Ever-virgin Mary

[ArmyMatt]

If tradition is given equal status with scripture, that is a dangerous path, as is evidenced by the example of the Roman Catholic Church which contains much tradition that is diametrically opposite to scripture.

it is only a very modern belief to look at Scripture apart from the Tradition and not as the large and clear center of a unified whole.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You said, "I mean, really...the Church existed for decades before the New Testament was even begun being written down." That's not true. The first books were written 5-15 years after the death of Jesus. See the following: New Testament Books - Dating.

even if that were true, that still puts the Church 5 years ahead of even putting pen to paper concerning the NT. and the numbers I have always heard were beginning approximately 17 years after Pentecost, which is the year 50ish. that site puts most of the earlier books around the year 50ish, aside from James which it says was written as early as 38, but probably around 50, and I did not see any sources to back up any of this info.

 

[~Anastasia~]

This reminds me of what Scripture says about prayer.

Jesus said, "Pray in this way" and then proceeded to give us the "Our Father" or Lord's or Disciples' Prayer (it has several names).

Does that mean if we say any other prayer, we "go against Scripture"? Of course not ... that would be a case of taking what could easily be argued to be "the Lord's clear teaching" and applying it where it does not belong.

But when translated to English, it does appear to be a direct command from Christ's own mouth, to pray in exactly that way.

It is interpretation that tells us to do otherwise.

 

[CelticRebel]

This of course depends on what tradition you are following. In my own Church's tradition, the establishment of the Church predates the death of Jesus, and the writing of the books is from some time later (e.g., St. Mark wrote his gospel after arriving in Egypt c. 51 AD).



That's not what this board is about, though. If you want to have a discussion with Roman Catholics about the traditions of their church that you have a problem with, please do so on the correct subforum (One Bread, One Body). It is pointless to use the problems of Rome to illustrate supposed deficiencies of the Orthodox Church.



Such a stance is only possible in the first place when you have set up a false dichotomy between the apostles, the fathers, and the Church. We do not do this. Out of respect for you and a desire to not argue over something so basic and immovable, I will only say once again that the problem here is a lack of appreciation or understanding of the role of the Church in Christian history, including obviously its role in writing, preaching, and canonizing the very scriptures which you claim fidelity to.

First, thank you for the manner in which you make your point.

The problem, though, is not what you have stated but in the definition and function of a/the "church".

Here is what I believe; it is taken from the Solemn Declaration of Principles of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, an Anglican Body that withdrew from the apostate Episcopal Church over homosexuality issues and others. The Anglican Communion is not a sola scriptura communion; it believes in tradition, reason and experience as authorities but as secondary authorities which can never be allowed to contradict or over-ride scripture:

"We believe that Holy Scripture is the supreme authority in the Church, that it is the Word of God written, and contains all things necessary to Salvation. The Church is neither to add anything to it nor to remove anything from it. It is proper for the Church to set forth rites and order its life in the light of Scripture; it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's Word written."

 

[CelticRebel]

even if that were true, that still puts the Church 5 years ahead of even putting pen to paper concerning the NT. and the numbers I have always heard were beginning approximately 17 years after Pentecost, which is the year 50ish. that site puts most of the earlier books around the year 50ish, aside from James which it says was written as early as 38, but probably around 50, and I did not see any sources to back up any of this info.

So, would you prefer to trust people (church Fathers and others) who lived and wrote after the apostles lived and wrote? If these fathers and others contradict scripture, I will go with scripture.

 

[dzheremi]

[/b]


First, thank you for the manner in which you make your point.

The problem, though, is not what you have stated but in the definition and function of a/the "church".

Here is what I believe; it is taken from the Solemn Declaration of Principles of the Anglican Mission in the Americas, an Anglican Body that withdrew from the apostate Episcopal Church over homosexuality issues and others. The Anglican Communion is not a sola scriptura communion; it believes in tradition, reason and experience as authorities but as secondary authorities which can never be allowed to contradict or over-ride scripture:

"We believe that Holy Scripture is the supreme authority in the Church, that it is the Word of God written, and contains all things necessary to Salvation. The Church is neither to add anything to it nor to remove anything from it. It is proper for the Church to set forth rites and order its life in the light of Scripture; it is not lawful for the Church to ordain anything contrary to God's Word written."

