- Status
H
Hesychios
Guest
Actually, according to your church, they do.
H
Hebrew_Student
Guest
ababbidg,
Also, keep in mind that your knowledge of the canon is hanging on the Roman Church being the church that is capible of defining the canon. How do you know that that authority does not lie with the Eastern Orthodox Church? What about the Syrian Orthodox Church [BTW, they argue that Petrine Primacy supports their position]? What about the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all other cults that claim to be the one true church? How do you know that you are right in chosing the Roman Catholic church? If you cannot be sure of that, then you cannot be sure of the canon either.
The same way the Jews living 150 years before the time of Christ knew that Genesis, Exodus, and Deuteronomy were scripture, and the same way we know what the correct interpretations of scripture are. God condescends and, over time, leads his people to what he wants them to have. Thus, our knowledge is dependent upon God, and not upon a church.
Also, keep in mind that your knowledge of the canon is hanging on the Roman Church being the church that is capible of defining the canon. How do you know that that authority does not lie with the Eastern Orthodox Church? What about the Syrian Orthodox Church [BTW, they argue that Petrine Primacy supports their position]? What about the Mormons, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and all other cults that claim to be the one true church? How do you know that you are right in chosing the Roman Catholic church? If you cannot be sure of that, then you cannot be sure of the canon either.
M
mark_a
Guest
I see that you are becoming Orthodox. Congratulations! I’m sure your grasp of the Catholic view of papal infallibility is on target.mark,
In what way do you suppose non–Catholics misunderstand the word “infallible” in relation to the papacy? I reject the whole notion of papal infallibility based upon my understanding of it but I cordially invite you to put forward your understanding of it with a view to eradicating false ideas in non–Catholic minds.
Respectfully,
Mick
Just for giggles, though:
Conditions that must be met for a papal teaching to be infallible
- Must teach or in some way clarify
- Can’t contradict previous teachings
- Must involve faith and morals
- To be held by all
- Statement made of his own free will
- He must invoke the full authority of his office
H
Hesychios
Guest
M
mark_a
Guest
I, for one, used this view as a cop-out during my youth. I’m not saying you use it as a cop-out.
This statement is correct. 100% assurance causes bigtime problems. But I know of no Church that makes this claim. And no, the Catholic Church does not make the claim that Catholic tradition is 100% correct.
I would say that God saves by ordinary and extraordinary means and is not limited to Christianity.
I’m happy you are not saying that, for if I were, I would have no need to be here and exploring faith together with Catholics and others.
Not questioning your statement, but how does that square with the phrase “fullness of truth”?
I agree God cannot be limited in who He saves and doesn’t save.
Jon
H
Hebrew_Student
Guest
mark a,
So, if that is the case, then doesn’t that mean that you can’t even have 100% assurance that 100% assurance causes big problems?
M
mark_a
Guest
The phrase “fullness of truth” is not dogma as far as I know.
All religions contain some truth.
The Catholic Church does not contain all truth and as Pope Benedict has said, does not have a monopoly on truth. However, if the Catholic Church infallibly (see the list above) teaches a truth, it is so. That does not mean that some truths are not difficult, it means that these truths cannot be denied or taught to be untrue.
M
mark_a
Guest
J
Janet1983
Guest
It’not the Pope or the Bishops or even Luther…
The Bible declares that all people are sinners. No one is perfect or infallible in anything:
“For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;” Romans 3:23
“As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:” Romans 3:10
Jesus is the only infallible person who ever lived:
“For he (God) hath made him (Jesus) to be sin for us, who knew no sin…” 2 Corinthians 5:21
Nobody in Scripture, except Jesus, was infallible.
S
Sword_Brethren
Guest
The CAtholic Church was one. Then the Orthodox broke away from the vine. So the Orthodox Church has much truth in it, but not all the truth. Becasue it has seperated itself from the true Church, it is no longer free from error. It has withered since seperated from the true vine.
H
Hesychios
Guest
A
ababbidg
Guest
The canon of the bible was decided at the Council of Rome in 382 AD and confirmed at the council of Hippo in 393 then the Council of Carthage in 397 and another Council of Carthage in 400 something. Being that only the Catholic Church existed at the time, no other church can even make a claim to be the ones that made the bible. In regards to Orthodox, they may have a case. But like I said, I believe the Pope has authority and the Pope is in the Roman Catholic Church, so I don’t buy Orthodox arguments. Protestants, however, can not make a similar case like the Orthodox can.
