← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · wild_bill
Thread ID: 11553 | Posts: 28 | Started: 2003-12-20
2003-12-20 12:23 | User Profile
What are the Differences Between Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism? By Father Michael Azkoul St. Catherine Mission, St. Louis, MO
"Also, in modern times, since Vatican II of thirty years ago, that major, if not tragic attempt, to "update" Roman Catholicism (e.g., the revision of canon law), the differences between Orthodoxy and the followers of the Pope have widened."
[url]http://www.orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/orth_cath_diff.htm[/url]
2003-12-29 14:21 | User Profile
[I]The fundamental witness to the Christian Tradition is the holy Scriptures; and the supreme expositors of the Scriptures are the divinely inspired Fathers of the Church, whether the Greek Fathers or Latin Fathers, Syriac Fathers or Slavic Fathers. Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded, altered or ignored.
On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." [/I]
This shows why Protestant cultures, and Calvinistic ones in particular are so superior in every respect to Orthodox and Catholic cultures. [I]Solo Scriptura[/I] is our motto, so our intellectual basis isn't on some nice but very human early Christian's thinking. It is based on the word of God alone.
2003-12-29 20:32 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell][I]The fundamental witness to the Christian Tradition is the holy Scriptures; and the supreme expositors of the Scriptures are the divinely inspired Fathers of the Church, whether the Greek Fathers or Latin Fathers, Syriac Fathers or Slavic Fathers. Their place in the Orthodox religion cannot be challenged. Their authority cannot be superseded, altered or ignored.
On the other hand, Roman Catholicism, unable to show a continuity of faith and in order to justify new doctrine, erected in the last century, a theory of "doctrinal development." [/I]
This shows why Protestant cultures, and Calvinistic ones in particular are so superior in every respect to Orthodox and Catholic cultures. [I]Solo Scriptura[/I] is our motto, so our intellectual basis isn't on some nice but very human early Christian's thinking. It is based on the word of God alone.[/QUOTE]
Where do you think the Bible came from? It didn't drop out of the sky into Martin Luther's hands.
I keep reminding folks that the Church came before the Bible. That's the difference between Orthodoxy and Protestantism. Your church is based on the Bible - sola Scriptura. But since you disdain tradition, take away the Bible and your chuch suddenly doesn't exist. OTOH, the Orthodox Church existed BEFORE the Bible, so even if the Bible and all knowldge of it were to suddenly disappear, the Church would still continue. We have our Traditions that have been passed down through the ages beginning with the Christ and the Apostles.
If sola Scriptura is so superior, why are there thousands of Protestant denominations each with a different interpretation of the Scriptures?
The recent idea that homosexuality is ok with God is a logical result of sola Scriptura, since virtually anything is possible if some clever person can twist Scripture to justify it. Now they say that we have just been misunderstanding the Bible for all these years! Oh yes, they say that God actually APPROVES of sodomy! Well, nothing like that could happen in Orthodoxy, since no matter how anyone tries to distort the Scriptures, 2,000 years of Church Tradition makes it clear that homosexuality is an abomination and always will be. Any Orthodox person, even a Bishop, who tries to say that would be warned twice and excommunicated if necessary. No question about it.
There was a news story a couple months ago where an corrupt Orthodox Priest in Russia took a bribe and "married" two queers. The news got out and the Priest was immediately defrocked and the church was declared to be desecrated and then demolished. Compare that pathetic response to what's happening with the Episcopalians. Oh, they have to negotiate and discuss this issue and hopefully come to some compromise. What apostate lunacy! There's your sola Scriptura in action.
-
2003-12-29 20:58 | User Profile
Like evangelical Protestants, the Orthodox believe all theological knowledge is based upon God's self-revelation. The Orthodox, however, argue that this revelation is conveyed to the world not only through Scripture but also through Apostolic Tradition; that is, Christ entrusted the divine revelation to the apostles, and they entrusted it to the church, which became the custodian and the interpreter of revelation. This heritage, or Deposit of Faith, is not to be understood as a set of normative doctrines but as a new reality or new life made available to the world by the incarnation of the Word and through the operation of the Holy Spirit.
