P
pablope
Guest
Well…how did Scripture determine that the Council agreed with Scripture?
- Status
P
pablope
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
The difference is explained further here…if you dare to read it:
calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/
‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology…What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it. For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.
Aquinas believed that faith in Christ necessarily involves trusting the Church, because Christ cannot fail to guide and protect the development of His Church.
I came to see that I did not fully trust Christ, not because I thought Him untrustworthy, but because I had not understood that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head, and which He has promised to protect and preserve until He returns. I had not apprehended the ecclesial organ Christ established through which the members of His Body are to trust Him. I came to see that faith in Christ is not something to be exercised invisibly, from my heart directly to Christ’s throne, as though Christ had not appointed an enduring line of shepherds. Inward faith was to be exercised outwardly, by trusting Christ through those shepherds Christ sent and established. Jesus had said, “The one who listens to you listens to Me, and the one who rejects you rejects Me; and he who rejects Me rejects the One who sent Me.”29
This is the sacramental conception of faith, not simply belief that, but belief through. This is the sacramental conception of the Church, the basis for the priest speaking in persona Christi.
But upon coming to understand that Christ founded a visible hierarchically organized Body of which He is the Head and which He promised to preserve, I came to see that the way to trust Christ is to trust His Church of which He is the Head, just as the early Christians trusted Christ precisely by trusting the teaching of the Apostles. Trusting the Apostles did not subtract from (or compete with) their trust in Christ. On the contrary, when Jesus tells the Apostle Thomas, “Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed,”30 He implies that greater faith is required and shown in those who trust in Christ not by seeing Him, but by believing the testimony of the Apostles. Jesus refers to this way of believing when He prays, “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word.”31
P
pablope
Guest
St. Ireneus and St. Optatus said through the proper succession from the Apostles…but of course, you have no recourse to this because you Lutherans have ditched the Sacrament of Holy Orders…and you confess the Bishop of Rome is the Anti-Christ.
St. Optatus gave one option…in telling the Donatists they were in schism:
calledtocommunion.com/2011/06/st-optatus-on-schism-and-the-bishop-of-rome/
Later in the work he shows that St. Peter, the Head of the Apostles, was the first to occupy the Episcopal Cathedra in Rome, and that the purpose of this Cathedra was to preserve unity among all Christians, including even the other Apostles. He writes:
You cannot then deny that you do know that upon Peter first in the City of Rome was bestowed the Episcopal Cathedra, on which sat Peter, the Head of all the Apostles … that, in this one Cathedra, unity should be preserved by all [in qua unica Cathedra unitas ab omnibus servaretur], lest the other Apostles might claim each for himself separate Cathedras, so that he who should set up a second Cathedra against the unique Cathedra would already be a schismatic and a sinner. Well then, on the one Cathedra, which is the first of the Endowments, Peter was the first to sit.25
P
pablope
Guest
G
guanophore
Guest
Yes, all of us have the unity of the Aposotlic faith for centuries. What is valid in each is valid in all. This is a good place for our Protestant brethren to look, because what causes unity is adherance to the Truth. Whatever we all share represents that unified Truth. One aspect of that Truth (shared by all of us) is that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the faith.
None of us are “people of the book” as are many of our separated brethren, who extract their faith from the pages of theScriptures. Instead our faith was handed down to us from the Apostles. We see that faith reflected in the Scriptures, but they are not the Source of it - Jesus is the Source.
On the contrary, this is where we can trace unity, and where it was lost. Lutherans appeal to a great deal of tradition, and share much in common with Catholics through it.
In fact, the fracturing of the Lutheran communion is being caused by those who are departing from tradition.
That being said, I do agree that an appeal to tradition by itself is not sufficient.
A very good question. How did the early Christians do this? Jesus was clear that disputes were to be taken to the authority He appointed. It was this authority that resolved the heterodox views throughout history. Jesus promised that His Church would not fall into error specifically so that we would NOT have to rely on our own personal interpretations.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Hi Alex,
Yes it does appear that a number of Protestant churches are not well versed in church history, and so many times parishes want to teach church history but people are so busy, that the gatherings end up pretty much the same people usually under 10 attending. So they just don’t have them.
You have to ask the Catholic pastor to find good texts as I did.
There is this ‘Trail of Blood’ as ‘proof’ to some that there was a separate group of Christians as the Catholics…if they believe Catholics were around then. This ‘Trail of Blood’ panned out with no documentation going back to the time of the Anabaptists themselves, if I recall properly.
He Ekklesia Katolika is Greek, meaning Universal Church, the name given to it by St. Ignatius of Antioch who was going to his martyrdom in 107 AD. So ‘Katolika’ is Catholic in English and simply means universal.
As I share with others many times, the Church simply took the OT in the Septuagint tradition, the most accurate translation in Greek of the books of Scripture, the translation Christ and the apostles and St. Paul used.
