Protestants: How do you determine which denomination holds the truth?

[marywarfield]

I don’t understand.

I thought because Trent was an Ecumenical council it represented all of the Catholic Church. That is, you must agree with what Trent states? You’re saying that Luther could have had seven less books in the OT and remained in the Church, with that teaching being accepted by the Catholic Church?

I really don’t think this is what Catholics teach.

No I doubt that’s what he is saying. No priest gets
to alter the Bible and remain in good standing. Lol.

 

[RyanBlack]

What you don’t get is that the dogma shared is the indelible mark.

We don’t know with certainty what the end means. That is up to God. In the west we presume validity. In the east they don’t. Neither deny the dogma that holy orders is a permanent mark leaving sacrament. I read your article and see no problem.

The Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief that Holy Orders imparts an indelible mark.

 

[marywarfield]

The Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief that Holy Orders imparts an indelible mark.

What is this? Do you mean to say this is not the
Orthodox belief?

"Ordination is seen as an eternal appointment, “for the gifts andthe calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). It is in this spirit that during each Divine Liturgy the priest prays for his bishop that “the Lord God remember him in His Kingdom always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.”
orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Ordination.htm

 

[JonNC]

Originally Posted by SyroMalankara

You again miss the point. Catholicism is not only Latin Catholicism. The various Eastern Catholic Churches have their own Canon of Scripture. It’s not the Canon that matters so much, it’s the faith that the Canon’s convey. Potentially, Luther’s Canon could have been acceptable, as a German Church Tradition, had he remained in the Church and accepted everything else.

The number of Books of the Canon has never been a reason to schism, but what protestantism did is make it the only element of Faith they have left as a standard, and incomplete at that!

Originally Posted by **dronald **

I don’t understand.

I thought because Trent was an Ecumenical council it represented all of the Catholic Church. That is, you must agree with what Trent states? You’re saying that Luther could have had seven less books in the OT and remained in the Church, with that teaching being accepted by the Catholic Church?

I really don’t think this is what Catholics teach.

Not intending to speak for Syro, but I take it he was speaking hypothetically, and not regarding Trent. After all, Luther was dead by the time of Trent.

No I doubt that’s what he is saying. No priest gets
to alter the Bible and remain in good standing. Lol.

Prior to Trent, a Catholic absolutely could have an alternate view of the canon. Lots of Catholics did, including Erasmus, and Cardinal Cajetan.

Jon

 

[dronald]

Not intending to speak for Syro, but I take it he was speaking hypothetically, and not regarding Trent. After all, Luther was dead by the time of Trent.

Prior to Trent, a Catholic absolutely could have an alternate view of the canon. Lots of Catholics did, including Erasmus, and Cardinal Cajetan.

Jon

But not anymore, right?

 

[RyanBlack]

What is this? Do you mean to say this is not the
Orthodox belief?

"Ordination is seen as an eternal appointment, “for the gifts andthe calling of God are irrevocable” (Rom. 11:29). It is in this spirit that during each Divine Liturgy the priest prays for his bishop that “the Lord God remember him in His Kingdom always, now and ever, and unto ages of ages.”
orthodoxchristian.info/pages/Ordination.htm

The Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief in an indelible mark on the soul of those who are ordained.

theologie.uni-heidelberg.de/oek/images/the_church_of_the_triune_god.pdf
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm

 

[marywarfield]

Not intending to speak for Syro, but I take it he was speaking hypothetically, and not regarding Trent. After all, Luther was dead by the time of Trent.

Prior to Trent, a Catholic absolutely could have an alternate view of the canon. Lots of Catholics did, including Erasmus, and Cardinal Cajetan.

Jon

We have had the same Canon since 397. Do you
mean to say Erasmus and Cajetan produced a different Bible?

 

[Jon_S_1]

I don’t understand.

I thought because Trent was an Ecumenical council it represented all of the Catholic Church. That is, you must agree with what Trent states? You’re saying that Luther could have had seven less books in the OT and remained in the Church, with that teaching being accepted by the Catholic Church?

I really don’t think this is what Catholics teach.

No I do not believe he could have.

Trent says that one must accept as canonical the 73 books of the Bible. The reason there is no canon problem with Orthodox is that they hold all 73 as canonical. The canon is not closed in the sense that books cannot be added. Indeed if overwhelming evidence was discovered to support the addition of some of the books held by Orthodox, there would be nothing stopping the pope or a council from declaring it so.

Trent keeps anyone from subtracting it.

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.”

Now since Trent was after Luther, if Luther had properly formed a new rite within the church it is plausible that the deuterocanonicals could have been appendices as a compromise for Luther. Not denied as scripture but held as the little canon which is what the name means anyway.

 

[dronald]

No I do not believe he could have.

Trent says that one must accept as canonical the 73 books of the Bible. The reason there is no canon problem with Orthodox is that they hold all 73 as canonical. The canon is not closed in the sense that books cannot be added. Indeed if overwhelming evidence was discovered to support the addition of some of the books held by Orthodox, there would be nothing stopping the pope or a council from declaring it so.

Trent keeps anyone from subtracting it.

“But if any one receive not, as sacred and canonical, the said books entire with all their parts, as they have been used to be read in the Catholic Church, and as they are contained in the old Latin vulgate edition; and knowingly and deliberately contemn the traditions aforesaid; let him be anathema. Let all, therefore, understand, in what order, and in what manner, the said Synod, after having laid the foundation of the Confession of faith, will proceed, and what testimonies and authorities it will mainly use in confirming dogmas, and in restoring morals in the Church.”

