Roman and Orthodox Church

[Hesychios]

The newer explanation seems to wish to prop up the claim by saying people were subject to the Papal office even when they did not realize it!

Surely you don’t deny that it’s possible for someone to be subject to authority (papal or otherwise) without ever being aware of it?

You’ve got me there. I don’t know what to make of this. Is that like flying over a border by mistake?

Where I come from we tend to know our pastor, bishop, Metropolitan and Patriarch (if we have one).

We know Jesus Christ Our Lord, we know the Holy Spirit of God, we know God the Father. I think that about covers it.

 

[india_ker_pala]

I think it is better to form independent orthodox churches throughout the world. Now Rome has already declared that Roma n catholic church is only an independent church in the family of 22 churches. It is not the one and universal church. So I think Rome must allow diffrent nation to form their own churches like Russian orthodox church, Ethipean orthodox church. It will be better to form Indian , Chinese, American orthodox churches. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of Arch Bishop Mar Joseph Powathil, bishop in Syro malabar catholic church Kerala, India.
There is no evidence to prove the primacy of Rome. If there is they are based on fake documents created during the reign of Charlemagne in 8th century. For example “donation of Constantine”.

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

I think it is better to form independent orthodox churches throughout the world. Now Rome has already declared that Roma n catholic church is only an independent church in the family of 22 churches. It is not the one and universal church. So I think Rome must allow diffrent nation to form their own churches like Russian orthodox church, Ethipean orthodox church. It will be better to form Indian , Chinese, American orthodox churches. This is not my opinion. It is the opinion of Arch Bishop Mar Joseph Powathil, bishop in Syro malabar catholic church Kerala, India.
There is no evidence to prove the primacy of Rome. If there is they are based on fake documents created during the reign of Charlemagne in 8th century. For example “donation of Constantine”.

There is much evidence that is historically verified.

A few quotes for you:

St. Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

 

[Peter_J]

I think it is better to form independent orthodox churches throughout the world. Now Rome has already declared that Roma n catholic church is only an independent church in the family of 22 churches. It is not the one and universal church.

I think you misunderstood. The statement should be that the Latin Catholic Church is one of the 22 (or 23) churches in full communion with Rome, which together are the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church.

 

[excaliber]

I have been a lurker on this thread. These discusions tend to go unresolved.
I am sure both sides can find old quotes to support there position.
We don’t know if Christians in the east were aware of Papal athority,
simply because we were not there.

However sacred scripture records Christ stating what the foundation of the church is. Simply decide if it was Peter or the knowledge that Christ is the son of God.

I try to remain open, so that God can lead me in the correct understanding. But right now I side
with the Pope.

If Christ wanted a unified church, why would he make the foundation
of his church a profession of faith?
There are Protestant churches that
believe Christ to be son of the living God, they could say that Christ laid the foundation of there church.

If Christ built his church on the chair of Peter, that would establish
ONE true church and ONE true athority to hold it together.
That makes more sence to me personaly because Christ had seen his apostles arguing over position and arguing over athority. Now Christ said the greatest would have to become the servant of the others…dose it make sence that
he would not apoint one to be “Servant of the servants of God”?

 

[Hesychios]

There is much evidence that is historically verified.

A few quotes for you:

St. Irenaeus
“The blessed apostles [Peter and Paul], having founded and built up the church [of Rome] . . . handed over the office of the episcopate to Linus” (Against Heresies 3:3:3 [A.D. 189]).
Tertullian

“[T]his is the way in which the apostolic churches transmit their lists: like the church of the Smyrneans, which records that Polycarp was placed there by John, like the church of the Romans, where Clement was ordained by Peter” (Demurrer Against the Heretics 32:2 [A.D. 200]).

The Little Labyrinth

“Victor . . . was the thirteenth bishop of Rome from Peter” (The Little Labyrinth [A.D. 211], in Eusebius, Church History 5:28:3).

