There can only be One Church that has the Final Authority.

[Marie_Gregg]

---

**

That is not the church’s way of saying, “Get out, we don’t want your kind around here!” It’s a way of saying, “Brother, sister, we love you, and you are seriously on a wrong path. Wake up before it’s too late.”

@ Bz5 - What a beautiful way of defining church discipline.

 

[Denise1957]

Ufamtobie,

You are putting forth your own interpretation of scripture as being Catholic teaching, but I’m pretty sure that the Catholic Chruch does not teach that it can or does cast anyone into Hell. The Church cannot even say for sure that anyone in particular in is Hell. She can only say who is in Heaven (the saints). The Church does give us the guidelines necessary for staying in a state of grace, so as to receive graces needed to merit Heaven when we die. But it’s up to us, using our free will, to cooperate with what the Church teaches, and also with the graces that are given to us. Yes, there is a Hell (I think that the term Hell is mentioned about 63 times in the NT), and there is a Heaven. I’m not trying to say that Hell is empty, either.

It would be better to find out the Church’s true position on interpretation of a particular scriptural passage.

 

[Sufjon]

Of course this is a Hindu interpretation of christian scriptures outside christian understanding of it in the early church down the ages.

Hi MaryBeloved: That is very true.

Like me reading christian concepts into Islamic texts or texts of other religious traditions. Christ was not a Hindu but a Jew in 1st century Palestine. His sayings cannot be legitimately separated from their context.

A Hindu such as myself would believe that they all fit together, in that we are all addressing the same God.

He clearly says that it is on Peter that he builds his church, the keys of the kingdom are a clear biblical allusion to the keys in the OT that the Prime Minister got from the King to rule the kingdom on his behalf/in his absence.

I see more than one meaning in most of what Jesus said, and I think He chose His words carefully. You are a person of faith and Love MaryBeloved, so I will not argue with you, however, it is my opinion that if you read the whole context of the conversation , He was clearly saying something much more useful. I understand what you believe, and what you believe on that matter vs what I believe will not cause either of us much harm as long as we love each other. But what I think is that Jesus had just asked Peter to identify who and what Jesus was, and when Peter answered correctly, Jesus said to him that Peter had spoken the truth. And then He said that this truth was the rock on which He would build His church, and I think He was referring to the truth that Peter had spoken. Then he gave Peter the name Peter or Rock, because he is the one who spoke the truth that was the rock on which He would build His church. That understanding is not insofar as I know in conflict with the culture in which God was visiting at the time. Then He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom of heaven, which was the truth He then spoke about binding and loosing, which too has a higher meaning in my opinion.

But the church is Christ’s body and has means of salvation-Binding and losing refers to making dispensations for the benefit or in service of the faithful.

Of course you know that I think that the universe is Christ’s body, or the fabric into which individual experience is woven. This is why He could clearly say that the bread was His Body and the Wine was His blood. Again, this points to a higher truth. One who eats such bread and drinks such wine is one who perceives the truth about the nature of things and the nature of things is that in all creation there is none but He. He could not have been more direct. This is why we are to love others as we love ourselves and love the Lord, because they are all one thing. The sin, or misalignment in human thinking that Jesus was granting remission of by revealing this truth was the misconception of separateness. This is also very consistent with modern scientific thought. One who has studied modern physics and cosmology will attest to the difficulty in defining where one things ends and another begins. Apparently, the whole of the cosmos is one giant organism, having one consciousness. Any religion that wants to exists for another 100 years will have to deal with these truths, but this shouldn’t be a problem because they do not conflict with anything Jesus said.

Just ask Carl Jung!

He thought more like a Hindu. Have you read the Red book?

I wonder if Hinduism has no rituals or ceremonies?

Yes, it does, but one who is familiar with Hindu scripture to any great degree will have eventually made their way to the final teachings of Krishna, wherein the Lord, while approving of these practices, indicates clearly that they are for those who are at a less advanced stage of spiritual development. There are many paths in Hinduism and they correspond roughly to many Christian practices - Hathayoga, Jnanayoga, Rajayoga, Kriyayoga, Karmayoga and Bhakti Yoga. The highest beings simply love everyone equally and fully and see the Lord in all creatures.