Okay. I'm not sure what, if anything, I'm supposed to say to that. You are stating what you believe, and that's fine. That's not what the Orthodox Church believes, and more importantly that's not what it does (the bit about adding or taking away from scripture; that applies more to Protestants with their shortened Bibles and warped translations which are meant to support their strange, unbiblical doctrines, but that's another topic), and the fact that you see a contradiction where there is none is a different issue than the proper reverence that we give to the holy apostles, scriptures, and the fathers alike.

 

[CelticRebel]

Okay. I'm not sure what, if anything, I'm supposed to say to that. You are stating what you believe, and that's fine. That's not what the Orthodox Church believes, and more importantly that's not what it does (the bit about adding or taking away from scripture; that applies more to Protestants with their shortened Bibles and warped translations which are meant to support their strange, unbiblical doctrines, but that's another topic), and the fact that you see a contradiction where there is none is a different issue than the proper reverence that we give to the holy apostles, scriptures, and the fathers alike.

You don't really have to say anything. And I'm not trying to be a smart-alek. When tradition contradicts scripture, that's adding to or taking away. There are contradictions, whether you believe it or not. I could cite more, but there's really no point, I suppose. You have your opinion and belief, and I have mine.

I base my beliefs foremost on the teachings of the apostles; those teachings are stated and found in the New Testament. What any other person says or any Body says is just an opinion, if it is not based on scripture. And I don't believe there is any one true visible church, as all of them have views, teachings, etc., which are at variance in one way or another with apostolic teaching and practice. Such is the human condition, as "we all see through a glass, darkly." But I can live with that and not give up or subject my God-given conscience, reason, or the Spirit within me to a fallible Body of humans.

In this principle, I would agree again with the Anglican Communion in their 39 Articles (and I quote these simply to let you know where I am coming from, so to speak):

"Article[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]VIII.Of the Creeds.
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.[/FONT]"

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.[/FONT]"

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."[/FONT]

 

[SeventhValley]

Nm....

 

[dzheremi]

I base my beliefs foremost on the teachings of the apostles; [...] I would agree again with the Anglican Communion in their 39 Articles

Speaking of contradictions, how does this make sense? Which of the apostles was an Anglican? Which wrote the 39 articles? Because we know and follow the apostles, as these are the same people who founded our Church: St. Mark in Egypt, Sts. Peter and Paul in Antioch, etc. All of this later stuff that you believe in is something else entirely, and makes the frequent allusions to the apostles and scripture seem a little bit...odd, frankly. 1563 AD (the date of establishment of the 39 articles, according to Wikipedia) is far later than the founding of the Church, or any of the writings of the fathers which established any of our really core doctrines, or any of the councils that confirmed the belief of the Church.

"Article[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]VIII.Of the Creeds.
The Nicene Creed, and that which is commonly called the Apostles' Creed, ought thoroughly to be received and believed: for they may be proved by most certain warrants of Holy Scripture.[/FONT]"

This is a strange conceit, to judge the Creed by what may be "proved" by Holy Scripture. Those who claim to "prove" their doctrines by this or that reading of scripture include many who teach and believe directly contrary to the Creed (by which I mean the Nicene Creed; the so-called "Apostle's Creed" is found in its current form no earlier than the 8th century, and as far as I know does not seem to be used in Eastern Christianity.)

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"XX. Of the Authority of the Church.
The Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in Controversies of Faith: and yet it is not lawful for the Church to ordain any thing that is contrary to God's Word written, neither may it so expound one place of Scripture, that it be repugnant to another. Wherefore, although the Church be a witness and a keeper of Holy Writ, yet, as it ought not to decree any thing against the same, so besides the same ought it not to enforce any thing to be believed for necessity of Salvation.[/FONT]"

By the fact that it mentions those things that are contrary to it, this presupposes the authority of the Church to interpret in a binding fashion the correct understanding of scripture. Thank you, Anglicans! I knew someone could help you get this, and I was out of ways to explain it.