Generally speaking, the Orthodox hierarchy affirms that the Orthodox churches have kept the Deposit of Faith undistorted, just as the apostolic church received it. Under the influence of modern scholarship, however, a growing number of Orthodox theologians affirm that the Apostolic Tradition underwent transformations in the process of transmission and interpretation that resulted in the formation of a distinct ecclesiastical (church) tradition. Although these two traditions are not mutually exclusive, the Greek Orthodox theologian C. Konstantinidis, who is very active within the ecumenical movement, asserts that the "Apostolic Tradition is also ecclesial, but the ecclesiastical is large enough to contain some other forms of tradition, which are forms of tradition in the Church, but not directly apostolic." This raises questions about the distinction between the two forms of tradition: Apostolic and ecclesiastical.
While all Orthodox scholars agree on the concept of the Apostolic Tradition, they disagree concerning both the mode of transmission and the content of what has been handed down. Generally speaking, there are two theories that attempt to explain this process: first, the "two-source" theory, which has been dominant in the Orthodox world since the Middle Ages; and second, the "one-source" theory, which is widely accepted among Orthodox scholars who participate in the ecumenical dialogue.
The "Two-Source" Approach
The Roman Catholic church at the Council of Trent (1546-1563) declared that "both saving truth and moral discipline" are "contained in the written books and the unwritten traditions, and it belongs to holy mother church...to judge of the true sense and interpretation of the Holy Scriptures." This declaration strongly influenced the two-source approach.
Similarly, the Orthodox claim that the content of revelation has been transmitted in the Scriptures and the Holy Tradition. The 1962 Almanac of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America states, "Eternal truths are expressed in the Holy Scripture and the Sacred Tradition, both of which are equal and are represented pure and unadulterated by the true Church established by Christ to continue His mission: man?s salvation." Advocates of this view argue that the church received revelation in the form of oral tradition, which was prior to Scripture and from which the content of the New Testament was compiled. Since the New Testament does not contain the whole revelation, the church has guarded the Deposit of Faith both in the written and unwritten tradition of the Word of God. The last of the inspired apostles completed the written tradition that formed the canon of the New Testament. Meanwhile, the unwritten tradition has been preserved in the church "first orally and then in the form of the literary monuments, as the great Tradition of the Church." Konstantinidis continues, "Only in a perspective such as this can one understand why we, Orthodox, consider Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition as two sources of revelation of equal weight and authority, as two equivalent sources of dogma and of supernatural faith."
In other words, neither Scripture nor Tradition independently contain all the facts of revelation or the key for accurate interpretation of those facts. Archbishop Michael of the Greek Archdiocese of North and South America asserts: "There exists in Tradition elements which, although not mentioned in the New Testament as they are in the Church today, are indispensable to the salvation of our souls." This approach claims that there is no conflict between these two sources. Indeed, they are viewed as complementary because both are legitimate expressions of the source of ultimate authority ? that is, the self-disclosure of God. Yet Konstantinidis distinguishes between the Holy Tradition, which concerns the faith and has the same authority as Scripture, and the ecclesiastical tradition, which is changeable and has only relative authority. Such a distinction requires further clarification concerning the origin, content, and theological use of the ecclesiastical tradition.
The "One-Source" Approach
Other Orthodox theologians repudiate the two-source view on the grounds that it introduces an unnecessary dichotomy. The 1976 Moscow Agreed Statement (between Anglicans and Orthodox) says, "Any disjunction between Scripture and Tradition such as would treat them as two separate ?sources of revelation? must be rejected. The two are correlative...Holy Tradition completes Holy Scripture....By the term Holy Tradition we understand the entire life of the Church in the Holy Spirit."
According to this view, Holy Scripture is simply part of the Holy Tradition. Nevertheless, this approach calls for clarification concerning the relationship between Tradition and Scripture. Orthodox scholar Timothy Ware (who at his ordination as an Orthodox priest in 1966 received the name Kallistos Ware), for instance, argues that the church must decide this issue because Scripture is not an authority set up over the church, but lives and is understood within the church. "Scripture owes its authority to the Church. It is the Church likewise that alone constitutes the authoritative interpretation of the Bible...the decisive criterion for our understanding of Scripture is the mind of the Church."
Yet, as Orthodox theologian E. Clapsis asserts, even when Orthodox scholars agree that the church is the only agency to give authentic interpretation to Scripture, disagreements continue concerning the how of this interpretation.21 Despite such disagreements, all Orthodox scholars believe the church has absolute authority to interpret and teach God?s revelation. The teaching organ of the church is the episcopate (bishops) individually and in councils. Their teaching is authoritative because it is grounded in the infallibility of the church.
