How Do You Know Your Interpretation Is Correct?

[PRmerger]

James seems at first glance to support the Catholic view. But James’ example of “dead faith” is the faith of demons. The problem for the Catholic view is that faith, even “dead faith,” is a virtue in Catholic theology, and demons can’t have a virtue. Hence, Aquinas had to distinguish between “dead faith” as possessed by human beings and the faith of demons. The Protestant view thus actually fits James better, equating “dead faith” with the faith of demons–a mere intellectual assent to certain truths about God and the spiritual world, not a virtue or a supernatural gift of God at all.

Edwin

I think this video by Apologist John Martignoni addresses your point quite well.

youtube.com/watch?v=G8jXidiUc8s&feature=related

 

[Deacon_JAR]

Perhaps you can understand the difficulty I have with the Marian doctrine with this. This is from the Lutheran Book of Concord, the Large Catechism, the First Commandment.

If I were to pray to Mary, it would for the fact that God might not do what is good for me or what is best for me unless Mary was to intervene. If I was to pray to Mary and God granted my prayer, although I would be thankful to God for granting my prayer, I would be much more thankful to Mary; and, the next time I desired something, I would go to Mary again. She would be the door I used instead of Jesus Christ. She would be the door to my salvation, not Christ. Therefore, from my reasoning, I would be committing idolatry. Although she is not God, it would be to her that I would look for “good.”

 

[Contarini]

I think this video by Apologist John Martignoni addresses your point quite well.

youtube.com/watch?v=G8jXidiUc8s&feature=related

I’m currently in a public place (a coffeeshop), and at any rate dislike watching such videos because I find it frustratingly time-consuming. I will happily read text.

Edwin

 

[PRmerger]

I’m currently in a public place (a coffeeshop), and at any rate dislike watching such videos because I find it frustratingly time-consuming. I will happily read text.

Edwin

Unfortunately, I don’t believe text is available.

However, for all the lurkers and other posters, the video makes for an interesting discussion catalyst.

 

[Jon_Hus]

… If you ask her (Mary) to interceed …

And that my friend is the problem. By asking her to incerceed, you place her between yourself and Jehovah God. Throw in a Priest, Bishop(s) and you are really insulated. This is not what God said made Abraham a child of God. Abraham believed God, no priest, no intercessors, just the creation and the creator. Jesus said come to the Father through me. He forgot to mention anything about saints.

Of course you see it differently and that is your right.

 

[PRmerger]

And that my friend is the problem. By asking her to incerceed, you place her between yourself and Jehovah God. Throw in a Priest, Bishop(s) and you are really insulated. This is not what God said made Abraham a child of God. Abraham believed God, no priest, no intercessors, just the creation and the creator. Jesus said come to the Father through me. He forgot to mention anything about saints.

Of course you see it differently and that is your right.

Firstly, it is our right to see things truly, as revealed by God through the teachings of the Apostles.

Secondly, you cannot hold the position above without also objecting to prayer chains at your church, or asking us to pray for your wife as she undergoes surgery, or…

Either intercessory prayer is allowed–and asking Mary’s intercession is a good thing–or intercessory prayer is bad, and you ought to eliminate any prayer for others.

Can’t have it both ways.

 

[benedictus2]

 From my own perspective as a Lutheran, I see tradition and teachings that date back to the early councils and ECF's, their close proximity to the time of the Apostles, as having a credibility that we should be reluctant to ignore or condemn. And in much the same way practices and piety, particularly those shared by East and West.

Example: while Lutherans do not practice invocation of saints, and the confessions mention that this invocation lacks a scriptural command, promise or example, it also
states “…it would have no danger…”. (really abreviating here, the whole passage is at
bookofconcord.org/defense_20_saints.php

It must be borne in mind however, that “that this invocation lacks the scriptural command” from the Protestant point of view, is attributable to the fact that Luther has excised those parts of the Scripture that does support praying to the saints.