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

[/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"XXI. Of the Authority of General Councils.[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] General Councils may not be gathered together without the commandment and will of Princes. And when they be gathered together, (forasmuch as they be an assembly of men, whereof all be not governed with the Spirit and Word of God,) they may err, and sometimes have erred, even in things pertaining unto God. Wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to salvation have neither strength nor authority, unless it may be declared that they be taken out of holy Scripture."[/FONT]

Not sure what the point of this one is. Councils have authority unless they are found to have erred in some thing? Er...okay. I mean, the Church has never accepted every council that has been called just because it was a council. The Arian council of Tyre that exiled St. Athanasius the Apostolic comes to mind, for one example. But it seems like this article is saying "Councils have authority...except when they teach something against scripture." According to who, is my question -- the Anglicans themselves, I guess? Sorry, but the Orthodox Church of God does not now and will not ever run any of its decisions by some Johnny-come-lately group of Protestants who are not part of the Church in the first place. This is once again the issue: If you (the general you...and I guess also the particular you, in this case) take scripture -- any of it -- to be self-interpreting such that you can declare this or that to be against it, then you immediately fall into the trap of pushing one interpretation as plainly authoritative over all churches, and in that case the churches that you are trying to discredit via your own subjective interpretation (that is to say, the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, etc.; any church which may not agree with your interpretation) has the right to ask you on what authority you may be asserting that you are correct and they are not.

Because that is the key difference: When an Orthodox person, for instance, tells you "no, you are wrong about XYZ", they can point to their fathers which predate your sources like these 39 articles and say "St. X in 381, 325, 250, etc. teaches us that _____ (our interpretation) is what was taught by the people who learned at the feet of the apostles, not _____ (your interpretation) that was arrived at many, many centuries later as a result of intellectual sophistry and/or in the context of a dispute with Rome, which was itself teaching something far from the apostles". For example, in the past when I have discussed with Catholics the problems that Orthodox have with the RC 'sacred heart' devotions, I was able to point to ancient writings of the fathers that clearly condemn this kind of devotion, such as the writings of St. Athanasius the Apostolic in his Epistula ad Adelphium which condemns the worship of the body (to mean portions of it) in separation from the word. It was not my own problem that I had set up some kind of distinction between these things in order to prove Rome incorrect -- it was actually something identified as wrong by St. Basil in the fourth century, approximately 13 centuries before Rome embraced this particular form of devotion (c. 1690s). So you see the difference now? We don't object based on what we think should be the case, but by what our fathers have shown us to be the true path to Jesus Christ and salvation in Him. There is nothing by which an Orthodox Christian can argue based on the "plain sense" of a particular scriptural passage or what have you. Everything recalls what came before us, and before the Anglicans, and before Luther, and before all of this other stuff that is based upon the human intellect, which is really what undergirds non-Orthodox doctrine, or non-Orthodox objection to Orthodox doctrine and practice.

So when you quote the Anglicans or whoever else, who pretend as though they have found some kind of key to inherently objective and unbiased exposition of the scriptures, it kind of proves the point I've been trying to make to you: You are taking your own understanding to be self-evident, and rejecting or finding problems with anything that does not match that. We are taking the understanding of the fathers as our guide not because we place all our trust in people who wrote after Jesus or after the writing of scripture, but because these people were much closer to the world of the apostles themselves -- some of them studied at their feet, or the feet of their disciples, so we can say that there is a consistency to be found in them that indicates what they must have been taught by their own fathers, who were themselves taught by others who either were disciples of the apostles or apostles themselves (depending on which particular father we're looking at).

And when you look at the Orthodox Church on one hand and the Anglicans on the other, can there be any doubt which has maintained more consistent adherence to received teaching? You've got so many different flavors of Anglican, with their own churches catering to them in terms of varying by political position or social view or whatever, and at any rate their foundational doctrinal statements, such as the 39 articles, do not predate the 16th century, as their church does not predate that time.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So, would you prefer to trust people (church Fathers and others) who lived and wrote after the apostles lived and wrote? If these fathers and others contradict scripture, I will go with scripture.

considering they start with the disciples' disciples, and since they listen to the same Holy Spirit, they do not contradict the Scriptures. and since their consensus does not contradict the Scriptures either. AND it was their writings that helped the Council of Carthage put together the canonical NT from the gobbldygook out there, since it was all one Gospel and always has been.

the reason that the NT has an elevated status within the Holy Tradition is because it is a first hand account of the life of Christ and the written teachings of the Apostles. the earliest ones lived and suffered WITH the Apostles. the child who Christ put on His lap when He said to suffer the little ones to come unto Me was St Ignatius of Antioch. I am pretty sure he was the child that had the fish and bread in the feeding of the 5000 in St John's Gospel. you really think someone like that is less trustworthy of the Gospel message than someone reading the Bible 2000 years after the fact in a different country and in a different language? folks who say yes to that question for some reason only use that line of logic with the Bible.