If the Orthodox church is infallible, the teachings of its churches must necessarily be consistent and coherent. To determine whether this is the case we need to investigate the content of Tradition.
The Content of Tradition
Orthodox scholars do not always speak the same language when they refer to the content of Tradition. This is true not only between adherents of the one-source and two-source approach but also among those who belong to the same trend.
Konstantinidis and Archbishop Michael, for example, belong to the two-source trend, and yet disagree concerning the content of Tradition. Konstantinidis affirms that Tradition includes: (1) the valid and authentic interpretation of Scripture in the church; (2) official formulations and confessions of faith; (3) the formulations, definitions, and creeds of the Ecumenical Councils; (4) the larger accords of the teachings of the Fathers and ecclesiastical authors (Consensus Patrum); and (5) the forms, acts, and institutions and liturgies of the early church. Everything else can be ecclesiastical tradition, but "not the Holy Tradition of dogma and saving faith." Except for the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils, however, the Eastern Orthodox church has never formally accepted the points in Konstantinidis's diagram. Moreover, after the Council of Chalcedon (451), the non-Byzantine Eastern churches did not participate in the councils considered ecumenical by the Byzantine Orthodox.
Alternatively, Archbishop Michael affirms that the oral tradition was handed on "from generation to generation until it was embodied and codified in the works of the major Fathers of the Church and in the resolutions of the seven Ecumenical and the ten local synods of the Church." Since Archbishop Michael indicates neither who are the major Fathers nor which are the ten local councils, it is again impossible to distinguish between the Apostolic and ecclesiastical traditions. In the absence of such clarification, the church runs the risk of placing the canonical Scriptures on the same footing with a supplementary body of teachings and practices and of ascribing apostolic authority to certain teachings and practices that could well have merely ecclesiastical origin.
Similar disagreements exist among those who follow the one-source theory. Ware asserts that Tradition includes: (1) the Bible, (2) the Seven Ecumenical Councils and the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, (3) local councils, (4) the Fathers, (5) the liturgy, (6) canon law (officially established church rules governing faith and practice), and (7) icons. In order to avoid conflicting authorities within Tradition, he proposes a "hierarchy" of Tradition within the church. The contemporary church is the final authority in interpreting the Scriptures, the later councils, and the Fathers, while the definitions of the Ecumenical Councils are taken as irrevocable. He considers the liturgy and icons beyond any question, while canon law is subject to change by the contemporary church.
Alternatively, other adherents of the one-source approach argue, "By the term Holy Tradition we understand the entire life of the Church in the Holy Spirit. This tradition expresses itself in dogmatic teachings, in liturgical worship, in canonical discipline, and in spiritual life."
Clapsis notes, "The Orthodox Church has only a small number of dogmatic definitions, forming the profession of faith obligatory for all its members. Strictly speaking, this minimum consists of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is read during baptismal service and the liturgy, and the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils." Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff, however, adopts a less concise approach: "The Orthodox, when asked positively about the sources of their faith, answer in such concepts as the whole of Scripture, seen in the light of the tradition of the ancient Councils, the Fathers, and the faith of the entire people of God, expressed particularly in the liturgy. This appears to the outsiders as nebulous, perhaps romantic or mystical, and in any case inefficient and unrealistic."
As we've seen, despite this bewildering variety of views, Orthodox scholars agree that certain teachings and practices are not apostolic. Ware asserts, "Not everything received from the past is of equal value, nor is everything received from the past necessarily true. As one of the bishops remarked at the Council of Carthage in 257 ?The Lord said, I am the truth. He did not say, I am the custom.?"
Rather than sorting through its heritage, the Orthodox church has preferred to hide behind the claim that the Holy Spirit guards it from errors. Hence, they fail to argue their claims effectively, whether historically or theologically. Moreover, Orthodox theologians avoid systematic formulation of their teachings, choosing instead a different approach to theology than that of Western Christianity.
Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidei, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria!
2003-12-29 21:50 | User Profile
[I]Rather than sorting through its heritage, the Orthodox church has preferred to hide behind the claim that the Holy Spirit guards it from errors. Hence, they fail to argue their claims effectively, whether historically or theologically. Moreover, Orthodox theologians avoid systematic formulation of their teachings, choosing instead a different approach to theology than that of Western Christianity.[/I]
Truely a light in the wilderness.