You mentioned before (and it is true) that Luther did translate the DCs. But the problem was,he declared it non-canonical. So although he did leave it in the Bible, he was saying they did not belong there and cannot be considered Holy Scripture. So one asks, if it is not canonical, why would you leave it in the Bible when the Bible is the canon of scripture? It seems he is doing a little fence sitting here. At one point he says it is not part of the Bible, but then leaves it in the Bible.

As for Lutheran teachings that date back to the early councils and ECFs, I would tend to disagree here where the Lutheran tradition and teaching is not in concordance with Catholic tradition and doctrine,

The major theological doctrine that Lutherans and Catholics disagree on is justification.

I would like to give here an excerpt from Francis Beckwith’s conversion story where after studying Church history and the Church Fathers he wrote:

“why does one not find a full blown doctrine of forensic justification prior to the Reformation era? One does not find it in the ante-Nicene, Nicene, or post-Nicene Fathers. One does not find it in the Latin or Eastern rites of the church. What does one find? One finds a view of grace and faith that is deeply biblical but conspicuously non-Reformed.”
……
and he continues:

“ The great debates that divided the Church during its first 500 years were over the Trinitarian nature of God, the two natures of Jesus Christ, and Pelagianism. During this time, the canon of the New Testament was being fixed. And yet, the Church delivered to its people, without controversy as to their gracious efficacy and status as legitimate Christian practices, the sacraments of confession and the Eucharist, with the understanding that these practices imparted to the believer grace so that he or she may be made into the image of Christ. In the Eastern Chruch it is called deification (not because the believer could become a god, in the sense of acquiring the nature of the creator, but rather that the Christian life is aprocess of intrinsic change toward godliness that begins at Baptism and is totally the result of God’s grace*). So, a Reformed-type view of justification was not a point of controversy in the pre-Reformation eraChurch******. After all, the only Church controversy that touched on the issue of justification – the Pelagian controversy – was resolved at the Council of Orange at which the Church offered a distinctly Catholic understanding on grace, faith and justification. Thus, there is a heavy burden on the part of Reformed writers to show that the ascendancy in the sixteenth century of a Reformation thinking that had not ecclesiastical predecessors may be attributed to a return to the true understanding of Christianity***.”

But justification must be followed by sanctification. Christ requires us to follow His commands. I do not dispute your first two sentences. I agree with them.

I would like to quote Alister McGrath here:
“The essential feature of the Reformation doctrines of justification is that a deliberate and systematic distinction is made between justification and regeneration. Although it must be emphasized that this distinction is purely notional, in that it is impossible to separate the two within the ordo salutis, the essential point is that a notional distinction is made where none had been acknowledged before in the history of Christian doctrine. A fundamental discontinuity was introduced into western theological tradition where none had ever existed or ever been contemplated, before. The reformation understanding of the nature of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a theological novum.”

Beckwith comments: Although the distinction is notional, it is the understanding of justification as exclusively forensic that requires this notional distinction.

 

[benedictus2]

Who says we go to Heaven still sinners?

Luther did with the rather famous “dungheap covered with snow” analogy.

The English Thelogian E.L. Mascall, in trying to explain the influence of nominalism on Reformed theology wrote:

How, then, is somebody whose whole mentality has been cast in the mould of nominalism to conceive the activity of justifying grace? He cannot think of it as consisting in a supernatural transformation of a man’s being in its ontological depths beneath the observable level; for on nominalist principles there is nothing beneath the observable level to transform.