I don't trust them ahead of Scripture, since they have the same message. it is the Scripture that clarifies them, but it is only within their context that the Scripture can be properly understood. you cannot divide Scripture from the Fathers

 

[CelticRebel]

Speaking of contradictions, how does this make sense? Which of the apostles was an Anglican? Which wrote the 39 articles? Because we know and follow the apostles, as these are the same people who founded our Church: St. Mark in Egypt, Sts. Peter and Paul in Antioch, etc. All of this later stuff that you believe in is something else entirely, and makes the frequent allusions to the apostles and scripture seem a little bit...odd, frankly. 1563 AD (the date of establishment of the 39 articles, according to Wikipedia) is far later than the founding of the Church, or any of the writings of the fathers which established any of our really core doctrines, or any of the councils that confirmed the belief of the Church.



This is a strange conceit, to judge the Creed by what may be "proved" by Holy Scripture. Those who claim to "prove" their doctrines by this or that reading of scripture include many who teach and believe directly contrary to the Creed (by which I mean the Nicene Creed; the so-called "Apostle's Creed" is found in its current form no earlier than the 8th century, and as far as I know does not seem to be used in Eastern Christianity.)



By the fact that it mentions those things that are contrary to it, this presupposes the authority of the Church to interpret in a binding fashion the correct understanding of scripture. Thank you, Anglicans! I knew someone could help you get this, and I was out of ways to explain it.

[font=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]

Not sure what the point of this one is. Councils have authority unless they are found to have erred in some thing? Er...okay. I mean, the Church has never accepted every council that has been called just because it was a council. The Arian council of Tyre that exiled St. Athanasius the Apostolic comes to mind, for one example. But it seems like this article is saying "Councils have authority...except when they teach something against scripture." According to who, is my question -- the Anglicans themselves, I guess? Sorry, but the Orthodox Church of God does not now and will not ever run any of its decisions by some Johnny-come-lately group of Protestants who are not part of the Church in the first place. This is once again the issue: If you (the general you...and I guess also the particular you, in this case) take scripture -- any of it -- to be self-interpreting such that you can declare this or that to be against it, then you immediately fall into the trap of pushing one interpretation as plainly authoritative over all churches, and in that case the churches that you are trying to discredit via your own subjective interpretation (that is to say, the Orthodox Church, the Catholic Church, etc.; any church which may not agree with your interpretation) has the right to ask you on what authority you may be asserting that you are correct and they are not.

Because that is the key difference: When an Orthodox person, for instance, tells you "no, you are wrong about XYZ", they can point to their fathers which predate your sources like these 39 articles and say "St. X in 381, 325, 250, etc. teaches us that _____ (our interpretation) is what was taught by the people who learned at the feet of the apostles, not _____ (your interpretation) that was arrived at many, many centuries later as a result of intellectual sophistry and/or in the context of a dispute with Rome, which was itself teaching something far from the apostles". For example, in the past when I have discussed with Catholics the problems that Orthodox have with the RC 'sacred heart' devotions, I was able to point to ancient writings of the fathers that clearly condemn this kind of devotion, such as the writings of St. Athanasius the Apostolic in his Epistula ad Adelphium which condemns the worship of the body (to mean portions of it) in separation from the word. It was not my own problem that I had set up some kind of distinction between these things in order to prove Rome incorrect -- it was actually something identified as wrong by St. Basil in the fourth century, approximately 13 centuries before Rome embraced this particular form of devotion (c. 1690s). So you see the difference now? We don't object based on what we think should be the case, but by what our fathers have shown us to be the true path to Jesus Christ and salvation in Him. There is nothing by which an Orthodox Christian can argue based on the "plain sense" of a particular scriptural passage or what have you. Everything recalls what came before us, and before the Anglicans, and before Luther, and before all of this other stuff that is based upon the human intellect, which is really what undergirds non-Orthodox doctrine, or non-Orthodox objection to Orthodox doctrine and practice.

So when you quote the Anglicans or whoever else, who pretend as though they have found some kind of key to inherently objective and unbiased exposition of the scriptures, it kind of proves the point I've been trying to make to you: You are taking your own understanding to be self-evident, and rejecting or finding problems with anything that does not match that. We are taking the understanding of the fathers as our guide not because we place all our trust in people who wrote after Jesus or after the writing of scripture, but because these people were much closer to the world of the apostles themselves -- some of them studied at their feet, or the feet of their disciples, so we can say that there is a consistency to be found in them that indicates what they must have been taught by their own fathers, who were themselves taught by others who either were disciples of the apostles or apostles themselves (depending on which particular father we're looking at).

