E
edkw55
Guest
My knowledge of these things is not great. Thanks for correcting me. I understand the East West Schism a bit better now. Orthodox Church = Eastern Orthodox Church. Is this correct???
Ed
- Status
Ed
A
adf417
Guest
And to be fair, Orthodox would state this in reverse - that the Catholic Church is who is in schism with the Orthodox Church.
Peace!!!
S
Seraphignatius
Guest
In providing the Sacraments they are holy; in accepting all men and spreading their religion throughout the world they are catholic; in receiving their holy orders through valid succession they are apostolic, but as per lacking the unity essential to be the church founded by Christ, they’d be wrong.And to be fair, Orthodox would state this in reverse - that the Catholic Church is who is in schism with the Orthodox Church.
Peace!!!
B
benhur
Guest
It was nice at the beginning, in that aspect wasn’t it? what happened ? What can we do now with all the fractures ? How about find out was is universal to all and bare the rest and is that what they did in the beginning ? What part of your Catholicism would you give up for unity ? Is this déjà vu like did not the first covenants start out simple and then came complexities even divisiveness ? How fractured was Judaism by the time Christ arrived ? Was Judaism invisible because she couldn’t figure out if there is a resurrection or not ?..Why do I ask questions and dance around your question, (even though I think I have danced smack thru it) ? Because I have the feeling your desire is unity by the Orthodox, the Protestants and many others forsaking all their convictions that differ with Rome and casting full allegiance to her, for only she is visible Truth…Sorry I can not help you here…so your “peace” is appreciated and likewise wished back.Why all the questions? I asked a simple one and gave a simple example of how this question was answered in the early church and you dance around it. Why?If there is a visible church as you say then all of Christianity should know if baptism is or is not symbolic, if Christ is or is not really present in the Eucharist, if we should or should not circumcise - oh never mind that one is taken care of. Well you know what I mean…
Peace!!!
B
benhur
Guest
Why all the questions? I asked a simple one and gave a simple example of how this question was answered in the early church and you dance around it. Why?
Peace!!!
B
benhur
Guest
Your “always” I differ with. Others have been honest enough to admit several NT writers refer to Nt writings as scripture peter Paul revelation maybe. That oral came first is immaterial. Several NT writers are explicit as to the purpose of their writings, to set the record straight. They had written records and lawyers back then too and the Nt writers, were aware of the unsurpassed value of " getting it in writing" …As to your hands off criticizing my church policy all I can think off is that you are definitely of Peter , or what am I to you, for those that are for me are not against me our Lord says. Even your Lucien gentum puts me in the Body of Christ and as such I have the responsibility to discern all things to see if they are so, without lying to our Lord.
B
benhur
Guest
Lol you actually got me to press the “x” frantically …
B
benhur
Guest
Don’t have abrogation that is newer teachings.we are talking about method of conveyance of same teachings hence truth is not above truth. What we are talking about is source as in oral or tradition that is unwritten vs what is written. As far as Paul and possible contradictions I am suggesting I do not know anything except that which has been handed to us via writing and tradition etc. The writing that has been handed down is more trustworthy than those handing it down and I don’t think they would mind me saying so and may not want it any other way. The last thing a good salesman says is, “Take my word for it” .No, since the former is true and the latter is false.
So, for those who can discern the difference between truth and falsehood, there is a distinct difference.
This is quite a strawman.
No, not above scripture, since truth is never above truth.
That’s like asking you to show that Romans is above Acts.
That may be true in Islam, but not Christianity. (The principle of “abrogation” where newer teachings supersede older teachings in the Quran)
Are you suggesting that St. Paul’s oral teaching contradicted his written tradition?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
But your tradition is grossly inconsistent with the tradition of the church for 1600 years.
It’s like if your great grandfather wrote letters about something significant. And your family bound them on a book and shared them with others and you even wrote books about the letters and told the story of your family.
Then one day many years later someone throws away your books, says your family is all wrong and he takes the letters and starts teaching something new and saying this is how it always should have been. You and your family are wrong and the letters speak for them self and this is what they really mean.
How would you and your family feel about such a person?
B
benhur
Guest
We differ on simple bible discourses so probably would differ on early fathers. Many reformers studied them to make sure these are not just our private interpretations…as far as the responsibility of rightly dividing the word, not sure ther is an office for that and we are all to do that,yet there is an office of teaching,which is not quite interpreting.we also have office pastoral or to protect the message,which again is not exactly like “interpreting”. That is not to say apostles,bishops/presbyters so called leaders along with the entire body can not make decisions even applications such as Jerusalem council but I would not call that an office.