*On the other hand, if justifying grace were to consist of a transformation on the observable level, then man would be simply justified by his works; for on nominalistic principles a man’s observable behaviour is neither more nor less than his total activity. **What, then was there left for Luther to say, being convinced, as he rightly was by St Paul, that a man cannot be justified by his works? Only this: that there is no real change in the man at all, but God treats him as if there was. By a sheer gratuitous act of his love God imputes to the man the merits of Christ; God treats him as if he were as sinless as Christ himself, while leaving him the sinner that he was.” ***

Sanctification is the process of growing in grace. This may not be the best way, but think of it this way:

But here again, if grace is imputed, that is, if all we need for salvation is to be made righteous, why is there a need for us to be sanctified?
One can only speak of sanctification if as Beckwith puts it, grace has “real ontological status, a divine quality that can change nature over time in the soul of the believer who cooperates with God’s free gift of grace.”
But Reformed doctrine says that the “grace” the Christian acquires at his initial conversion (and / or baptism) is just the name the Bible attributes to the legal declaration that we are no longer considered guilty in the eyes of God for our sins because Christ took out punishment on the cross.

For Catholics (if I have this right) justification is ongoing. One is initially justifiied by grace through faith, but the process goes on from there.
The comparison would be that what we call justification is what you call initial justification. For us, we follow justification with sanctification, what you think of as that ongoing process When we say faith alone, we are narrowly referring to initial justification. We view it as monergistic - God’s grace. Sanctification is in many ways synergistic, we are attempting to grow in grace, become more Christ-like, with the help of the Spirit. We do good works, make ourselves available to hear the word and receive the sacrament.

I think the distinction is not so much whether it is on going or not. Rather, for Catholics to be justified is to be made just (not merely declared just) - hence when one is declared just it is also because one is already sanctified. There is no difference.

Here again I note the inconsistency I have stated above. If grace has no capacity to change our nature, what is the nature of this sanctification? If we go to heaven as “dungheaps covered with snow” then why is there a need to be sanctified when, if my understanding is correct, the process actually means we are “made snow”?

If the whole point is salvation, and one is saved once one is forensically justified, why is there a need to be conformed to the image of Christ? Is this an unnecessary extra? Or is this integral to being saved?

I find the phraseology you used here interesting as well: “we are attempting to grow in grace, become more Christlike. “ This to me sounds very much like the Catholic understanding that we need to cooperate with grace. And this becoming Christ like is also very much like theosis or being remade into the image of Christ.

However, I think this contradicts Reformed doctrine of justification.
I have this feeling that Luther was not only in schism with the Church but that his doctrine was in schism with itself.

 

[benedictus2]

Sanctification is an ongoing process, of those who are regenerate.

Sorry to sound like a broke record here but if one is already regenerate by being declared just, what is there a need to be sanctified for? Isn’t it that regeneration is the same as sanctification?

1. That good works certainly and without doubt follow true faith, if it is not a dead, but a living faith, as fruits of a good tree.

7] 2. We believe, teach, and confess also that good works should be entirely excluded, just as well in the question concerning salvation as in the article of justification before God, as the apostle testifies with clear words, when he writes as follows: Even as David also describeth the blessedness of the man unto whom God imputeth righteousness without works, saying**, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin**, Rom. 4:6ff And again: By grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not of works, lest any man should boast, Eph. 2:8-9.

8] 3. We believe, teach, and confess also that all men, but those especially who are born again and renewed by the Holy Ghost, are bound to do good works.
“Bound” not only means “certain to”, but also “required to”. This is in the realm of sanctification.

And here again the inconsistency arises. If grace is just the label that we give to the declaration made by God that one is righteous it and has no ontological status on the soul, then why is there a certainty and a requirement to do good works?

Also, comment on Rom 4:6 , Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

If I am reading the above interpretation correctly, God declares man sinful or not sinful rather arbitriarily. So God imputes sin on one person and does not impute sin on another.

But that is a rather strange understanding of the text. Rather, God declares a man guiltless if a man is guiltless and guilty if guilty. God so declares as He sees the state of our soul to be.

Here is the crux, we are required to do good works!! Not that it adds to our salvation, but that in new obedience, we do what Christ commands.
And this is where I think we arrive at the heart of the matter. If you see justification as forensic, then the above will indeed apply.

However, because we know that grace has real nature changing effect on the soul, then “works” does add to ones salvation, in the sense that “disobedience” is what caused us to be in this miserable state in the first place so by the work of “obedient love” we cooperate with Christ in realigning us back to to the will of God. Our obedience, inspite of a desire to be disobedient, actually works wonders in our soul.