And when you look at the Orthodox Church on one hand and the Anglicans on the other, can there be any doubt which has maintained more consistent adherence to received teaching? You've got so many different flavors of Anglican, with their own churches catering to them in terms of varying by political position or social view or whatever, and at any rate their foundational doctrinal statements, such as the 39 articles, do not predate the 16th century, as their church does not predate that time.

Thank you for your detailed response.

So, you think the apostles were Eastern Orthodox. I bet they would have been surprised to hear that.

I must say that you make some statements that you think apply to me but do not. However, I understand that because you don't know enough about me or my views, having only just "met" me.

I understand what you are saying about Anglicanism, but you are only partially right. They do hold to apostolic succession and also believe they hold to apostolic doctrine. Many of those are the ones who have separated from the apostate Episcopal Church.

Anyway, my point in posting what I did was to show that there are those who give tradition a place in the church and hold it as authoritative but believe it must be secondary and subject to scripture. This is a mediating position between those who hold to sola scriptura and those who make tradition and scripture equal.

 

[rusmeister]

So, would you prefer to trust people (church Fathers and others) who lived and wrote after the apostles lived and wrote? If these fathers and others contradict scripture, I will go with scripture.

What Matt said.
This looks like a distinct effort to try to cast "the people who lived after" as if they contradicted the apostles. That suggests that you haven't read much if "the people who lived after"...

 

[rusmeister]

Thank you for your detailed response.

So, you think the apostles were Eastern Orthodox. I bet they would have been surprised to hear that.

I must say that you make some statements that you think apply to me but do not. However, I understand that because you don't know enough about me or my views, having only just "met" me.

I understand what you are saying about Anglicanism, but you are only partially right. They do hold to apostolic succession and also believe they hold to apostolic doctrine. Many of those are the ones who have separated from the apostate Episcopal Church.

Anyway, my point in posting what I did was to show that there are those who give tradition a place in the church and hold it as authoritative but believe it must be secondary and subject to scripture. This is a mediating position between those who hold to sola scriptura and those who make tradition and scripture equal.

We know this. What you don't seem to know is that for every claim and objection you could possibly raise, we have responses thoroughly thought out and dealt with long before any of us were born. You can go ahead and believe what you want, but none of it is going to be news to us. It's kind of like Dan Brown imagining he had discovered something new, some great secret.

 

[CelticRebel]

considering they start with the disciples' disciples, and since they listen to the same Holy Spirit, they do not contradict the Scriptures. and since their consensus does not contradict the Scriptures either. AND it was their writings that helped the Council of Carthage put together the canonical NT from the gobbldygook out there, since it was all one Gospel and always has been.

the reason that the NT has an elevated status within the Holy Tradition is because it is a first hand account of the life of Christ and the written teachings of the Apostles. the earliest ones lived and suffered WITH the Apostles. the child who Christ put on His lap when He said to suffer the little ones to come unto Me was St Ignatius of Antioch. I am pretty sure he was the child that had the fish and bread in the feeding of the 5000 in St John's Gospel. you really think someone like that is less trustworthy of the Gospel message than someone reading the Bible 2000 years after the fact in a different country and in a different language? folks who say yes to that question for some reason only use that line of logic with the Bible.

I don't trust them ahead of Scripture, since they have the same message. it is the Scripture that clarifies them, but it is only within their context that the Scripture can be properly understood. you cannot divide Scripture from the Fathers

The Fathers cannot be trusted equally with the scriptures. They made errors. For example, Irenaeus also claimed that he had received an apostolic tradition that Jesus was forty to fifty years old.

 

[dzheremi]

So, you think the apostles were Eastern Orthodox. I bet they would have been surprised to hear that.

For the record, I am not arguing for the Eastern Orthodox. There are plenty of them here (this is their board), and they are doing a fine job of arguing for themselves. I am Oriental Orthodox -- a different communion entirely -- but I am participating in this thread nonetheless because this is one area in which we do not differ. As far as I can tell from reading about this topic in their sources and those of my own church, we have the same way of looking at the Church and the scriptures and their relationship to each other.

I understand what you are saying about Anglicanism, but you are only partially right. They do hold to apostolic succession and also believe they hold to apostolic doctrine. Many of those are the ones who have separated from the apostate Episcopal Church.