Cyprian of Carthage

“The Lord says to Peter: ‘I say to you,’ he says, ‘that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not overcome it. . . . ’ [Matt. 16:18]. On him [Peter] he builds the Church, and to him he gives the command to feed the sheep [John 21:17], and although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single chair [cathedra], and he established by his own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. . . . If someone [today] does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he [should] desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?” (The Unity of the Catholic Church 4; first edition [A.D. 251]).

“Cornelius was made bishop by the decision of God and of his Christ, by the testimony of almost all the clergy, by the applause of the people then present, by the college of venerable priests and good men, at a time when no one had been made [bishop] before him—when the place of [Pope] Fabian, which is the place of Peter, the dignity of the sacerdotal chair, was vacant. Since it has been occupied both at the will of God and with the ratified consent of all of us, whoever now wishes to become bishop must do so outside. For he cannot have ecclesiastical rank who does not hold to the unity of the Church” (Letters 55:[52]):8 [A.D. 253]).

“With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source” (ibid., 59:14).

What these quotes verify is that the church in the city of Rome was Orthodox in the first few centuries.

 

[JackQ]

Oh and yes, many bishops and priests today are infected with the false spirit of modernism and ecumenism and the New Theology promoted by the un-infallible Second Vatican Council. Best to stick with what has always been proclaimed by the Catholic Church instead of pursuing novelties!

But if you reject the Second Vatican Council, then you are a heretic.

 

[JackQ]

What these quotes verify is that the church in the city of Rome was Orthodox in the first few centuries.

Yep. And it still is.

 

[JackQ]

If this is a matter of certain Faith, there will be a precise enumeration, not just one person’s opinion or another. It will be laid out categorically by some church authority besides yourself, and you should be able to find a reference. Otherwise, I will take your claim to be a bluff.

You should be able to back up your statement, especially since it is you putting your opinion to odds with genuine bishops and priests.
Why do you think that I take offense? I regard the opinion that Orthodoxy is heretical as purely invincible ignorance. It is amusing to me more than anything, I enjoy these occasional discussions.

If anyone should be surprised that many Latin Catholics think Orthodox are heretical, it certainly would not be me. I’ve been around this block already. I don’t care what you think of me, but I do care what the lurkers out there think of my church.

I state, Mr Dickerson, for the benefit of any lurkers out there, like the OP perhaps (as well as others) Holy Orthodoxy teaches nothing false, and also does not engage in novelties (which you accuse your own church of right here in this thread). It is this penchant for novel theological constructs and practices which is the most dangerous aspect of western Christianity (and must be carefully guarded against), and is also the rich inheritance of the Protestant communities, your western Christian progeny in faith. I don’t think the issue is nearly so neat as all that. A true heretic is one who invents doctrine either through an over-active imagination or cunning, preaches it as if true and imposes that upon others who cannot be expected to know any better. You are not important enough to be a heretic, nor I.

Those trusting souls who believe what they are taught are not even material heretics (to borrow a western Catholic term), but simply confused. Those who peddle the nonsense (whatever the motivation) are potentially soul killers, because the falsity of the belief might lead someone to act contrary to God’s Will for us.

I do maintain that many things taught by the Latin Catholic church would not be wrong if they existed in the realm of pious opinion, or theologumena. It is the imposition of these inventions, under threat of damnation, which is the sin.

Especially when these cannot be shown to be Christian teaching essential to salvation.

Analogous to the hierarchy of needs (see Maslow), there is a hierarchy of doctrine. A little reflection should make it clear that what one believes CAN affect how one acts, or regards the Divine.

The base beliefs must be correct, after which additional Apostolic knowledge can be discerned if it is available. This is a process which has completed long ago. What cannot be discerned with surety must remain in the realm of speculation, like the non-essential novelties which come into fashion and popular myth but fade again over time.

What your church has done most recently is to take a less important theological speculation (namely that a Christian must be under the theological supervision of the bishop of Rome no matter what to be saved) and turned it into an excuse to damn people. Because of this arrogance on the part of an office holder in the church, this theological opinion has trumped all other dogmas. It does not matter whether one believes in the Holy Trinity and worships properly. It does not matter whether one believes in the bodily incarnation of Christ, and it does not matter if one makes an regular examination of conscience and properly sincerely confesses, participates in the other sacraments or makes other notable personal sacrifices in Faith (even martyrdom!).