J
Janet1983
Guest
Let me guess… you judgement on the Protestant churches comes out as even worse than that?
The true church is not an earthly organisation, even though many people think it is. It is not an organization, not a series of buildings, but the body of true believers. The true church therefore consists of regenerate true Christians.
H
Hebrew_Student
Guest
ababbidg,
Third, how can this statement
Not only that, what about the Syrian Orthodox who likewise believe in Petrine primacy, and say that it supports their position, and not your position? Not only that, but what about the Mormons who would say that those councils you cited are irrelevant because there was a mass apostacy in the early church? And what about the Watchtower who uses and eschatological argument to say that church history was building up to them? All of these folks claim the ability to tell what is scripture. Just coming from a fallible person’s “I don’t buy their arguments” doesn’t seem to give anyone any more certainty than protestants have.
First of all, there is a big question as to whether the council of Rome ever occured. Second, even if you say that Hippo and Carthage determined the canon, you still have the problem of the different canon [the leaving out of 3 Esra], and the problem of the fact that these councils taught things contrary to Roman Catholic dogma.
Third, how can this statement
be reconciled with this statement:
If the Catholic church was the only church that existed at this time, then the orthodox don’t have a case, period.
So, in other words, what you are telling me is that your arguments for the certainty of the canon rest upon your fallible arguments against Eastern Orthodoxy being the one true church, which could be wrong? How is that any more certain than the certainty you believe Protestants have?
Not only that, what about the Syrian Orthodox who likewise believe in Petrine primacy, and say that it supports their position, and not your position? Not only that, but what about the Mormons who would say that those councils you cited are irrelevant because there was a mass apostacy in the early church? And what about the Watchtower who uses and eschatological argument to say that church history was building up to them? All of these folks claim the ability to tell what is scripture. Just coming from a fallible person’s “I don’t buy their arguments” doesn’t seem to give anyone any more certainty than protestants have.
Again, I simply point out that Protestants do not believe that we need an infallible church for all of these things. If we simply allow for God to condescend to his people, we can avoid all of these problems. As I wrote:
In fact, you should take a look at the universalism thread. I am beginning to think that this is exactly where these arguments lead. To total skepticism, and, by extension, to universalism.
H
Hesychios
Guest
Orthodoxy regards them as irrelevant.
Because they are outside Holy Orthodoxy, which the Holy Spirit established at Pentecost.
Any one bishop who does not teach orthodox Truth and/or does not have an Orthodox flock is not in the Orthodox church. We do not speculate upon their validity. I think some have referred to this as the Cyprianic approach.
Thus, there is no prospect of eastern vaganteism, either.
Those vagantes who claim to have “valid succession” are using a Roman Catholic standard to establish that, which we do not accept. So one might find some such vagantes who claim to be Orthodox, quite often they are former Anglicans or Roman Catholics who have fallen in love with the eastern rites and traditions. We are flattered, but that does not make them Orthodox.
And so ultimately Holy Orthodoxy does not judge non-Orthodox orders and does not expect non-Orthodox to pronounce on Orthodox orders. This is true whether one is Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican etc.
If a consecration is valid, that means the Holy Spirit, the Paraclete, has come down upon the candidate through the laying-on of hands. No one, not even a Pope, can prevent that if this is what God wants to do. And if that truly is what God does no man, including no Pope, can have the temerity to call it invalid nor illicit, for no man judges God. This is not magic, like the summoning and dismissing of spirits with special words. This is a holy sacrament of God we are discussing here!
So quite frankly, we do not know what goes on out there beyond the Orthodox communion, the Holy Spirit does what He wills. Better to not judge or opine one way or the other. If churchmen wish to join with Holy Orthodoxy, and they are accepted, they will be received in such a way that we expect the Holy Spirit will make up for any possible deficiencies, although we cannot be sure these might be (or not be).
The fact that the Roman Catholic church thinks Orthodox orders are valid is of no importance to Orthodox. We wonder why they consider it necessary to say such a thing, we never had any doubts at all about it.
Any communion that allows another church set the standard for it’s own legitimacy has bigger problems than Apostolic Succession.
A
ababbidg
Guest
- Status