2003-12-29 23:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]- excerpted from Searching for the True, Apostolic Church by Paul Negrut, Ph.D. - Professor of Systematic Theology and History of Dogma at both the Emmanuel Bible Institute in Oradea, Romania, and at the State University of Oradea
Clapsis notes, "The Orthodox Church has only a small number of dogmatic definitions, forming the profession of faith obligatory for all its members. Strictly speaking, this minimum consists of the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, which is read during baptismal service and the liturgy, and the definitions of the seven ecumenical councils." Orthodox theologian John Meyendorff, however, adopts a less concise approach: "The Orthodox, when asked positively about the sources of their faith, answer in such concepts as the whole of Scripture, seen in the light of the tradition of the ancient Councils, the Fathers, and the faith of the entire people of God, expressed particularly in the liturgy. This appears to the outsiders as nebulous, perhaps romantic or mystical, and in any case inefficient and unrealistic."
Sola Scriptura, Sola Fidei, Sola Gratia, Solus Christus, and Soli Deo Gloria![/QUOTE]
As someone who was raised in the Protestant church, I had a problem understanding the Orthodox mindset at first. I would attempt to discuss things with Orthodox people and it was like banging my head against the wall, like we were talking two different languages. Coming from the Protestant perspective, my points would invariably begin with "The Bible says....." and this would get nowhere. But this was all I knew. If the Bible said something, that was it. But upon further study, I eventually had to agree with my Orthodox friends that that wasn't always it. Understanding Scripture required more than just quoting a verses and assuming some understanding.
Orthodoxy has been called both "Philosophical Christianity" and "Mystical Christianity" as opposed to a legalistic form which I think describes both Protestantism and its parent Roman Catholicism.
My point here is not to prove that Orthodox Christianity is the only authentic Christianity, but to show that there is immense understanding and tradition in early Christianity that I think Protestants, especially, would be better for investigating.
The writer you quoted may see Orthodoxy as "ineffectual" but I would strongly disagree. I think it very effectual. While virtually all other branches and denominations seem to be in a constant state of compromise or schism, the Orthodox are still using St. John Chrysostom's Liturgy and other Traditions that go back to antiquity. I don't see how that is ineffectual at all.
All Orthodox understand that Luther rebelled against the corruption in Rome, but that doesn't mean that everything before Luther deserves to be thrown out or ignored - Luther, himself, I read somewhere, continued to pray the Rosary even after breaking with Rome. Even he had some appreciation for tradition.
I think there's this idea among Protestants that if the Catholics do it, its got to be avoided and condemned. This goes to seemingly silly extremes such as the Anglicans and Methodists using grape juice instead of wine for Communion. The Orthodox still uses both wine and bread during Communion, just as the Scriptures tell that our glorious Savior did. The same with Baptism. That means full immersion is the proper method according to the Bible, although the Church allows exceptions of necessity when full immersion isn't practical or possible. Again, I mention that to show that Orthodxy isn't vague or that our doctrines are not based on Scripture.
-
2003-12-29 23:56 | User Profile
[QUOTE]My point here is not to prove that Orthodox Christianity is the only authentic Christianity, but to show that there is immense understanding and tradition in early Christianity that I think Protestants, especially, would be better for investigating.[/QUOTE]
I approve of what you write here. There is surely great wisdom, and steadfastness, as is the 1600 battle whether or not to include the Filioque in an Ecumenical Symbol.
But you started with the insults, with the comparing of sex with the "flesh" and I felt obligated to correct you.
And what I said about the more advanced Protestant cultures still stands. We understand the basic laws of the Universe better than the Orthodox, which allows us to outperform them on just about every level. It's also my feeling that we should be united in our opposition of the malodorous neocons and the ignorant happy-clappy Fundamentalists. But this cannot happen while there is sniping between us.
2003-12-30 00:16 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]I approve of what you write here. There is surely great wisdom, and steadfastness, as is the 1600 battle whether or not to include the Filioque in an Ecumenical Symbol.
But you started with the insults, with the comparing of sex with the "flesh" and I felt obligated to correct you.
And what I said about the more advanced Protestant cultures still stands. We understand the basic laws of the Universe better than the Orthodox, which allows us to outperform them on just about every level. It's also my feeling that we should be united in our opposition of the malodorous neocons and the ignorant happy-clappy Fundamentalists. But this cannot happen while there is sniping between us.[/QUOTE]
My aim is not to create animosity, since Orthodoxy believes the best way to persuade is by being a living Christian example. Of course, I am far from that, but I do think it is worthwhile to discuss points.