When we obey God we are lessening the hold that satan has on us. Every single “act” of yes to God is a no to satan.

And since we see that salvation is not merely getting into heaven but more to the point- getting heaven into us (theosis) - then with every “work” of obedience to the will of God we are are aligning our selves with Christ who was obedient to the Father unto death.

This is purely my musing here but I think Luther’s fear of “works” is also due to his apprehension that obedience is necessary and it was the one thing he could not do - obey the Church authorities that God placed before him.

I wrote earlier on that it is the hegemony of the self that ruled his theology. And this can be seen in his spiritual progeny, the ever increasing protestant denominations that all claim that right to decide what and what is not right with regards morality and with regards scripture.

 

[JonNC]

Luther did with the rather famous “dungheap covered with snow” analogy.

Well, aside from the fact that this quote is disputed, and to my is not found in Luther’s Work, I’m finding it difficult to understand why you think that Lutherans believe that our state of sinfulness on earth is carried into heaven.

From Luther’s Large Catechism:

But outside of this Christian Church, where the Gospel is not, there is no forgiveness, as also there can be no holiness [sanctification]. Therefore all who seek and wish to merit holiness [sanctification], not through the Gospel and forgiveness of sin, but by their works, have expelled and severed themselves [from this Church].

57] Meanwhile, however, while sanctification has begun and is growing daily, we expect that our flesh will be destroyed and buried with all its uncleanness, and will come forth gloriously, and arise to entire and perfect holiness in a new eternal life. 58] For now we are only half pure and holy, so that the Holy Ghost has ever [some reason why] to continue His work in us through the Word, and daily to dispense forgiveness, until we attain to that life where there will be no more forgiveness, but only perfectly pure and holy people, full of godliness and righteousness, removed and free from sin, death, and all evil, in a new, immortal, and glorified body.

59] Behold, all this is to be the office and work of the Holy Ghost, that He begin and daily increase holiness upon earth by means of these two things, the Christian Church and the forgiveness of sin. But in our dissolution He will accomplish it altogether in an instant, and will forever preserve us therein by the last two parts.

And with hopes he doesn’t mind, I am copying a post from Pastor Gary (gcnuss) here:

Originally Posted by gcnuss
We Lutherans have not done well with the concept of purgatory – generally from the point of view that once we die our earthly trappings (including our sins or the remnants of them) are no longer part of us, presuming that those sins have been forgiven through the suffering and death of Christ. From that perspective,** in Lutheran belief there is no need for a final cleansing because the forgiveness of our sins is total and nothing of that sin remains in us.**
As I understand Catholic teachings, even after one is absolved of sin there is a “stain” that remains on the soul as a result of that sin. It is this stain, or remnant of forgiven sin, that must be cleansed before the soul enters heaven. Thus, purgatory is that place where the final purging of all traces of sin is accomplished so that one can make that entry into God’s presence.

It is important to remember that in Catholic understanding all the souls in purgatory are going to enter heaven – that judgment has already been made. The question has been “how long is the cleansing process?” In previous times the Church, as I understand it, taught that certain acts could be applied to shorten or eliminate the time a soul would spend in purgatory, even to specifying the number of years that a particular act – of devotion, charity, etc. – would take off “Grandpa’s” time in the cleansing fires. These acts could result in full (plenary) indulgences that would send “Grandpa” straight into heaven, hence the oft quoted jingle, “when the coin in the coffer clings, the soul from purgatory springs” or they could result in partial indulgences which only took some time off. I have to say that I never understood how a determination was made as to how many years a soul would have to spend being cleansed.

From a Lutheran perspective, Tavard’s commentary is reasonable inasmuch as we would agree that nothing unclean can enter into the heavenly kingdom. That is the place in which sin does not exist in any form. How that final cleansing happens and how long it takes is mere speculation, although we say that one whose sins have been forgiven is no longer subject to sin once he or she leaves the kingdom of the world through death. It could be said that the moment of death is the final liberation and cleansing from the things of this world, sin and its effects included.