By trumping all of these (especially out of pride of office) the church has made this historically lessor, later and regional theologically minor pious opinion more important than any other teaching of the church, more important than the Ten Commandments of God, more important than any Gospel teaching of Christ himself. It negates them all. It stands Christian theology upon it’s head, completely inverting the hierarchy of dogma, the Apostolic and Gospel Faith.

The perpetration of this monstrosity is a very great sin indeed.

As Jesus did say: *"…But woe to you scribes and Pharisees…hypocrites! Because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men. *
For you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter!"
MTT 23:13

You mischaracterize the Church’s papal doctrine. The Church is the agent of the message and the means of salvation. But what is the Church? The Church is that assembly in communion with the successor of Peter, since “on this rock I will build my church.” But the other teachings that you mention aren’t secondary to the doctrine of the Petrine primacy.

 

[Hesychios]

You mischaracterize the Church’s papal doctrine. The Church is the agent of the message and the means of salvation. But what is the Church? The Church is that assembly in communion with the successor of Peter, since “on this rock I will build my church.”

All bishops are the successors of Peter and all the other Apostles, each has the power to bind and loose.

The church is where the bishop is.

There is a difference between “being in communion” and “being under the administration of”. It is possible to be in communion with the bishop of Rome and yet not be under his administrative authority. That is how the earlier church functioned, and it can be that way again.

The Armenians, Jacobite Syrians and Copts are all in communion with each other, and yet the churches to not have any arrangement where the lead bishop of one controls the others. They have never needed such an arrangement.

Likewise among the Orthodox in communion with Constantinople. Each synod is independent, elevating it’s own bishops and controlling it’s own affairs. It is not necessary to be under a bishop to be in communion with him, it never was.

Orthodox and Latin Catholics could be in communion again someday soon. That doesn’t mean that our church would be controlling your church (or vice versa). What that would mean is that we believe the same things, this has always been the Orthodox standard for communion.

But the other teachings that you mention aren’t secondary to the doctrine of the Petrine primacy.

Anytime a new doctrine is introduced which anathematizes those who cannot accept it, it negates the effectiveness the other beliefs, practices and devotions which otherwise faithful Christians have accepted and understood. It becomes a “liberum veto” keeping people out of heaven.

For a doctrine that is really not central to Jesus Christ’s teaching (or non-essential to salvation) it is a potentially cruel trap. I say “potentially”, because it is by no means certain that the church can actually damn otherwise good people over ideas that should not have been proclaimed doctrines in the first place.

What the church can do, in reality, is deny it’s people the sacraments, which can put them each at a serious disadvantage as they strive for salvation. For those of us who share a sacramental theology this is very important.

Oddly enough, the church under the Papacy publicly anathematizes it’s own people if they do not believe the Papal doctrines (see Vat Council 1870AD), essentially excommunicating them Latae Sententiae. Yet in recent decades it extends an offer of communion to Old Catholics and Orthodox, outsiders who do not believe those same doctrines. Rather inconsistent and sadly ironic.

 

[Peter_J]

^^ You make some good points, Hesychios.

I think that Cardinal Newman gives us some guidance here. (As you may already be aware) he believed that dogmatically defining Papal Infallibility was a bad idea, but that it was nevertheless a validly defined dogma. (That’s kind of the mouthful, isn’t it?)

Consider: if, as Newman believed, Papal Infallibility is truly a dogma (and yes I know that you’ll say it isn’t), then we can’t just ignore it, right? I.e. we can’t say “That was a bad decision, so let’s just pretend it didn’t even happen.” Bad decisions have consequences that need to be dealt with.

It seems to me that, first and foremost, we should endeavor to avoid that kind of mistake in the future – as in, for example, not dogmatically defining “Mary as co-redemptrix”.