As far as setting tradition against the written well I would prefer not to except to prevent here say. Hence the warning not to go above what is finally written…The Lord graces us with proper understanding or context us as in ecclesia, the called out (to meet) ones, the Body of Christ. We had better rightly divide and support His Word,but like faith that The Lord questioned, how will He find us doing upon His return ?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Are you aware of Ignatius of Antioch and his writings? When they were given to Calvin he said they were forgeries and fake because they were so opposite his view.
It’s since been proven again and again that they are legitimate.
B
benhur
Guest
Yet those letters would strongly imply a definitive source of truth and what if all my forefather writings were not unanimous on interpretation of said source or even of tradition surrounding or coming from said source ? But like our foundational fathers sometimes said, yes take our witness for it is first hand but as to it’s cohesiveness with scripture I’ll share and see it for yourself, for as the spirit illumined us he will illumine you…PS nothing really new or for the first time came about in 1600, except maybe for one terminology describing the same old wheel, the dreaded SS, which we discuss. If it was new it was to counter a previous new thing that was not from the beginning also.
B
benhur
Guest
We’ll be careful for even the cc eventually said 7 of the 14 were, but don,t know if that was post or pre Calvin. Yes there are a minority of historians who think all 14 spurious, using the same evidences we do,scripture and other writings…we are such popes aren’t we.?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
This idea is nothing but fantasy. This is the part where I say the church’s tradition is consistent for those 1600 years. And you point out a paragraph here a paragraph there that you say supports yours. So I show history and thousands of documents showing a Catholic Church with seven sacraments and the same ecclesiology today, as it was in the first century and then you find one paragraph of one document, or even one sentence and say See look its all wrong and I am right see that sentence.
You ignore that the guy writing the document said mass, and listened to confessions, and preached from the deuterocanonicals, and submitted to his bishop, etc…etc…etc…
Im not going there today.
But I think that you are kidding yourself if you believe what you write. It is a position of ignorance or a position of blindness.
B
benhur
Guest
Cool. so it is not that easy to discern.it is not that simple as one saying it is the One and Only.yes the scripture implies the individual realities but corporate also…I do think there is wheat in all denominations as well a stares.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
I can agree to this.
What we hold about the visible church is that Christ gave it doctrine and authority and the Holy Spirit to protect it. All that is found in the Bible too!
If your Bible is a product of the Holy Spirit and the visible church, how can you say there is no longer a visible church (one body).
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Ed yes, that is my understanding. The orthodox are in schism with us and BTW the Orthodox would say the same of us, that e are in schism with them.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi adf: I agree!And to be fair, Orthodox would state this in reverse - that the Catholic Church is who is in schism with the Orthodox Church.
Peace!!!
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi benhur: It is not immaterial as the Church and the faith existed before the Bible; thousands of people became Christians through the work of the Apostles and missionaries of Christ in various lands, and believed the whole truth of God as Catholic’s believe it now, before they ever they saw or read, or could possibly see or read, a single sentence of inspired Scripture of the New Testament, for the simple reason that such Scripture as such did not then exist. The writings of the New Testament were produced and called forth by special circumstances that arose, ere written to meet particular demands and emergencies. Nothing was further from the minds of the Apostles than the idea of composing works which should be collected and formed into one volume and so constitute the Holy Book of the Christians. I think the Apostles and writers of what is the New Testament would be staring in amazement if they had been told that there writings would be tied up together and elevated into the position of a complete and exhaustive statement of the doctrines of Christianity, to be placed in each man’s hand as an easy and infallible guide in faith and morals, independent of any living and teaching authority to interpret them. I think no one would have been more surprised or shocked at the idea of the writings of the Apostles and Paul’s Epistles usurping the place of the authoritative teacher- the Catholic Church, than the Apostles who did write or Paul who wrote his Epistles.
S
Seraphignatius
Guest
Just like protestants insist we’re the ones who are heretics, and both groups are wrong. Even the Greek Fathers and Doctors condemn the Non Florentine Churches when they say (for instance) that " [Christ] appointed Peter teacher, not of the chair [diocese; i.e. the seat of the bishop], but of the world." as St. John Chrysostom does in Homily 88 on the Gospel of John.
- Status