Our faith lived well is rich! Examples abound in the saints who are always absolutely faithful to church teaching many times to the point of death- Our doctrines, laws and spirituality, both corporeal and interior is in complete harmony. And the church is a treasury- it does not do our spirituality/growth for us- that is a strange notion you introduced. If that were true we would have no saints or the immensely rich spiritual traditions we do.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying, but there are saints among the ranks of every faith. We used the term long before there was a Christianity. Further, I would say that there are saints who don’t even have faith or believe in God. People who live their lives in the service of others, love others and feel for others, but lack any faith whatsoever are incredible people. They do good for the sake of love, and have no motive other than that. Such people act not out of fear of punishment and hope of reward. Their are saints among these ranks as well. These people are not lost to God. Nothing is ever lost, and no effort is ever wasted according to the Lord. Nor do I suppose that there are saints who were saints every minute of their lives, nor are there the worst of sinners who were the worst among us every minute of their lives. In Sanatana Dharma (Hinduism) we say that every saint has a past and every sinner has a future.

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[amber_lux]

So in your opinion which step had the Final Authority?

What you are describing is how to address local issues and concerns.

It does not grant an overarching authority to any individual, position, or congregation. More pointedly, the entire message of the NT is that the hierarchy is “Individual <-> God”.

The function of deacons is to address the physical needs of the widows, orphans, and immigrants to the area. The function of elders is to address the spiritual needs of the congregation. In neither instance, is the position part of an organization that extends beyond the local congregation. In both instances, the occupants of the position are chosen by the local congregation.

Jesus had an idea that is as, if not more revolutionary today, than it was 2,000 years ago: The priesthood is a political structure that leads people into doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason at the wrong time.

Amber

 

[Cavaradossi]

What you are describing is how to address local issues and concerns.

It does not grant an overarching authority to any individual, position, or congregation. More pointedly, the entire message of the NT is that the hierarchy is “Individual <-> God”.

The function of deacons is to address the physical needs of the widows, orphans, and immigrants to the area. The function of elders is to address the spiritual needs of the congregation. In neither instance, is the position part of an organization that extends beyond the local congregation. In both instances, the occupants of the position are chosen by the local congregation.

Jesus had an idea that is as, if not more revolutionary today, than it was 2,000 years ago: The priesthood is a political structure that leads people into doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason at the wrong time.

Amber

We must have read two entirely different gospels, and know two entirely different kinds of priests.

 

[Marybeloved]

I see more than one meaning in most of what Jesus said, and I think He chose His words carefully.

That’s true. From the early church the understanding of scripture is that there are several understandings within the same passage, but our position is not either/or, but more all/and- The passage is multi-layered in terms of depth of meaning like most biblical passages; To us, Christ was organizing his church for the sake of visible unity which of course is very important for the lay faithful for whom it exists in terms of one teaching etc; It’s also about the act of faith by St. Peter-recognizing just who he was talking to ; and it can be given an even deeper spiritual meaning; as long as it does not deny the first “corporeal” or outer meaning. In fact the old prayer of meditation of scriptures, lectio divina, follows that understanding: first the outer layer, then the next inner one, and the next deeper one etc- The same scripture can reveal a lot over several years.

But like I said, you necessarily read the Bible via a Hindu understanding. Christians hold a real distinction between all things, so for us, the Eucharist is not at all like any other bread/wine or physical thing. In the Eucharist, Christ becomes a true physical presence in the world yet again, as he was 2000 year ago. We can’t hold that he’s similarly identified with all the other things due to our view of each thing having a real unique existence of its own, it’s a distinct being, though all things have one ground from which they come. But we believe in his presence with everything, and that God is everywhere and in everything but not himself everything. So, I appreciate your view and why you see things that way, but it’s a different lens from the one we ourselves interpret the scriptures through.

He thought more like a Hindu. Have you read the Red book?

Yes, Carl Jung made no secret of his positive view of the eastern “mind” if I can call it that and was very critical of western thought and Catholicism in particular, except his praise of the use of the symbol in Catholic faith, he actually said that he rarely encountered unindividuated Catholics- But of course that was back when most Catholics actually lived and practiced their faith, so… . No, I haven’t read the red book, only articles available on the net. I had to stop it when I realized that curiosity had become a small idol for me.