And the liturgy, the form of worship, began as the Breaking of Bread, giving thanks, a sacred meal that developed over time. St. Justin the Martyr described the Mass in Rome in 154 AD given to the emperor of Rome. It describes the foundation, parts, tone, and spirit that is the same today.
The Church first tried out the conciliar model of governing in some places but fail back on the Jewish model of one head, the bishop.
The foundation of the Apostles Creed, that describes the components of our faith was completed before 200 AD, but its initial parts, the Septuagint tradition, the liturgy as Mass…all were in place by 100 AD, the Church then primarily Jewish.
The area of Luther’s looked at the Catholic Church as based on ‘corrupt clergy and paying one’s way to heaven’ but this concept not shared by other areas of Germany…I gleaned this from Guanaphore’s comment today. And there was nationalism on the rise there and in Great Britain.
It is good to study history but everybody is at different levels and at different times, so it is hard to access. I have one book recommended by my pastor that goes into detail that I gave you but am not sure if you want to read it, but if you are interested, you can PM me.
Yes it does appear that a number of Protestant churches are not well versed in church history, and so many times parishes want to teach church history but people are so busy, that the gatherings end up pretty much the same people usually under 10 attending. So they just don’t have them.
You have to ask the Catholic pastor to find good texts as I did.
There is this ‘Trail of Blood’ as ‘proof’ to some that there was a separate group of Christians as the Catholics…if they believe Catholics were around then. This ‘Trail of Blood’ panned out with no documentation going back to the time of the Anabaptists themselves, if I recall properly.
He Ekklesia Katolika is Greek, meaning Universal Church, the name given to it by St. Ignatius of Antioch who was going to his martyrdom in 107 AD. So ‘Katolika’ is Catholic in English and simply means universal.
As I share with others many times, the Church simply took the OT in the Septuagint tradition, the most accurate translation in Greek of the books of Scripture, the translation Christ and the apostles and St. Paul used.
And the liturgy, the form of worship, began as the Breaking of Bread, giving thanks, a sacred meal that developed over time. St. Justin the Martyr described the Mass in Rome in 154 AD given to the emperor of Rome. It describes the foundation, parts, tone, and spirit that is the same today.
The Church first tried out the conciliar model of governing in some places but fail back on the Jewish model of one head, the bishop.
The foundation of the Apostles Creed, that describes the components of our faith was completed before 200 AD, but its initial parts, the Septuagint tradition, the liturgy as Mass…all were in place by 100 AD, the Church then primarily Jewish.
The area of Luther’s looked at the Catholic Church as based on ‘corrupt clergy and paying one’s way to heaven’ but this concept not shared by other areas of Germany…I gleaned this from Guanaphore’s comment today. And there was nationalism on the rise there and in Great Britain.
It is good to study history but everybody is at different levels and at different times, so it is hard to access. I have one book recommended by my pastor that goes into detail that I gave you but am not sure if you want to read it, but if you are interested, you can PM me.
S
Seekerjn316
Guest
There is no evidence Jesus of Nazareth, a Palestinian Jew would use the LXX, a translation for the Diaspora Jews, many of whom no longer spoke or wrote Hebrew…Paul spoke Greek, and sought converts among the “God fearers” among the Gentiles, who neither spoke nor read Hebrew…Jesus never ventured oiut of Palestine.
The writers of the gospels used the LXX, but none of the writers of the gospels were apostles of Jesus, all Palestinian Jews…
The writers of the gospels used the LXX, but none of the writers of the gospels were apostles of Jesus, all Palestinian Jews…
Does not the Catholic Church speak of distinct churches, sui iuris churches? And do not the Orthodox speak of autocephalous and autonomous churches which have self-government?
It seems rather common to speak of independent, individual, distinct churches within the One True Church.
Jon
P
Peter_J
Guest
S
SalusaSecondus
Guest
And Cyprian declared that all apostles and bishops were ordained with the same authority as Peter. Why should I go with Optatus over Cyprian?
S
SalusaSecondus
Guest
Yet the EO and the RC and the OO are hardly unified. Is the EO doctrine that all bishops are equal and invested with the same power and authority apostolic doctrine? How should I decide who I should belong to without relying at least in part on my private interpretation of scripture and history’s?
Is Jesus the source of Eastern Orthodoxy too?
That’s good news. I defer to the church on a great many things.
S
SalusaSecondus
Guest
Sounds like a rousing endorsement of Eastern Orthodoxy. However he falls into the same trap that the RC apologists are constantly warning about. He is using his own private interpretation to determine truth that is the truth that he believes the RCis the correct church. At some a point the buck stops with him. How is that different from the Protestants who discern truth using their own private interpretation?
S
SalusaSecondus
Guest
No, millions ended up agreeing with Luther. And the majority of Christian communions agree that the bishop of Rome is not the universal bishop. That all the other centers of Christiandom reject the claims of the papacy is not evidence of the falseness of its claims on its own but it does give me pause.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Actually if you want to use straight numbers:
1.25 billion Catholics
800 million Protestants/non denominationals
300 million Orthodox.