BTW, the initial posting on the eternal virginity of the Mother of God is not merely my opinion, but the Doctrine of the Orthodox Church. It certainly can't be an insult or a condemnation of the Sacrament of Marriage.
-
2003-12-30 00:30 | User Profile
When you give credence to statements like this
[QUOTE]Both also believe that there is a sense in which the Mother of God is the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. Those who belong to the Church are identified with Him. But He is also our "brother" (Rom. 8:29). If Christ is our brother, then, the Virgin Mary is our mother. But the Church is our mother through Baptism. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is the Church. [/QUOTE]
You put yourself in the camp of the ignorant heathen. Mary was a holy woman, just like millions of others. She isn't the church, any more than my daughters. You are part of a culture who still wants mommy to protect you. This is a main reason that most Orthodox cultures fell to the smelly Communists, while we Protestants were too strong for them, and eventually destroyed them. But where is our thanks? Don't you feel you owe us? Without us you would still be sitting in the mire.
Be more respectful.
2003-12-30 02:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]When you give credence to statements like this:
"Both also believe that there is a sense in which the Mother of God is the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ. Those who belong to the Church are identified with Him. But He is also our "brother" (Rom. 8:29). If Christ is our brother, then, the Virgin Mary is our mother. But the Church is our mother through Baptism. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is the Church."
You put yourself in the camp of the ignorant heathen. Mary was a holy woman, just like millions of others. She isn't the church, any more than my daughters. You are part of a culture who still wants mommy to protect you. This is a main reason that most Orthodox cultures fell to the smelly Communists, while we Protestants were too strong for them, and eventually destroyed them. But where is our thanks? Don't you feel you owe us? Without us you would still be sitting in the mire.
Be more respectful.[/QUOTE] To me, it just looks like an application of the Transitive Postulate of Mathematical Equality to the Virgin Birth. Heck, the logic is laid out like one of Euclid's proofs. You can't very well jump on him because of that--especially since you earlier opined (possibly correctly) that Orthodox are relatively ignorant of the "basic laws of the universe!"
2003-12-30 10:21 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]When you give credence to statements like this
You put yourself in the camp of the ignorant heathen. Mary was a holy woman, just like millions of others. She isn't the church, any more than my daughters. You are part of a culture who still wants mommy to protect you. This is a main reason that most Orthodox cultures fell to the smelly Communists, while we Protestants were too strong for them, and eventually destroyed them. But where is our thanks? Don't you feel you owe us? Without us you would still be sitting in the mire.
Be more respectful.[/QUOTE]
If you want to make that argument, then what does it say for Protestantism when every Protestant country has Jews in control of its media and government? What's even worse, is the leaders of every Protestant country simply cower and scrape before the Jews. Here in the US particularly, they don't dare ever mention the word Jew in anything but terms of admiration and praise. Meanwhile, the Orthodox countries managed to break their power and now the Jews are scrambling out for greener pastures.
-
2003-12-30 11:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE]This shows why Protestant cultures, and Calvinistic ones in particular are so superior in every respect to Orthodox and Catholic cultures. Solo Scriptura is our motto, so our intellectual basis isn't on some nice but very human early Christian's thinking. It is based on the word of God alone.[/QUOTE]
Quite to the contrary, sola scriptura and its radical rejection of the authority of Holy Tradition lies at the heart of our collective inability to repel the assualts on our traditions and customs.
Obvioulsy, one cannot, as a matter of most fundamental doctrine, reject any possibility of authoritative tradition and then turn around and hope to build one's own authoritative tradition. This pertains not only to relgion but by implication also to law, government or any other area of life.
No tradition or custom can logically develop from such a doctrine - and it is precisely this inability to shut off argument with reference to an authoritative past that is the cause of our inexorable dissolution as a people.
Neither stare decisis in law, nor appeals to authority of our great legislators such as Jefferson, can have any logical effect in a system based upon the unfettered right of all to read any text (for if it applies to Holy Writ it applies to any lesser text) and find what they will. We thereby make every man with a sixth grade education an authority of one in all matters.
We see the slow poison of sola scriptura in the refusal of our courts to honor the decisions of prior generations, and the willingness of millions of our people to "re-define" our most bedrock institutions out of existence with the fashion of the day. We see it in pop psychology of the day, urging all that "it's right if it's right for you."