Lutherans do not believe we enter heaven sinful, covered with snow or not.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=benedictus2;6832126]It must be borne in mind however, that “that this invocation lacks the scriptural command” from the Protestant point of view, is attributable to the fact that Luther has excised those parts of the Scripture that does support praying to the saints.

Actually, the Confessions do reference the D-C’s.

] Besides, we also grant that the angels pray for us. For there is a testimony in Zech. 1:12, where an angel prays: O Lord of hosts, how long wilt Thou not have mercy on 9] Jerusalem? Although concerning the saints we concede that, just as, when alive, they pray for the Church universal in general, so in heaven they pray for the Church in general, albeit no testimony concerning the praying of the dead is extant in the Scriptures, except the dream taken from the Second Book of Maccabees, 15:14.

Moreover, even supposing that the saints pray for the Church ever so much, 10] yet it does not follow that they are to be invoked; although our Confession affirms only this, that Scripture does not teach the invocation of the saints, or that we are to ask the saints for aid. But since neither a command, nor a promise, nor an example can be produced from the Scriptures concerning the invocation of saints, it follows that conscience can have nothing concerning this invocation that is certain. And since prayer ought to be made from faith, how do we know that God approves this invocation? Whence do we know without the testimony of Scripture that the saints perceive the prayers of each one?

2 Maccabees 15:14

So he armed every one of them, not with defence of shield and spear, but with very good speeches and exhortations, and told them a dream worthy to be believed, whereby he rejoiced them all. [12] Now the vision was in this manner: Onias who had been high priest, a good and virtuous man, modest in his looks, gentle in his manners, and graceful in his speech, and who from a child was exercised in virtues, holding up his hands, prayed for all the people of the Jews: [13] After this there appeared also another man, admirable for age, and glory, and environed with great beauty and majesty: [14] Then Onias answering, said: This is a lover of his brethren, and of the people of Israel: this is he that prayeth much for the people, and for all the holy city, Jeremias the prophet of God. [15] Whereupon Jeremias stretched forth his right hand, and gave to Judas a sword of gold, saying:

So, I’ll place the question to you: where in scripture (including the D-C’s) is there a command or promise or example that we should invoke the saints? I may be one of the easier n-C’s for you to convince on this issue, as by my testemony above.

You mentioned before (and it is true) that Luther did translate the DCs. But the problem was,he declared it non-canonical. So although he did leave it in the Bible, he was saying they did not belong there and cannot be considered Holy Scripture. So one asks, if it is not canonical, why would you leave it in the Bible when the Bible is the canon of scripture? It seems he is doing a little fence sitting here. At one point he says it is not part of the Bible, but then leaves it in the Bible.

He said it didn’t belong on the same level, in his opinion, as was the opinion of many others from Jerome on. He said it was useful to read and study.

As for Lutheran teachings that date back to the early councils and ECFs, I would tend to disagree here where the Lutheran tradition and teaching is not in concordance with Catholic tradition and doctrine,

I would encourage you to read the www.bookofconcord.org to see how often they are invoked.

The major theological doctrine that Lutherans and Catholics disagree on is justification.

Undoubtedly, that was the major debate of the reformation. Even that is improving.

Jon

 

[fhansen]

Well, aside from the fact that this quote is disputed, and to my is not found in Luther’s Work, I’m finding it difficult to understand why you think that Lutherans believe that our state of sinfulness on earth is carried into heaven.

From Luther’s Large Catechism:

And with hopes he doesn’t mind, I am copying a post from Pastor Gary (gcnuss) here:

Lutherans do not believe we enter heaven sinful, covered with snow or not.

