the sentences of excommunication …] and they commit these excommunications to oblivion” - thus making our communion much more profound than it had been in a thousand years.
Of particular importance and relevance is the fact that the Orthodox Church is apostolic - meaning the clergy have valid Holy Orders.
Sources: Catholic Encyclopedia and Catechism.
R
RyanBlack
Guest
The Apostolic Churches that accept the Council of Ephesus but not the Council of Chalcedon are also called Orthodox, and are generally referred to as the Oriental Orthodox. Also, they are generally referred to as Miaphysites, and not Monophysites, so as to distinguish their beliefs from Eutychianism, since they do not deny the humanity of our Lord, as the Eutychians did.
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Because it presents R_C with a fait accompli, a fallacious trap of sorts, to which any direct answer (in this case, either yes or no), serves an agenda on the part of the questioner, by assuming a false premise to be true in the question. If R_C answers yes, then you will pull the line you pulled above, that there “can only be one true religion”. If R_C answers no, then you will turn that answer around on him to make it look like he’s contradicting himself. The very wording “a true religion” loads the question, such that the question takes for granted the premise that R_C previously argued that there can be multiple true religions which R_C has not done, making it such that R_C must go through extra work to recognize and disprove the false premise presented in the loaded question in order to answer it properly. It is fallacious because it is one thing to say that X is not false (R_C’s original wording) and another to say that X is “a true religion” (the wording of your loaded question to R_C).
D
devoutchristian
Guest
What difference is there between “X is not a false religion” and “X is a true religion”?
C
Cavaradossi
Guest
Again, you are making a strawman out of R_C’s post. R_C did not argue, as far as I can recall, that Orthodoxy is not a false religion; rather, R_C wrote:
Even the Catholic Encyclopedia, which has very few positive things to say about Orthodoxy admits that the position of the Roman Catholic Church is that the Orthodox are in schism but not heresy. R_C’s position that Orthodoxy is not false is true by Roman Catholic standards, as to teach falsehood would be to be in heresy. Nowhere did R_C say anything about a true religion, only pointing out, correctly, that from the Roman Catholic perspective, the Orthodox are not in heresy, and do not teach doctrinal error. It is only you who have fixated on the question of the existence of other true religions, inexplicably so, as nobody else has yet to broach the subject. Addressing R_C’s posts for their content rather than distorting them with over-simplifications and inapplicable false dichotomies might be a more productive manner of conducting discourse here, in my opinion.
S
steve_b
Guest
Here’s a point Irenaeus makes in “Against Heresies” As you know Irenaeus was taught by Bp Polycarp who was a disciple of St John the apostle
When reading the 1st 3 verses in Bk 3 Ch 3, he states where he got his teaching. It was from Peter & Paul at Rome, and the 12 popes he lists by name down to his day, as the faithful men who kept the apostolic tradition faithfully. iow those who don’t keep what Irenaeus says here, they are the unfaithful, because they don’t keep the apostolic tradition.
One of those traditions, “all must agree with this Church on account of it’s preeminent authority.” Which Church is “this Church”? The one whose bishops he lists.
Irenaeus Bk 3 Chapter 3
So in effect, Irenaeus in this selection from “Against Heresies”, answers the topic of the thread.
- Status