Sola scriputura led to the creation of (at last count) 28,000 Protestant Christian denominations, in the teeth of our Saviour's prayer that all should be one in Him.
Sola scriptura allowed the development of myriad crazy heresies, most recently the Left Behind ravings so popular with Freepers. The whole "Judeo-Christian" thing stems directly from this stubborn refusal to accept the binding judgements of the past, even of the "Protestant tradition" (oxymoron!).
It is indeed a bitter irony that sola scriptura led by inexorable internal logic to the rejection of Luther's teaching on the Jews by most American Protestants today. "Hey," they say, "Luther isn't in the Bible. Nothing that Luther said can ever be considered authoritative and binding on all." And so the Lutherans cease being "traditional Lutherans" (oxymoron!) in a single sitting of St. Paul. In a perverse way, however, they are being "true Lutherans" in rejecting any authoritative tradition, even the un-tradition that gave birth to the corrosive doctrine of sola scriptura.
This dissolution of society into a sort of anomic solipcism is, of course, merely the main corrosive effect of sola scriptura, but I should point out that the position itself is both (1) aprior illogical and (2) self-contradictory even by its own lights.
It's a priori illogical because Holy Tradition as matter of historical fact precedes the Scriptures, and therefore is the child of the Tradition and not its parent. Christ, as far as we know, wrote only in the sand. The entire Gospel was an oral tradition well before it was committed to writing by those who wanted to preserve the purity of its central message, and as a teaching aid for converts. The same applies to the Old Testament, which existed as oral traditions for centuries before it was authoritatively committed to writing. Scripture as child was never intended to displace the parent Holy Tradition, or indeed was it ever conceived of encompassing anything approaching a comprehensive account of Christ's life and teaching. (John 21:25) Sola scriptura therefore stands in direct contradiction to the simple empirical fact of the precedence of Holy Tradition, which of necessity forms the only authoritative context within which Scripture can logically be construed.
After all, the Scriptures didn't just appear out of thin air. The very canon that my Protestant brothers in Christ point to as infallible was itself declared infallible only at the word of the living Tradition much later, at a council of the Church.
Now, which is greater, I ask you - the document offerred in court as evidence, or the word of the witness submitting it? Obviously, it is the word of the witness that precedes the document, for the reliablity of written evidence is only as good as the witness submitting it into evidence. The document we call the Sacred Canon is whollly contingent upon the word of the Tradition that precedes it, that formed it, that gave it birth, and that assorted and compiled it from many other documents that same Tradition believed were less than completely reliable.
On what do you base your choice of books in the Canon? Did the New Testament just fall from the sky? I don't think so. Perhaps Luther? But Luther isn't in the Bible, right? No authority there. Perhaps the Scriptures themselves? But no document is self-admitting or self-verifying by definition.
No, none of that makes any sense at all. The Tradition gave birth to the Scriptures. The Tradition validated them, and declared them the Word of God. You cannot now rip them from that Tradition and use them to deny the validity of the very Tradition that validated them in the first instance!
But that's not all. The Scriptures themselves speak of Holy Tradition, and speak directly against sola scriptura. St. Paul himself writes that he brought his converts tradition, some of which later were formalized by his Epistles. (2 Thessalonians 2; 2 Thessalonians 3:6) Understand also that Paul's Epistles are considered Scripture because they were recognized as such by the apostles who were the carriers of the Tradition, most especially St. Peter, the first Pope. (2 Peter 3 15-16). And even more fundamentally, understand that St. Peter in that same Epistle strictly enjoined the private interpretation of prophecy, the very stuff of sola scriptura. (2 Peter 1:20) Those who cling to this false teaching are thus wholly at odds with themselves, for they do the very thing forbidden by the same Scriptures they purport to hold in exclusive regard.
I urge you to give that one up and embrace the Holy Tradition that gave birth to the Scriptures and upon whose word you take them. That Tradition lives. That Tradition guids and informs the Apostolic Church to this day. That Tradition gave us the sacraments and the purity of the Christian Faith of the Church Fathers.
If you can't stomach the Roman Church (and nowadays who could really blame you for that?) may I suggest you investigate further the Orthodox Church of our own dear Wild Bill - a Church that like Rome adheres to the Holy Tradition that precedes and forms the context for interpreting Holy Scripture.