Jon

For Catholics, the sin remains if it’s only forgiven-unless, from there on, we “go, and sin no more”. This is because until we’re free from the very will to sin, until lust and anger, etc. are no longer in our hearts, we’d still be entering heaven unjustified-because we’d still be unjust. For us, becoming truly just* is* our salvation, the opportunity for which was won on the cross. Purgatory may be a part of this process, if necessary, but in any case, the justification must be complete.

God’s not satisfied with our being anything less than that which He created us to be-and this life-this prodigal’s exile from Him-has the purpose of ultimately causing us to return fully to Him, with His help, fulfilling the commandment to love Him with our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength, where sin can no longer have a place in our hearts.

Yesterday’s Catholic gospel reading spoke of the Good Samaritan, who was justified by his loving-kindness to the stranger. If we contrast his works with those of, say, a Pharisee steeped in legalism, I think we should be better able to see the distinction the CC draws between works of the Law and works of Love.

 

[benedictus2]

And that my friend is the problem. By asking her to incerceed, you place her between yourself and Jehovah God.

No you don’t. Not if it pleases God to grant graces through her.

I give money to some poor people back in my home country. But what I do is, I give a lump sum to my niece and I tell her dispense with it as you please.

If the people go to her instead of me I will not be upset because it was my choice to course the giving through her. But, it is still my money she dispenses.

God willed this to be so. In the same way that God WILLED to build a Church and not write a book. It is all about what God has WILLED.

 

[Nicea325]

And that my friend is the problem. By asking her to incerceed, you place her between yourself and Jehovah God. Throw in a Priest, Bishop(s) and you are really insulated. This is not what God said made Abraham a child of God. Abraham believed God, no priest, no intercessors, just the creation and the creator. Jesus said come to the Father through me. He forgot to mention anything about saints.

Of course you see it differently and that is your right.

Our rights has nothing to do with it,precisely why their exists thousands of different churches because of one’s ‘right’ to believe otherwise.God is not concerned about our rights,but only with His truth.Sorry,but that is not correct. Even my NKJV Study Bible mentions intercessory prayers for others. Sorry,but you are wrong on the issue.

 

[krbray]

Jon:

Here is a delayed response from several days ago. Work has been a bear lately and I haven’t had time. Here goes…………

Yes, the first presumption is that Rome is, alone, the one true church. This claim may be disputed by Orthodoxy, but I disagree that it is reasonable because they don’t trace their apostolic succession and authority to St. Peter. I believe (or I wouldn’t be Catholic, I guess) that Matthew 16:18 means what it says and that Peter is the apostle that the Church was built upon and that he was given the lead in it’s authority by being given the “keys to the Kingdom”. That’s powerful stuff and since the Orthodox churches don’t go back to this point, they have no claim to primacy, in my opinion. Moreover, it seems that there was no “Orthodoxy” or eastern churches failing to submit to Rome’s authority until almost three hundred years after Christ’s death. Several ECF’s speak on the authority of Rome for this entire period.

If this is true, if the Bishop of Rome has univeral jurisdiction, by did early councils feel it necessary to determine the Bishop of Rome’s juridiction as that of the west?

Which early councils?

The Church Militant still needs (and has) an infallible guide to ensure that we are taking the right paths (doctrine) that will lead us to eternal bliss in His presence. How can we be assured of our salvation without this guide?

We would say that guide is the Holy Spirit, but I wouldn’t argue with you that it is desirable that there be one bishop who is “1st among equals” in a leadship capacity. I would frankly disagree, and find no reason to believe in scripture or the early councils, that the Pope authority and jurisdiction is such that Rome claims today.

I’m not so much making a case for the Papacy as I am for the need of infallible authoritative teaching. You do not believe it is desirable that there be one bishop who holds universal jurisdiction. OK, but do you believe that there should not be one teaching authority for all Christians to turn to for final interpretation of scripture and correctness of doctrine?

If I understood you correctly (forgive me if I’m wrong), the Church is the “congregation of believers” to the Lutherans. If so, explain how the “congregation of believers” reaches a final authoritative decision on salvation or anything else when they all disagree and have no central body to go to for an answer.