I’m not sure I understand what you are saying, but there are saints among the ranks of every faith.

I believe you misunderstood. I was not comparing our faith to any other at all or our saints to others. I perceived a slight criticism on your part that the rituals were useless, so I was saying that if that were true then they would not exist so beautifully in the lives of the Saints who are the epitome of spirituality. I was trying to show that they are spiritual or useless depending on how they are approached. If approached like the Saints approach them, the way they are supposed to be approached, they are not empty ritualism or legalistic but very spiritual.

They do good for the sake of love, and have no motive other than that.

Yep! That’s our description of a saint as well- except we add love of God specifically- That they love God for his own sake and others for God’s sake, or as he himself loves, not out of selfish motives.

Such people act not out of fear of punishment and hope of reward.

Yep again. The saints call our first love of God or our first motive and the love of the beginner on the spiritual path- servile fear, which is choosing God (loving him) out of fear of punishment; It’s the love of a slave or servant and remaining here represents a real tragedy; The next one they call “mercenary love”- Because it’s choosing God purely for the sake of reward- like hired mercenaries who do things only for gain, not enough either. Filial love is the love of a child, loving God for his own sake as a father, trusting him as a baby trusts his parent’s strong arms w/out anxiety for wants/needs etc.It’s the free love of Christ for his Father and the Saints’ love for him and his father.

Peace!

 

[Sufjon]

That’s true. From the early church the understanding of scripture is that there are several understandings within the same passage, but our position is not either/or, but more all/and- The passage is multi-layered in terms of depth of meaning like most biblical passages; To us, Christ was organizing his church for the sake of visible unity which of course is very important for the lay faithful for whom it exists in terms of one teaching etc; It’s also about the act of faith by St. Peter-recognizing just who he was talking to ; and it can be given an even deeper spiritual meaning; as long as it does not deny the first “corporeal” or outer meaning. In fact the old prayer of meditation of scriptures, lectio divina, follows that understanding: first the outer layer, then the next inner one, and the next deeper one etc- The same scripture can reveal a lot over several years.

But like I said, you necessarily read the Bible via a Hindu understanding. Christians hold a real distinction between all things, so for us, the Eucharist is not at all like any other bread/wine or physical thing. In the Eucharist, Christ becomes a true physical presence in the world yet again, as he was 2000 year ago. We can’t hold that he’s similarly identified with all the other things due to our view of each thing having a real unique existence of its own, it’s a distinct being, though all things have one ground from which they come. But we believe in his presence with everything, and that God is everywhere and in everything but not himself everything. So, I appreciate your view and why you see things that way, but it’s a different lens from the one we ourselves interpret the scriptures through.
Yes, Carl Jung made no secret of his positive view of the eastern “mind” if I can call it that and was very critical of western thought and Catholicism in particular, except his praise of the use of the symbol in Catholic faith, he actually said that he rarely encountered unindividuated Catholics- But of course that was back when most Catholics actually lived and practiced their faith, so… . No, I haven’t read the red book, only articles available on the net. I had to stop it when I realized that curiosity had become a small idol for me.
I believe you misunderstood. I was not comparing our faith to any other at all or our saints to others. I perceived a slight criticism on your part that the rituals were useless, so I was saying that if that were true then they would not exist so beautifully in the lives of the Saints who are the epitome of spirituality. I was trying to show that they are spiritual or useless depending on how they are approached. If approached like the Saints approach them, the way they are supposed to be approached, they are not empty ritualism or legalistic but very spiritual.Yep! That’s our description of a saint as well- except we add love of God specifically- That they love God for his own sake and others for God’s sake, or as he himself loves, not out of selfish motives. Yep again. The saints call our first love of God or our first motive and the love of the beginner on the spiritual path- servile fear, which is choosing God (loving him) out of fear of punishment; It’s the love of a slave or servant and remaining here represents a real tragedy; The next one they call “mercenary love”- Because it’s choosing God purely for the sake of reward- like hired mercenaries who do things only for gain, not enough either. Filial love is the love of a child, loving God for his own sake as a father, trusting him as a baby trusts his parent’s strong arms w/out anxiety for wants/needs etc.It’s the free love of Christ for his Father and the Saints’ love for him and his father.