I think this is a foolish way to settle the matter, but by the numbers you don’t win.
The real answer is the majority of bishops in council have the protection of the Holy Spirit. By that standard, Protestants lose by unanimous vote.
S
SalusaSecondus
Guest
Now that is obviously false. In fact bishops in councils have gotten it wrong time and time again. In fact your own church rejects over 40 of these councils. And even councils that your church accepts have some canons that the Holy Spirit dropped the ball on like Canon 28 of Chalcedon. It’s not until hundreds of years later that anyone knows whether the council is a really real council guided by the Holy Spirit.
C
ChaosGamma
Guest
This is slightly off-topic, but I’ve seen you and some of the other Lutherans on here bring up the word and sacraments before and I’m wondering what your take is then on denominations that don’t believe in the sacraments. Or groups like the Quakers or the Salvation Army that don’t even have ordinances, so don’t have baptism or communion at all.
In regard to the word, I would think Lutherans would consider justification by faith alone as a pretty important part of the Gospel, so how could churches (Catholic, Orthodox, &c) that don’t believe in sola fide be considered to be teaching the word?
What term then should we use to refer to not-in-communion-with-Rome, not-Eastern-Orthodox, not-Oriental-Orthodox, not-Church-of-the-East Christian bodies? I don’t really understand the whole issue with the term “protestant”, other than the fact that in some instances (the present question, arguably) it’s rather unhelpful because “protestants” refers to such a broad range of beliefs.
Is this how the “office” of the Papacy is supposed to be Antichrist? So how could the Pope himself not be Antichrist if he is exercising authority and teaching things that are against the commands of Christ?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Mystic,
You better consult with the Catholic/Orthodox Church whose Scriptures are based on the Greek Septuagint.
They go way back to the beginning. And there was no printing press then either. To be clearer, I am referring to the Old Testament translation. The Septuagint is most accurate.
It goes back to the time so many hundreds of years before Christ, that the Emperor Ptolemy of Egypt wanted to build the greatest library in the world and consulted to having 70 Jewish rabbis come there to transcribe the bible for his library.
He had all 70 rabbis separated to compose the books. When they were all finished, the books of each rabbi was brought forward. Every book, every chapter, paragraph, phrase, and wording was identical to that of all the other 70 rabbis. This is a miracle of the Holy Spirit. And the Septuagint is the translation Our Lord, His apostles, and St. Paul used.
Scribes wrote out the letters of the Epistles that were sent to the emerging churches. The Gospel of St. John took up to 90 years because they needed verification that he was indeed the author. The Book of Hebrews took 200 years to verify that St. Paul was indeed the author.
So the Church seeks only the truth of Jesus Christ, Who He is, His teachings, and does not accept readily anything without discernment. This is called being in the spirit of the Church. Same with theologians and teachers. Origin comes to mind who accomplished great works in his earlier service. But later he wrote theological reflections…and in the spirit of the Church, submitted them for discernment, but the Church considered them heretical.
You better consult with the Catholic/Orthodox Church whose Scriptures are based on the Greek Septuagint.
They go way back to the beginning. And there was no printing press then either. To be clearer, I am referring to the Old Testament translation. The Septuagint is most accurate.
It goes back to the time so many hundreds of years before Christ, that the Emperor Ptolemy of Egypt wanted to build the greatest library in the world and consulted to having 70 Jewish rabbis come there to transcribe the bible for his library.
He had all 70 rabbis separated to compose the books. When they were all finished, the books of each rabbi was brought forward. Every book, every chapter, paragraph, phrase, and wording was identical to that of all the other 70 rabbis. This is a miracle of the Holy Spirit. And the Septuagint is the translation Our Lord, His apostles, and St. Paul used.
Scribes wrote out the letters of the Epistles that were sent to the emerging churches. The Gospel of St. John took up to 90 years because they needed verification that he was indeed the author. The Book of Hebrews took 200 years to verify that St. Paul was indeed the author.
So the Church seeks only the truth of Jesus Christ, Who He is, His teachings, and does not accept readily anything without discernment. This is called being in the spirit of the Church. Same with theologians and teachers. Origin comes to mind who accomplished great works in his earlier service. But later he wrote theological reflections…and in the spirit of the Church, submitted them for discernment, but the Church considered them heretical.
S
Starwarsfan2
Guest
There are 960 -965 million" Protestants " plus 85 million oriental Orthodox, so by the numbers the majority say that the papacy has usurped power , I agree that numbers don’t really solve the matter, but it should make you think a bit .
P
pablope
Guest
It depends on your interpretation of Cyprian.
St. Optatus was speaking to the Donatists…and telling them what standard to base upon.
And he did not cite any Alexandria or Jerusalem or Antioch…he cited Rome.
- Status