 

[Hesychios]

It seems to me that, first and foremost, we should endeavor to avoid that kind of mistake in the future – as in, for example, not dogmatically defining “Mary as co-redemptrix”.

…Oh yes, definitely.

 

[jam070406]

All bishops are the successors of Peter and all the other Apostles, each has the power to bind and loose.

The church is where the bishop is.

There is a difference between “being in communion” and “being under the administration of”. It is possible to be in communion with the bishop of Rome and yet not be under his administrative authority. That is how the earlier church functioned, and it can be that way again.

The Armenians, Jacobite Syrians and Copts are all in communion with each other, and yet the churches to not have any arrangement where the lead bishop of one controls the others. They have never needed such an arrangement.

Likewise among the Orthodox in communion with Constantinople. Each synod is independent, elevating it’s own bishops and controlling it’s own affairs. It is not necessary to be under a bishop to be in communion with him, it never was.

Orthodox and Latin Catholics could be in communion again someday soon. That doesn’t mean that our church would be controlling your church (or vice versa). What that would mean is that we believe the same things, this has always been the Orthodox standard for communion. Anytime a new doctrine is introduced which anathematizes those who cannot accept it, it negates the effectiveness the other beliefs, practices and devotions which otherwise faithful Christians have accepted and understood. It becomes a “liberum veto” keeping people out of heaven.

For a doctrine that is really not central to Jesus Christ’s teaching (or non-essential to salvation) it is a potentially cruel trap. I say “potentially”, because it is by no means certain that the church can actually damn otherwise good people over ideas that should not have been proclaimed doctrines in the first place.

What the church can do, in reality, is deny it’s people the sacraments, which can put them each at a serious disadvantage as they strive for salvation. For those of us who share a sacramental theology this is very important.

Oddly enough, the church under the Papacy publicly anathematizes it’s own people if they do not believe the Papal doctrines (see Vat Council 1870AD), essentially excommunicating them Latae Sententiae. Yet in recent decades it extends an offer of communion to Old Catholics and Orthodox, outsiders who do not believe those same doctrines. Rather inconsistent and sadly ironic.

Your argument doesn’t work. The Papal doctrines negate no other Catholic teaching. It reinforces them. The Pope cannot damn people to hell. People cut themselves off from God. It is an absurd claim that the Pope condemns to hell “otherwise good people”
Also, the Pope cannot contradict Catholic teaching.

Take for instance, your church now allows artificial contraception and divorce, which has been condemned by the Church and Popes. The Catholic Church does not say, artificial birth control is a grave sin and you are in mortal sin if you use it, but… you’re otherwise a good person so don’t worry about your salvation. Truth is Truth.

The Old catholics, Anglicans etc. have spun off into liberal nonsense that has been condemned by the Church.
Those that rebel against the Pope usually live the Faith and beliefs THEY want to live, regardless of the warnings that these actions or false beliefs will have a bearing on their soul. Many are led away from Truth. Many spin wild speculations, conspiracy theories, judgements about the Pope. All in the spirit of Schism.
This is the chance you take when following someone other then the Church in communion with the Pope.
It seems the farther people drift, the wilder the Papal accusations become. I’ve noticed it from a few ex-Catholics that post here.
You yourself seem to be one step away from claiming the Pope as the antichrist.

You forget Jesus’s words that say, “whoever hears you hears me”.
And “nobody comes to Father but through me”

“Extra ecclesiam non est salus" is a teaching of the Church. The early Church Fathers taught this. Please refer to the Catechism of the Catholic Church for the proper understanding.
The fact is, after Adam’s sin, NONE OF US was on the way to heaven, and we were a damned race. The only reason any single solitary human being made it into heaven, or will make it in the future, is Jesus Christ: he alone is the savior, and there is no other savior except for him. The Church is the body of Christ. Some people who scoff at the Church’s teaching on no salvation outside the Church, besides regularly misunderstanding it, often suffer from that pride by which they think that, no matter what they do or believe, they will go to heaven when they die; yet that is an error more glaring and unsustainable than the fundamentalist version of “extra ecclesiam non est salus” which they arrogantly ridicule.