Peace!

You and I never completely agree, but I think we understand each other and we always end on a good note

Your friend
Sufjon

 

[ufamtobie]

I urge you to read the quote again,

It provides 3 strikes advice on how to deal with a sinner, a person
The advice works for every individual who is a member of any Christian church
It has nothing to do with Final Authority, since the Chuch takes no action.

Tony, I urge you to read the quote again, so here it is:

Jesus Christ himself says that the Church has the final Authority to cast out those who do not LISTEN to the Church. Jesus Christ listed 3 steps

1st. But if thy brother shall offend against thee, go, and rebuke him between thee and him alone. If he shall hear thee, thou shalt gain thy brother.

2nd. And if he will not hear thee, take with thee one or two more: that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may stand.

3rd. And if he will not hear them: Tell The CHURCH. And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican.

So in your opinion which step had the Final Authority?

There can only be one Church that has the final Authority, Tony where was your LDS for the first 1500? I rest my case:thumbsup:

Ufam Tobie

 

[wisdomseeker]

Greetings, my friend Nicea.
At least for me, it isn’t a dichotomy. Of course He left us the Church as the authority, and as Ufam says, we are told to take it to the Church. What I would say is that the Church practices hermeunetics, as it should, and the Church determines doctrine, using scripture as the final norm to determine said doctrines.

I had a brief chat with my pastor about this the other night, and he agreed with me that as Lutherans we are bound to the teachings of the Church, our individual interpretations notwithstanding.

So, the question is where does that authority reside for interpretation. And my oft-said stance is that, when there is unity amongst the patriarchates, it clearly will reside with them.

Jon

Only if the Truth is based on the amount of people involved. The Truth is one and it comes from God alone through One Church and not from man. Man n the Church is only the holder of the Truth. protestants tend to find all kinds of excuse to not accept the Truth. The seat of Peter is what we seek for the True Church.

 

[wisdomseeker]

So, this could be a dumb question, but I’ll ask anyway.

What does the word “church” mean in this passage? When I think of church, I think of Paul writing of the Body of believers. So, if you tell the church, do you tell everyone in your congregation? That would seem to be problematic to me, as there could be people present who don’t know the Lord. Or does church here mean those in positions of authority, like a pastor, priest, elder, etc.? That also seems problematic, because then aren’t you leaving parts of the Body (the church) out?

My question is genuine. I’m in a position of leadership in my congregation and I often wonder what the best way of handling conflict or outright sin is in light of this passage.

It can only be One Church to resolve the issue among brothers. The Church must have the Truth entrusted to them and must have the promise of Jesus.

the Holy Spirit is promised to the Church Jesus found, therefore no gathering of men without the True Church can have such authority.

St Paul urges the faithfull to entrust the Truth to faifthful men who will pass on to the next generation. where did you get the Truth from?

 

[JonNC]

=wisdomseeker;8566694]Only if the Truth is based on the amount of people involved.

Well, the early Church thought it was important enough - they didn’t view one see as having universal jurisdiction, etc. Things were taken to the whole Church - in council.

The Truth is one and it comes from God alone through One Church and not from man.

Agreed.

Man n the Church is only the holder of the Truth.

Sometimes.

protestants tend to find all kinds of excuse to not accept the Truth.

Polemical nonsense.

The seat of Peter is what we seek for the True Church.

Well, in the early Catholic Church, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc. mattered, too.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Hey Jon, some questions I couldn’t answer:

JonNC …Things were taken to the whole Church - in council.

Regarding the following, why the need to even appeal to the bishop of Rome? Why didn’t they just settle the matter via ecumenical council? Why was it necessary, as per Flavian, for the whole sacred synod, to be obedient to the one bishop of Rome?