Human sin, that’s how Pope Benedict XVI describes it. And I don’t think he meant human sin on the part of the reformers and Orthodoxy alone.

Maybe I don’t understand what you’re saying, but I don’t think that answers my question of how the “congregation of believers” reaches a final authoritative answer on doctrinal question. Human sin only explains disagreement. Shouldn’t there be one place to go to settle the argument or is there some scriptural reference I’ve missed that allows division and disagreement on doctrine?

I don’t think you’ll disagree that truth from the Holy Spirit must be infallible. The promise of John 16:13 tells us that the one true Church (Militant) has this truth and that is why Jesus also told his disciples in Matthew 18 to go to the Church as the final arbiter in the case of a brother who sins against you and will not listen. Which church is this that Jesus is referring to?

In a specific sense, the local church, and its leadership up to the bishop.

That makes no sense to me. Why wouldn’t scripture have said “a church” instead of “the Church”, if this were the case? This allows each bishop to determine what is right and what is wrong, with no one to answer to if they err. Where is the assurance that all bishops will adjudicate the same way? What if one bishop ruled in contradiction with another? Where would they go then?

That’s why Lutherans do accept the early councils, and why the Augsburg Confession says that the writers believe that its teachings are consistent with the historic Church Catholic.

Most of the teachings of the historic Church Catholic, but not all of them.

Like in sanctfication, His guidance is ongoing. And this is why I say that, in the end, He will lead all of us in His Church to one truth, even if it is at the Parousia. And the gates of Hell have no power to stop it.

Jon

We should pray that this happens prior to the Parousia.

 

[JonNC]

=krbray;6839052]Jon:

Here is a delayed response from several days ago. Work has been a bear lately and I haven’t had time. Here goes…………

Not a problem, kr.

Which early councils?

1st Council of Nice, canon VI

Canon VI.

Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya and Pentapolis prevail, that the Bishop of Alexandria have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the Bishop of Rome also. Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the Churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of the Metropolitan, the great Synod has declared that such a man ought not to be a bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Notes.

Ancient Epitome of Canon VI.

The Bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction over Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis. As also the Roman bishop over those subject to Rome. So, too, the Bishop of Antioch and the rest over those who are under them. If any be a bishop contrary to the judgment of the Metropolitan, let him be no bishop. Provided it be in accordance with the canons by the suffrage of the majority, if three object, their objection shall be of no force.

In part. orthodoxchurchfathers.com/?page_mode=search_result&file_section=section_560288&query=first%20council%20of%20nice%20canon%20VI&match_partial_words=0&relative_filename=npnf214/npnf2114.htm#TopOfPage

I’m not so much making a case for the Papacy as I am for the need of infallible authoritative teaching. You do not believe it is desirable that there be one bishop who holds universal jurisdiction. OK, but do you believe that there should not be one teaching authority for all Christians to turn to for final interpretation of scripture and correctness of doctrine?

The early Church did these at council. I would be happy with that -a truly ecumenical council.

We should pray that this happens prior to the Parousia.

Indeed.

Jon

 

[Cinette]

I’m not getting into a debate on this but the fact of the matter everything you’re saying is debatable. You’re simply stating one side, it isn’t so cut and dried as you like to portray it. My point still stands, using a source with bias doesn’t prove such a contentious point, and belittling those whom you wish to ally with is itself madness.

*I find this statement curious. Obviously if I believe the truth lies with the Catholic Church I will state that the Orthodox are wrong. But does that necessarily mean that I would be “belittling” the other side?

Cinette*

 

[shaky]

*I find this statement curious. Obviously if I believe the truth lies with the Catholic Church I will state that the Orthodox are wrong. But does that necessarily mean that I would be “belittling” the other side?

Cinette*

Hi Cinette

At the moment i am looking into the {Roman catholic church} and {The Eastern orthodox catholic church} trying to make up my mind which way to Go

I know there are differences and trying to Get my head round it all. Is your eternal salvation a stake if you pick the wrong one?