A step toward Tradition is a step toward Christian unity. I urge you to consider it.
Warmest regards,
Walter
2003-12-30 14:41 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]This is a main reason that most Orthodox cultures fell to the smelly Communists, while we Protestants were too strong for them, and eventually destroyed them. But where is our thanks? Don't you feel you owe us? Without us you would still be sitting in the mire.
Be more respectful.[/QUOTE]
Do you mean great Protestant leaders like Poles Karol Wojtyla (JPII) and Lech Walesa?
Walter
2003-12-30 14:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE]All Orthodox understand that Luther rebelled against the corruption in Rome, but that doesn't mean that everything before Luther deserves to be thrown out or ignored [/QUOTE]
Gee, do you really think so, Wild Bill?
Do you mean we can keep St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Benedict, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome?
How about Joan D'Arc?
How about Duns Scotus (not a saint, as far as I know, but one smart Mick!).
How about the Cathedral at Chartres? Do we get to keep that, too?
Wow!
This is just unbelievably generous of you!!
Thanks!!!
Regards,
Walter
2003-12-30 15:12 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Gee, do you really think so, Wild Bill?
Do you mean we can keep St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis, St. Dominic, St. Benedict, St. Augustine, and St. Jerome?
How about Joan D'Arc?
How about Duns Scotus (not a saint, as far as I know, but one smart Mick!).
How about the Cathedral at Chartres? Do we get to keep that, too?
Wow!
This is just unbelievably generous of you!!
Thanks!!!
Regards,
Walter[/QUOTE]
Walter, I could have probably worded my statement better, since I wasn't talking about those things. But surely you will admit that there was corruption in Rome at the time of Luther and the eventually Catholics realized this or why else did the counter-reformation take place? This is what I was speaking of.
Obviously, you as a Roman Catholic have a different perspective of the doctrines and practices of Rome, but that doesn't mean that I would condemn even most things about Roman Catholicism. My opposition as an Orthodox really only comes down to a relatively small number of things. This is why I mention that Protestantism has over-reacted by disassociating itself from virtually everything before Luther.
Despite our differences, I am mindful that Roman Catholics and Orthodox still have 1,000 years of shared heritage. This, at least, I think we can agree should be preserved and appreciated. Do you disagree with that?
-
2003-12-30 15:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Now, which is greater, I ask you - the document offerred in court as evidence, or the word of the witness submitting it? Obviously, it is the word of the witness that precedes the document, for the reliablity of written evidence is only as good as the witness submitting it into evidence. The document we call the Sacred Canon is whollly contingent upon the word of the Tradition that precedes it, that formed it, that gave it birth, and that assorted and compiled it from many other documents that same Tradition believed were less than completely reliable. [/QUOTE]
Great post, Walter.
-
2003-12-30 15:31 | User Profile
[QUOTE=wild_bill]If you want to make that argument, then what does it say for Protestantism when every Protestant country has Jews in control of its media and government? What's even worse, is the leaders of every Protestant country simply cower and scrape before the Jews. Here in the US particularly, they don't dare ever mention the word Jew in anything but terms of admiration and praise. Meanwhile, the Orthodox countries managed to break their power and now the Jews are scrambling out for greener pastures.
-[/QUOTE]
I wanted to add the observation that the Catholic countries also show more backbone against the Jews than Protestant ones. One recent news article told of a prominant Italian leader who spoke against the Jews. In the US, you can't find even one of the cowards in the Congress to utter one word of criticism against the Jews. If one did, the other shabbaz goys would tear them to shreds. This is the state of affairs brought about Protestant dispensationalism, which is just another product of "sola Scriptura."
-
2003-12-30 15:36 | User Profile
[QUOTE]Despite our differences, I am mindful that Roman Catholics and Orthodox still have 1,000 years of shared heritage. This, at least, I think we can agree should be preserved and appreciated. Do you disagree with that?[/QUOTE]
I agree wholeheartedly with that, my brother Christ.
Happy New Year to you and my Protestant brothers, Tex and Oliver Cromwell!!!
(Going on vacation tomorrow!! Yipppeeee!!!)
Walter
2003-12-30 15:51 | User Profile
A silly and paranoid argument that makes resisting the Jews the touchstone of success can be a double edged sword. How would the Orthodox like it if I rubbed his face in the fact that Bolshevism (as I think he knows) was heavily Jewish, and only the Orthodox countries accepted it of their own free will? What does that say about Orthodox cultures?