Eutyches (Byzantine monk) - argued against Jesus’ human nature which gave way to Monophysitism, and it spread throughout the eastern church, forcing Flavian (patriarch of Constantinople) - to call a local synod to condemn it and as history shows, Eutyches refused to submit to the synod, appealing his case to Pope Leo I. He wrote:

*“I take refuge, therefore, with you, the defender of religion and abhorrer of such factions. …I beseech you not to be prejudiced against me by their insidious designs about me, but to pronounce the sentence which shall seem to you right upon the Faith.”
*

Response to Eutyches:

"We exhort you, honorable brother, that you obediently listen to what has been written by the blessed Pope of the city of Rome, since blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, offers the truth of faith to those who seek… Peter Chrysologus of Ravenna to Eutyches, Ep 25

Eutyches did not submit and the eastern emperor supported Eutyches’ stance. Eutyche then persuaded the emperor to call another council in Ephesus (“Robber Council”) - in which Rome was ignored and Monophysitism declared (unofficially) - to be the orthodox doctrine of the Church. At this same council several other eastern bishops, such as Theodoret of Cyrus and Eusebius of Doryleum were deposed from their sees for refusing to embrace Monophysitism and they too appealed to Leo, saying:

We hasten to your Apostolic See in order to receive from you a cure for the wounds of the Church. For every reason it is fitting for you to hold the first place, inasmuch as your see is adorned with many privileges. I have been condemned without trial. But I await the sentence of your Apostolic See. I beseech and implore Your Holiness to succor me in my appeal to your fair and righteous tribunal. Bid me hasten to you and prove to you that my teaching follows in the footsteps of the Apostles. – Theodoret to Pope Leo, Ep 113

Why not hasten to an ecumenical council, rather then the Apostolic See of Leo, in order to receive a cure for the wounds of the Church?

*The Apostolic throne has been wont from the beginning to defend those who are suffering injustice. I entreat Your Blessedness, give me back the dignity of my episcopate and communion with yourself, by letters from you to my lowliness bestowing on me my rank and communion. – Eusebius of Doryleum to Pope Leo
*

Why didn’t he appeal to an ecumenical council?

Flavian also appealed to Leo:

“When I began to appeal to the throne of the Apostolic See of Peter, the Prince of the Apostles, and to the whole sacred synod, which is obedient to Your Holiness, at once a crowd of soldiers surrounded me and barred my way when I wished to take refuge at the holy altar. …Therefore, I beseech Your Holiness not to permit these things to be treated with indifference…but to rise up first on behalf of the cause of our orthodox Faith, now destroyed by unlawful acts. …Further to issue an authoritative instruction…so that a like faith may everywhere be preached by the assembly of an united synod of fathers, both Eastern and Western. Thus the laws of the fathers may prevail and all that has been done amiss be rendered null and void. Bring healing to this ghastly wound.”

Why didn’t an ecumenical council rise up on behalf of the cause of the orthodox Faith to resolve the matter?

Eventually the Council of Chalcedon was convoked (comprised of basically all eastern bishops) - and Leo’s Tome against Monophysitism was read and embraced with the following pronouncement:

*“This is the faith of the fathers! This is the faith of the Apostles! So we all believe! thus the orthodox believe! Anathema to him who does not thus believe! Peter has spoken thus through Leo! . . . This is the true faith!’”
*

Why would it even matter what one bishop in Rome thought? It ends with the council fathers recognizing Pope Leo as the successor of Peter and the Head of the Church, by saying, via letter:

*You are set as an interpreter to all of the voice of blessed Peter, and to all you impart the blessings of that Faith.
*

*"…Of whom you were Chief, as Head to the members, showing your good will." Chalcedon to Pope Leo (Repletum est Gaudio), November 451
*

Knowing that every success of the children rebounds to the parents, we therefore beg you to honor our decision by your assent, and as we have yielded agreement to the Head in noble things, so may the Head also fulfill what is fitting for the children. – Chalcedon to Pope Leo, Ep 98

Why would they need Leo’s assent? He’s just one man, not a council.

Also we see the recognition that Peter, as per Matthew 16, is the rock on which Jesus’ church is built:

“Wherefore the most holy and blessed Leo, archbishop of the great and elder Rome, through us, and through this present most holy synod together with the thrice-blessed and all-glorious Peter the Apostle, who is the Rock and foundation of the Catholic Church, and the foundation of the orthodox faith, hath stripped him (Dioscorus, Bishop of Alexandria) of his episcopate, and hath alienated from him all hieratic worthiness.” Acts of Chalcedon

 

[JohnVIII]

Hey [user]joe370[/user],

There is no doubt in my mind that Pope Leo and Chalcedon tied the knot between the Eastern Churches and Rome. The Churches who did not submit to Rome and Chalcedon (the Oriental Orthodox) ended up retaining pure orthodoxy. Chalcedon forever changed those Eastern Churches who submitted to it and to Leo. They would have fared better if they were more patient and worked things out without submitting to Rome. But the East has had a long track record of making mistakes. One additional mistake they tried to make Pope Leo would not let them make, that is, they wanted Pope Leo to hold the title of Universal Bishop. The only reason it didn’t happen was because Pope Leo rejected the title.