Now since Trent was after Luther, if Luther had properly formed a new rite within the church it is plausible that the deuterocanonicals could have been appendices as a compromise for Luther. Not denied as scripture but held as the little canon which is what the name means anyway.

I actually don’t know if this is true; the idea that more books can be added to the Catholic Canon. I’ve been told plenty times here that it’s actually closed entirely, no additions no subtractions.

 

[Matthew_Light]

My daughters father in law is an apostate catholic.
Joined the Assembly of God and now turns family
events into his opportunity to foam at the mouth
because we have icons of the Theotokos on the
walls and a Holy Trinity Crucifix (which is apparently
worse in his brain then just a regular crucifix).

I can’t imagine that Jesus came and suffered and died because of His love for all of us so that we might become Pharisees who condemn one another like that!

 

[marywarfield]

The Orthodox do not share the Catholic belief in an indelible mark on the soul of those who are ordained.

theologie.uni-heidelberg.de/oek/images/the_church_of_the_triune_god.pdf
orthodoxresearchinstitute.org/articles/canon_law/scouteris_priesthood_unity.htm

Te Orthodox do not believe the ordination is eternal?
Really?
How is it different?

"The indelible character

1581 This sacrament configures the recipient to Christ by a special grace of the Holy Spirit, so that he may serve as Christ’s instrument for his Church. By ordination one is enabled to act as a representative of Christ, Head of the Church, in his triple office of priest, prophet, and king.

1582 As in the case of Baptism and Confirmation this share in Christ’s office is granted once for all. The sacrament of Holy Orders, like the other two, confers an indelible spiritual character and cannot be repeated or conferred temporarily.74

1583 It is true that someone validly ordained can, for grave reasons, be discharged from the obligations and functions linked to ordination, or can be forbidden to exercise them; but he cannot become a layman again in the strict sense,75 because the character imprinted by ordination is for ever. The vocation and mission received on the day of his ordination mark him permanently.

1584 Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting.76 St. Augustine states this forcefully:

As for the proud minister, he is to be ranked with the devil. Christ’s gift is not thereby profaned: what flows through him keeps its purity, and what passes through him remains dear and reaches the fertile earth. ... The spiritual power of the sacrament is indeed comparable to light: those to be enlightened receive it in its purity, and if it should pass through defiled beings, it is not itself defiled.77

 

[Jon_S_1]

I actually don’t know if this is true; the idea that more books can be added to the Catholic Canon. I’ve been told plenty times here that it’s actually closed entirely, no additions no subtractions.

Read Trent for yourself. If it were truly closed, they would clearly say so.

They don’t, like all catholic decrees they declare the heresy and proclaim what the heretical belief is and leave it at that.

For practical purposes the canon is closed. But this is why you can’t find orthodox and catholic debates and hurdles to ecumenism on this issue because it is not an issue.

 

[marywarfield]

I can’t imagine that Jesus came and suffered and died because of His love for all of us so that we might become Pharisees who condemn one another like that!

You don’t believe people sin or you don’t believe
Christ came for sinners or what exactly are you saying?

If everybody played nicely with indoor voices I doubt
He would have suffered and died at all.

 

[RyanBlack]

Te Orthodox do not believe the ordination is eternal?
Really?
How is it different?

The Orthodox do not believe that ordination, though intended to be eternal, imparts an indelible mark on a priest or bishop. In other words, should a priest or bishop leave the Church or be defrocked, he does not retain his priestly or episcopal character.

 

[Jon_S_1]

The Orthodox do not believe that ordination, though intended to be eternal, imparts an indelible mark on a priest or bishop. In other words, should a priest or bishop leave the Church or be defrocked, he does not retain his priestly or episcopal character.

This is so frustrating. You are talking past people by using undefined terms and defining terms in orthodox documents erroneously.

I think this is unproductive. I am confident this issue will not be a game changer in the ecumenical dialogues.

 

[RyanBlack]

This is so frustrating. You are talking past people by using undefined terms and defining terms in orthodox documents erroneously.

I think this is unproductive. I am confident this issue will not be a game changer in the ecumenical dialogues.

The Orthodox do not accept the teaching of the indelible character of the sacrament of Holy Orders. They simply don’t. I’m quite sure of this. I used to be Orthodox. I’ve read a good bit of Orthodox theological writings, some of which have addressed this matter. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you ask Fr. John Morris, an Orthodox Archpriest on this forum. He’s written on the matter.

 

[marywarfield]

The Orthodox do not believe that ordination, though intended to be eternal, imparts an indelible mark on a priest or bishop. In other words, should a priest or bishop leave the Church or be defrocked, he does not retain his priestly or episcopal character.

How can a Sacrament/ Mystery conferred by God not
be eternal?

If Orthodix laity leave the Orthodox Church is their
Chrismation/Baptism nullified as well?

 

[RyanBlack]

How can a Sacrament/ Mystery conferred by God not
be eternal?

If Orthodix laity leave the Orthodox Church is their
Chrismation/Baptism nullified as well?

It’s my understanding that Orthodox who leave and then return are generally chrismated again.

 

[RyanBlack]

How can a Sacrament/ Mystery conferred by God not
be eternal?

If Orthodix laity leave the Orthodox Church is their
Chrismation/Baptism nullified as well?

It’s not my intention to be an apologist for the position. I’m just telling you what the Orthodox position is.

 

[RyanBlack]

The Orthodox do not accept the teaching of the indelible character of the sacrament of Holy Orders. They simply don’t. I’m quite sure of this. I used to be Orthodox. I’ve read a good bit of Orthodox theological writings, some of which have addressed this matter. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you ask Fr. John Morris, an Orthodox Archpriest on this forum? He’s written on the matter.