When I first started posting here there was a self-loathing Englishman who kept insisting that the Indians were the super race. I thought that was bizzare, like a Mercedes envying a Yugo.
But what with the ridiculous broad generalisations anyway? Is the Danish Press controled by Jews? Why did someone say that all Protestant Countries had Jewish controled media? Is the idea of this forum just to vent mindless rage, or to teach each other so we can with wisdom and knowledge inform others of the impending catastrophe that is so immenent?
2003-12-30 15:58 | User Profile
This is a test of the attachment function. Here is a WASP that I took a picture of in my backyard the other day. I think it is fitting as there's still sting in it.
2003-12-30 15:59 | User Profile
[QUOTE]When I first started posting here there was a self-loathing Englishman who kept insisting that the Indians were the super race. [/QUOTE]
Yeah, that was Rban.
Tex gave him the heave-ho.
I don't remember you, Oliver.
I'm pleased that you've come back home.
Walter
2003-12-30 16:03 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]A silly and paranoid argument that makes resisting the Jews the touchstone of success can be a double edged sword. How would the Orthodox like it if I rubbed his face in the fact that Bolshevism (as I think he knows) was heavily Jewish, and only the Orthodox countries accepted it of their own free will? What does that say about Orthodox cultures? [/QUOTE]
Yes, Bolshevism was heavily Jewish - but that fact was common knowledge amongst the Christian populace and resented. And eventually the Jews were overthrown. Here, OTOH, we are under just as total control by Jews as was the case under Bolshevism, but they don't have to use firing squads to keep us under control since the vast majority of Protestant leaders, instead of resenting the situation, continuously fall over themselves trying to be the next one to kiss the Jew's feet.
-
2003-12-30 16:13 | User Profile
Yes, I see the current admistration as a triad of Necon Jews, well meaning but dumb Fundamentalist Christians and Those Who Think FOX News Is Fair And Ballanced.
It remains to be seen if we can either pull down or convert any one of those three, because if we do, the whole thing will collapes.
2003-12-30 16:23 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]How would the Orthodox like it if I rubbed his face in the fact that Bolshevism (as I think he knows) was heavily Jewish, and only the Orthodox countries accepted it of their own free will?
I've made that point as well, OC.
But what with the ridiculous broad generalisations anyway? Is the idea of this forum just to vent mindless rage, or to teach each other so we can with wisdom and knowledge inform others of the impending catastrophe that is so immenent?[/QUOTE]
Good questions, especially directed towards any and all of the true Faith. Unfortunately, some here never miss an opportunity to weild any kind of hammer they can against Protestantism and especially it of the Calvinistic variety. It's really an interesting phenomenon when one thinks about it for any length of time like I have.
2003-12-30 17:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I've made that point as well, OC.
Good questions, especially directed towards any and all of the true Faith. Unfortunately, some here never miss an opportunity to weild any kind of hammer they can against Protestantism and especially it of the Calvinistic variety. It's really an interesting phenomenon when one thinks about it for any length of time like I have.[/QUOTE]
I wish that all Protestants would read Joseph Canfield's book on Cyrus Scofield and Ovid Need's book on dispensationalism. If people understood the situation as clearly described by these two author's, the heretical fraud of dispensationalism would be tossed to the trash heap and then Jewish manipulation of Christianity would be largely neutralized.
Unfortunately, I think that's a job that can best be taken up by our non-dispensational Protestant friends. The average dispensationalist probably won't listen to a Catholic or Orthodox Christian.
-
2003-12-30 18:17 | User Profile
I have a copy of The Amazing Schofield and His Book. This guy actually claimed to have been decorated by the South during the civil war, even though the South didn't give medals.
2003-12-30 20:29 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Oliver Cromwell]I have a copy of The Amazing Schofield and His Book. This guy actually claimed to have been decorated by the South during the civil war, even though the South didn't give medals.[/QUOTE]
Yes, and that was probably one his more innocuous lies. One could also mention his swindling, forging, and philandering. And to think the dispensationalists regard this heretical rouge almost like one of the Holy Apostles.
-
2003-12-30 21:05 | User Profile
My hope is built on nothing less Than Scofield's book and reference I dare not trust this Thompson's chain But wholy lean on Scofield's fame
On Scofield's notes and reference I base my hope on nothing less I base my hope on nothing less