Since the East/West Schism the Eastern Churches had to work out things themselves without crying for help from Rome. As a result, the Eastern Churches have learned to work out every problem that has come along for 1000 years now, and they have done alot better at it then the first 1000 years. Constantinople tried to take the place of Old Rome, but thank God they couldn’t do it. Then Moscow came along and diffused the Rome-like actions of Constantinople even more.

For all practical purposes there are not one, but two churches in Eastern Orthodoxy that have the final authority, and that authority really isn’t all that final. I think that it has all proven that not only can you have more than one final authority, it works out far better that way.

Of course, if you define “better” differently than I do, and I’m sure you do, you should disagree with my assessments.

In the very beginning there wasn’t a special authority with St Peter (so I believe). It developed over time, and it was (ironically) the Eastern Churches that pushed for Rome’s authority more than any other. But, as I said, the Eastern Churches have made many mistakes. I don’t know it this mistake can ever be fully fixed. Even now the Eastern Churches are still spiritually joined at the hip with Rome. But as the say, once a Catholic always a Catholic!

 

[wisdomseeker]

Well, the early Church thought it was important enough - they didn’t view one see as having universal jurisdiction, etc. Things were taken to the whole Church - in council.

Agreed.

Sometimes.

Polemical nonsense.

Well, in the early Catholic Church, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople, etc. mattered, too.

Jon

You seem to contradict yourself here. If Truth is one and comes from God alone, how can you say that the Truth depends on the amount of people? did Jesus needed lots of people for His Truth to be True?

He only chose 12 to reveal the Truth. humm… that doesnt seem like a whole lot of people.

in the early Church everyone were one, the Apostles tought the same and set up churches with the same teachings.

dont you think that Jesus knew that men would separate themselves from the authority of the Church?

but because people leave the Church, it doesnt mean the Truth stopped. it continued in teh Church according to the promise of Christ. Satan has tried to confuse people so many can no longer know what is true. that is why Jesus build His Church and keeps her under His protection.

Like the holy father said. stay in teh Church and love her, outside her, you will ended with a fake Christ.

that is because outside of her, you cannot know the Truth.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Hey [user]joe370[/user],

There is no doubt in my mind that Pope Leo and Chalcedon tied the knot between the Eastern Churches and Rome. The Churches who did not submit to Rome and Chalcedon (the Oriental Orthodox) ended up retaining pure orthodoxy. Chalcedon forever changed those Eastern Churches who submitted to it and to Leo. They would have fared better if they were more patient and worked things out without submitting to Rome. But the East has had a long track record of making mistakes. One additional mistake they tried to make Pope Leo would not let them make, that is, they wanted Pope Leo to hold the title of Universal Bishop. The only reason it didn’t happen was because Pope Leo rejected the title.

Since the East/West Schism the Eastern Churches had to work out things themselves without crying for help from Rome. As a result, the Eastern Churches have learned to work out every problem that has come along for 1000 years now, and they have done alot better at it then the first 1000 years. Constantinople tried to take the place of Old Rome, but thank God they couldn’t do it. Then Moscow came along and diffused the Rome-like actions of Constantinople even more.

For all practical purposes there are not one, but two churches in Eastern Orthodoxy that have the final authority, and that authority really isn’t all that final. I think that it has all proven that not only can you have more than one final authority, it works out far better that way.

Of course, if you define “better” differently than I do, and I’m sure you do, you should disagree with my assessments.

In the very beginning there wasn’t a special authority with St Peter (so I believe). It developed over time, and it was (ironically) the Eastern Churches that pushed for Rome’s authority more than any other. But, as I said, the Eastern Churches have made many mistakes. I don’t know it this mistake can ever be fully fixed. Even now the Eastern Churches are still spiritually joined at the hip with Rome. But as the say, once a Catholic always a Catholic!

they really never separated themselves from Rome. some mistery here.