Of course, the Church did not start out with a huge body of doctrine already written. The life and faith of the Church was so obvious to the first Christians, that documentation and proofs of that source were not necessary. Of course the Pope is infallible, who would doubt that? Yet some did very late in history, and in 1871 Vatican I defined it dogmatically.

And so it gets down to this: not proofs, but belief in the Church. Belief in the Church is not the end conclusion of some syllogism, but simply the act of the will to decide to believe her as a witness.

 

[JackQ]

All bishops are the successors of Peter and all the other Apostles, each has the power to bind and loose.

Well, this is simply a statement of Orthodox ecclesiology. I understand that you believe this to be true, but it would be an inadequate rendition of Catholic doctrine.

The church is where the bishop is.

To be in the Catholic Church a bishop must be in communion with the bishops who are in communion with the bishop of Rome, the successor of Peter. This cannot be said of a bishop in schism, even if he is a valid recipient of the sacrament of orders.

There is a difference between “being in communion” and “being under the administration of”. It is possible to be in communion with the bishop of Rome and yet not be under his administrative authority.

Logically, that’s true. But it begs the question of what Christ intended for his Church. Having the keys of the kingdom of heaven, which were given to Peter alone, denotes administrative authority.

That is how the earlier church functioned, and it can be that way again.

That’s not exactly accurate. The Pope has always had administrative authority in the entire Church. It’s true that the Curia wasn’t always there. There are a lot of Catholics who would agree that the Curia has usurped too much power. My personal position is that much of the centrality of governance in the Church was necessitated by the Church’s struggles with European monarchs who felt that they should have the last word in the Church. I’m sure you will agree with me that whoever is supposed to have authority in the Church it shouldn’t be monarchs or any other civil government.

The Armenians, Jacobite Syrians and Copts are all in communion with each other, and yet the churches to not have any arrangement where the lead bishop of one controls the others. They have never needed such an arrangement.

Likewise among the Orthodox in communion with Constantinople. Each synod is independent, elevating it’s own bishops and controlling it’s own affairs. It is not necessary to be under a bishop to be in communion with him, it never was.

It’s true that it is not necessary to be under a bishop to be in communion with him, but the Pope has a special ministry that was given to him by Christ. Making it difficult for him to perform that ministry by refusing to acknowledge it isn’t very neighborly.

The communions that you mention are able to function without a Pope, just as are the Protestants, the Mormons, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the Moose Lodge. But this again begs the question of how Christ wants his Church to be governed.

Being the Catholic Church, we have to be available to everyone. The Chinese government would second your opinion regarding the authority of the Pope, and, in furtherance of that view, has established its own Chinese catholic church, driving the Catholic Church in communion with the Pope underground. This is so the atheistic government can have the last word in church matters. Clearly, your decentralization model won’t work in China.

Further response is in the next post.

 

[JackQ]

Orthodox and Latin Catholics could be in communion again someday soon. That doesn’t mean that our church would be controlling your church (or vice versa). What that would mean is that we believe the same things, this has always been the Orthodox standard for communion. Anytime a new doctrine is introduced which anathematizes those who cannot accept it, it negates the effectiveness the other beliefs, practices and devotions which otherwise faithful Christians have accepted and understood. It becomes a “liberum veto” keeping people out of heaven.

For a doctrine that is really not central to Jesus Christ’s teaching (or non-essential to salvation) it is a potentially cruel trap. I say “potentially”, because it is by no means certain that the church can actually damn otherwise good people over ideas that should not have been proclaimed doctrines in the first place.

What the church can do, in reality, is deny it’s people the sacraments, which can put them each at a serious disadvantage as they strive for salvation. For those of us who share a sacramental theology this is very important.

Oddly enough, the church under the Papacy publicly anathematizes it’s own people if they do not believe the Papal doctrines (see Vat Council 1870AD), essentially excommunicating them Latae Sententiae. Yet in recent decades it extends an offer of communion to Old Catholics and Orthodox, outsiders who do not believe those same doctrines. Rather inconsistent and sadly ironic.

