Sola Scriptura Question

[brumano]

As an Eastern Orthodox, I think it is incorrect to to consider the Orthodox and Catholic churches as two denominations. I view them as one church that has been in schism for a millennium and is currently working toward full communion.

The mutual excommunication was lifted in 1965 and confirmed by recent Popes and Ecumenical Patriarchs. The Orthodox and the Catholic churches share huge swaths of doctrine and liturgical practice.

There’s no doubt that we are the same church in our origins.
I don’t think there’s anyway to truly reunify without acceptance on the part of the East of the Pope as the Primate of the Universal Church, and that would be a must particularly on infallible teachings but there would not coincidentally be Papal mandates forthcoming to change such things as Eastern Rites, or impose a rule of celibacy for priests (further than the rules already existing) or anything else that would create an insurmountable obstacle to unity.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

A major area of debate currently is defining the what the role of the Pope would be in the churches of the east. Historically the Orthodox considered the Bishop of Rome to be the “first among equals,” which is different from the role the Pope has played in the west.

John

Although I disagree with your statement about the Orthodox and the Catholic Churches being the same church in a schism (hopefully they can be united again), I always thought the EOC’s thought of the Patriarch of Constantinople as the first among equals .

 

[Robert_in_SD]

I can’t answer these questions… any ideas?

If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

From bible.ca/catholic-questions.htm

The teaching authority of the Church founded by Jesus Christ does not stand or fall based solely upon apostolic succession and oral tradition. The teaching authority of the Church is a separate charism entirely. So, I think the argument falls apart at the premise. If Catholic claims to doctrinal authority were based upon apostolic succession in the sense of some spiritual game of “telephone” from bishop to bishop as some anti-Catholics try to posit, then I suppose the argument would have more traction. But that is not the basis of the claim.

Regarding the orthodox/catholic split, what is stunning is that in 1000+ years the differences in doctrine remain so slight despite the millenia in which the orthodox have been separated. Perhaps it comes from the fact that with only rare exceptions, the Orthodox churches have remained apostolic?

Peace,
Robert

Peace,
Robert