Well, this thread is not really about Anglicans or Episcopals or whatever, but no. It is not possible to have apostolic succession outside of having maintained the apostolic faith, so no church outside of the Orthodox Church has apostolic succession. What you are writing here reflects a very Rome-ish way of thinking about this matter, whereby apostolic succession can be maintained by whatever obscure historical links you can point to that connect an N-th generation copy (i.e., all Protestant churches, and Rome too for that matter) to the real thing. This is, at its basic level, not different than how any clearly modern, invented group justifies itself. EO, you have a lot more of these than we OO do (though we have a few), so you probably know what I'm talking about: You go to a website of some group calling itself "THE MOST TRUE HOLY APOSTOLIC GENUINE ORTHODOX CHURCH" and read what they say about themselves and their idea of succession is something ridiculous like "our heirarch, HH JOE BOB GIVENS, bumped into HAH Bartholomew I in an airport restroom once, and so we have carried that clear blessing and authority over in the establishment of our Church, the MOST TRUE AND HOLY CHURCH OF GOD EVER, EVER."

Nobody cares where you claim to have come from. They care where you are at in terms of your faith and its conformity with apostolic norms and the councils accepted by the communion. There is no mechanical view of apostolic succession such that you can sustain "validity" (to use a Roman term) outside of that.

Anyway, my point in posting what I did was to show that there are those who give tradition a place in the church and hold it as authoritative but believe it must be secondary and subject to scripture.

Based on what, though? The fact that they would like it to be that way? That it fits with their preexisting way of viewing the relationship between scripture and the Church, even if that way is warped by its very existence outside of the historic mainstream of Christianity, where no such division was entertained? (And still isn't, in Orthodoxy.) I'm sorry, but I don't see why anyone anywhere should take the word of some English guy or group of them in the 16th century over our fathers St. Cyril, St. Basil, St. Gregory, St. Athanasius, etc. You really think that these saints got it wrong, and could only be corrected thirteen centuries later by some yobs who didn't speak their language, didn't grow up in their societies, didn't have their understanding of what scripture even is, and couldn't point to any source of origin beyond "We didn't like Rome, so we went off and did our own thing"? (In hundreds of different varieties, at that.)

I believe that's what the Anglicans would call "poppycock", friend.

 

[prodromos]

So, you think the apostles were Eastern Orthodox. I bet they would have been surprised to hear that.

They were certainly Eastern.

 

[buzuxi02]

The Fathers cannot be trusted equally with the scriptures. They made errors. For example, Irenaeus also claimed that he had received an apostolic tradition that Jesus was forty to fifty years old.

He did, the tradition he was refering to is referenced in the gospel of John 8.57. His point is that he possessed the age of a rabbi and master which is commonly attained between 31-50 years of age, contrary to the gnostic sect which claimed that Jesus was baptised at age 30 and died a month before reaching 31. Because of their belief in numerology they required Christ to have started and finished his ministry in the same year of the nice round number of 30.

You actually have to read and understand what is being said, he does makes clear the tradition is from both the gospels and the elders.

 

[~Anastasia~]

They were certainly Eastern.

Do you suppose you could say they were Orthodox as well?




They were THE CHURCH ... and there were no "denominations" - only those that schismed through heresy.

 

[ArmyMatt]

The Fathers cannot be trusted equally with the scriptures. They made errors. For example, Irenaeus also claimed that he had received an apostolic tradition that Jesus was forty to fifty years old.

we have been through this. yes, they made errors hence we look to their consensus. it's the tradition that is unerring, the Bible is a part of that tradition hence it being unerring. there were times when a certain Father wrote and it may have been inaccurate, so that does not follow the tradition.

and using that to try to discredit the Fathers is like when atheists try to use the two differing days that the Gospels record the Passover meal of Christ during His Passion (synoptics vs John), to discount the Bible.

 

[ArmyMatt]

So, you think the apostles were Eastern Orthodox. I bet they would have been surprised to hear that.

not when they see what Christianity has become, with all sorts of crazy beliefs.

Anyway, my point in posting what I did was to show that there are those who give tradition a place in the church and hold it as authoritative but believe it must be secondary and subject to scripture. This is a mediating position between those who hold to sola scriptura and those who make tradition and scripture equal.

this still presupposes that one can wrench the Scriptures from the Holy Tradition. the balanced view is to take the Holy Tradition as the whole that was deposited at Pentecost. it's still contrasting something within Christianity that was never meant to be contrasted. and nowhere does it actually say in Scripture that Scripture is above the Tradition.