I remember reading an article by an Orthodox who pointed how many times the OC came to Rome for help from teh Pope. humm…

 

[joe370]

Hey [user]joe370[/user],

There is no doubt in my mind that Pope Leo and Chalcedon tied the knot between the Eastern Churches and Rome. The Churches who did not submit to Rome and Chalcedon (the Oriental Orthodox) ended up retaining pure orthodoxy.

 

[JohnVIII]

So the non-Chalcedonian churches got it right?

When I said “they retained pure orthodoxy”, I meant that from the standpoint of the 3rd Ecumenical Council, which defined orthodoxy. If you wish to believe that Chalcedon merely refined the definitions of the 3rd of course you may. Whether it be refinement or re-definement is a matter of opinion. I stand with the non-Chalcedonian, but I don’t wish to say “we got it right”, because that imply’s others are wrong. No, like it or not there really is more than one “orthodoxy”. Only in theory is there just one. Rome’s orthodoxy is not less valid than that of the non-Chalcedonian’s. Of course there is only one truth, but no one honestly knows what that is in every particular.

A final authority imply’s there is a need to know every detail about everything. From my perspective, it seems that what Rome has always done to find every detail of truth is to seek for the ideal compromise that can make everyone happy. I am happier if I just accept other views as just as valid as mine; to me this is better than tying to find the ultimate truth via compromise and then try to make everyone subscribe to it via dogmatic proclamation.

If we are to believe the Clementine writings as an authority for the views of St Peter, we might conclude that our first pope may not have even seen Jesus as equal to the Father:

" "Our Lord, neither asserted that there were gods, except the Creator of all, nor did he proclaim himself to be God, but he pronounced him blessed, who called him the Son of that God who ordered the universe. " (Clementine Homilies, 16. 15)

The only point I’m really trying say is those parts of apostolic Christianity that do not have a firm “final authority” (other than God) have a track record of doing just fine. The one Church that does (Rome) is also doing just fine.

Peace!

 

[joe370]

When I said “they retained pure orthodoxy”, I meant that from the standpoint of the 3rd Ecumenical Council, which defined orthodoxy. If you wish to believe that Chalcedon merely refined the definitions of the 3rd of course you may. Whether it be refinement or re-definement is a matter of opinion. I stand with the non-Chalcedonian, but I don’t wish to say “we got it right”, because that imply’s others are wrong.

Kind of hard to know who is right and who is wrong. Even as a former protestant, with catholic leanings, I had always hoped that the holy spirit, as per scripture, was still guiding Jesus’ church into all truth regarding Jesus’ teachings, but if we can’t possibly know who is right and who is wrong, then perhaps I was wrong about the holy spirit after all.

No, like it or not there really is more than one “orthodoxy”.

 

[JohnVIII]

“Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

A teacher (Jesus) - cannot blame his student (me or my protestant sister, who embraces the symbolic meal of the Eucharist) - for getting it wrong unless the teacher gives his/her student a definitively correct answer - right? Did Jesus leave the world with a definitively correct answer? If so then how can one find it? Scripture alone is of no help in the matter.

Would you like to give an answer the your question underlined above? You seem to be saying that Rome has an answer that is better than scripture on this. And if you do have a Rome-based answer is it more persuasive to your protestant sister than John chapter 6 is?

Jesus said, in John chapter 6 that ‘unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you’ and people started to leave Him at that point, but rather than stopping them and saying something like ‘wait, I was only speaking symbolically!’ He turned to His disciples and said, ‘will you leave me too?’. After reading this discourse in John chapter 6 how can it be said that “Scripture alone is of no help in the matter”.

Instead of seeking some type of final authority, which if found would produce no better results, consider what Christ has said under similar circumstances:

" And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. " (Luke 16:31)

 

[joe370]

Would you like to give an answer the your question underlined above?

Sure. Jesus’ one established church is either one of the Eastern Orthodox Churches or the Catholic Church. For me, it’s the Catholic Church. What it logically can’t be is one of the Protestant Churches. At best, any one PC can claim to be the reformed church of Christ.

You seem to be saying that Rome has an answer that is better than scripture on this.