It seems you are a Roman Catholic: What are these differences that you think are wrong and why do you think they are wrong?

At the moment i am thinking The {Greek Orthodox Church} Is the oldest church going straight from the Apostles. I have looked into history: It was 44AD when peter Paul and John came to Antioch where the roman catholic church started.

But for 10 years before that. It started with the Jerusalem Church which was later destroyed. Then the Greek Church
The 13 Apostles were setting up churches all over the East during this period
The Ethiopian who was baptised in Acts Set up the Ethiopian church.
The Apostle Thomas went to the Persian empire, Asia and India to set Churhes up there
All this under the Authority of Peter who was given The Keys.

 

[Cinette]

Hi Cinette

At the moment i am looking into the {Roman catholic church} and {The Eastern orthodox catholic church} trying to make up my mind which way to Go

I know there are differences and trying to Get my head round it all. Is your eternal salvation a stake if you pick the wrong one?Not at all - no!

It seems you are a Roman Catholic: What are these differences that you think are wrong and why do you think they are wrong?
*
I always believed that the Orthodox Church was very close to us and I was told as a child that if I were in an area where there was no Catholic Church I could go to the Orthodox Church. I have always looked upon the Orthodox Church as having more of a cultural difference. Other posters on this thread have posted some very good information and would be able to answer you. I am rather ignorant about the theological differences.
*

At the moment i am thinking The {Greek Orthodox Church} Is the oldest church going straight from the Apostles. I have looked into history: It was 44AD when peter Paul and John came to Antioch where the roman catholic church started.

But for 10 years before that. It started with the Jerusalem Church which was later destroyed. Then the Greek Church
The 13 Apostles were setting up churches all over the East during this period
The Ethiopian who was baptised in Acts Set up the Ethiopian church.
The Apostle Thomas went to the Persian empire, Asia and India to set Churhes up there
All this under the Authority of Peter who was given The Keys.
*I believe that the Apostles went out into the world to spread the Faith but they were answerable to Peter. Peter was in Antioch and in Rome where he died. How can you say that the “Roman Catholic Church” started in Antioch? By the way the official name of the Church is the “Catholic Church” I think it was the Anglicans who started to call us “Roman” and it has stuck!!!

Cinette
*

 

[benedictus2]

Hi Cinette

At the moment i am looking into the {Roman catholic church} and {The Eastern orthodox catholic church} trying to make up my mind which way to Go

I know there are differences and trying to Get my head round it all. Is your eternal salvation a stake if you pick the wrong one?

It seems you are a Roman Catholic: What are these differences that you think are wrong and why do you think they are wrong?

Doctrinally there is not much difference. Their main objection is that Catholics define dogma’s too much while they prefer to leave it a mystery.

There is also the felioque. We say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. They want to leave it as the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only.

Today, if you look at the world, the Roman Catholic Church is the only one that you can really call Catholic, that is, universal.

At the moment i am thinking The {Greek Orthodox Church} Is the oldest church going straight from the Apostles. I have looked into history: It was 44AD when peter Paul and John came to Antioch where the roman catholic church started.

But for 10 years before that. It started with the Jerusalem Church which was later destroyed. Then the Greek Church
The 13 Apostles were setting up churches all over the East during this period
The Ethiopian who was baptised in Acts Set up the Ethiopian church.
The Apostle Thomas went to the Persian empire, Asia and India to set Churhes up there
All this under the Authority of Peter who was given The Keys.

Although they did set up the Church in Antioch, the See of Rome has always been the Primacy See because it was considered the See of Peter.

Around the time when Constantine moved the capital of the Roman empire to Istanbul/Constantinople, the Patriarch of Constantinople thought that because of this the Primary See should also be that of Constantinople because it has not become the seat of the Roman Empire. But this is not good reasoning because the Church does not follow civiliian heirarchy.

This link gives a detailed explanation of the events.

davidmacd.com/catholic/orthodox/timeline_history_of_catholic_orthodox_relations.htm