Surely you’re not saying that the Orthodox would come into communion with us as long as we asserted the doctrinal truth of the filioque? The fact is, an Orthodox Christian is allowed communion in our churches as far as we are concerned. I don’t believe that the Orthodox reciprocate. The reason why the Catholic Church doesn’t exclude Orthodox Christians on her own initiative is because there is no reason to make ordinary Christians, who clearly believe what is necessary regarding the Eucharist, suffer because Church leaders are having theological debates.

I hope and pray that you are right that we will be in communion someday soon. But if the Orthodox are hoping that we will renounce the filioque and papal infallibility, well, that’s not going to happen on this planet.

Personally, I think of papal infallibility as a gift to the Church. It protects us against, among other things, the personal idiosyncracies of the men who occupy the Chair of Peter at any given time. If a heretic or even an atheist became Pope, the Holy Spirit wouldn’t allow him to make dogma out of his personal views. This gives us the assurance that what the Pope announces as dogma is the truth. Of course, accepting this requires that one acknowledge the possibility that his own opinions might be in error.

It is important to keep in mind that when the Church makes a doctrinal pronouncement through an ecumenical council or an infallible statement of the Pope, it is never something entirely new. What the Church is doing is responding to certain errors that have arisen, and stating the truth has she has always held in a way that addresses those errors. For example, the First Council of Nicea spoke of the relationship of the Son to the Father in terms that were not expressed in the New Testament, but in a way to counter the Arian heresy. The Church does this not for the purpose of excluding people with different opinions, but so that those who are actually interested in the answers to the questions that arise will have a clear answer, which is something that helps them on the path to salvation. Unfortunately, there are some who value their own opinions more, or who do not believe that the Church has the ability to decide such questions, and, of course, such people are sadly not able to benefit from the gift of the Holy Spirit to the Church.

 

[excaliber]

Christ clearly said you are peter and on this rock I will build my church. Christ was eather making a very important statement that dealt with this problem…or making a statement that had virtualy no meaning, and that potentially would mislead people.

Obviously there had to be someone with athority, because the Apostles argued over this very thing while Christ was on earth.

Christ was there to stop these disputes, but who would do so when he left?

I think Christ dealt with it by giving peter the keys, BUT Peter probably
did not fully understand infallability. And THAT is what this argument is over today.

 

[excaliber]

I think its important, that most protestants view the bible very highly. Which means SCRIPTURE and not church history will be what
many protestants will side with.

Scripture records peter as having the keys…scripture records Christ changing peters name to rock, and making a statement that basicly makes him Pope.

I have not seen the Orthodox with a single scripture to support them, only an early council where they try to guess what happened but don’t know for sure.

 

[dzheremi]

I do not like that reasoning. What Protestants believe is irrelevant, since this thread deals with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I was told in RCIA that we are to view Scripture as a part of tradition, not separate from it, and this is the view that makes sense to me. So it seems odd to me that an early council (which one?) would be pitted against Scripture and seen as less valid by virtue of it not being Scripture.

 

[excaliber]

I do not like that reasoning. What Protestants believe is irrelevant, since this thread deals with Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I was told in RCIA that we are to view Scripture as a part of tradition, not separate from it, and this is the view that makes sense to me. So it seems odd to me that an early council (which one?) would be pitted against Scripture and seen as less valid by virtue of it not being Scripture.

The council in scripture where the issue of circumsision was dealt with.

I represent my own background,
having been born and raised protestant I lean heavily on scripture.

Protestant converts are very valid in this discusion, because protestant converts have to decide between Catholic or Orthodox.

A very difficult task when you where NOT taught about tradishion or church history.

 

[dzheremi]

I understand. I am also a convert from Protestantism. But, strictly speaking, matters such as the division between the Catholics and the Orthodox have nothing to do with Protestant groups or their views of the Bible (although I realize that in the eyes of some, the Roman Pope appears to be the “first among Protestants”…that’s an argument for others, I guess).