Ever-virgin Mary

[All4Christ]

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

In fact, scripture is what directs us to listen and obey oral tradition (outside of scripture) as well. Paul sets the standard of keeping traditions conveyed to the members of the Church, both written and oral. This sets the standard for how authoritative information and traditions are passed to the members of the Church. (2 Thess. 2:15)

15Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.

 

[ArmyMatt]

In fact, scripture is what directs us to listen and obey oral tradition (outside of scripture) as well. Paul sets the standard of keeping traditions conveyed to the members of the Church, both written and oral. This sets the standard for how authoritative information and traditions are passed to the members of the Church. (2 Thess. 2:15)

it also gives evidence of accepted oral tradition in the NT (Jacob's Well, Moses' seat, the dispute over the body of Moses, the prophecy of Enoch, the names of the Egyptian Warlocks, etc). are all recorded in the NT and yet refer to things from the OT. having an oral tradition that works with the written is actually very Hebraic.

even within the NT, John's Gospel says that Christ did many things that he did not record. well, just because John did not record them, that does not make them suspect.

 

[prodromos]

The Fathers cannot be trusted equally with the scriptures. They made errors.

Yes of course they made errors. We are not the Church which claims someone other than God can speak infallibly. However it is also pretty clear when they do make errors because we are able to see that sometimes one of the Fathers says something which diverges from the consensus. We do believe that the Church as a body is infallible by nature of the Church being the body of the infallible God man Jesus Christ.

 

[CelticRebel]

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.


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.

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.

A few thoughts on the parts of you post I highlighted: This is the first time anyone ever has told me that my thinking is "Romish". I almost laughed, because my views are as far from Romanism as it's possible to get. I bet, though, that the RCC would be shocked and offended at your suggestion that they don't have apostolic succession. So, they claim they're the "one true church", and Orthodoxy claims it is. and there are others who also make that claim. I wonder who is right, or if any of them are.

I would like to point out that the church in England was not formed in the 16th century but extends back to the earliest centuries. There was a Celtic Church in the British Isles and vicinity which developed separately from the RCC and was different from the RCC. It only succumbed to the RCC at the Synod of Whitby. The ancient Celtic Church had more in common with Orthodoxy than with Rome.

 

[CelticRebel]

They were certainly Eastern.

 

[CelticRebel]

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.

To equate "THE CHURCH" to one branch of it is inaccurate.

 

[CelticRebel]

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.

You have mistaken my motives, purpose, and point I was trying to make.

 

[buzuxi02]

To equate "THE CHURCH" to one branch of it is inaccurate.

Stop thinking this, you have been brainwashed by the jealousy of the reformers who know they are a fraud. Stop believing in the nonsense of your forefathers, they have lied to you because of their bias against the near east culture that christianity grew up in. This branch concept is nonsense that a few idiotic europeans invented after they hijacked christianity and transformed the faith into their own distorted image. Wake up man! The gates of Hades have prevailed over the west, this is why a few generations ago they invented the God-hated heresy of branches and sects and schisms, and invisible churches and ecumenism and world council of churches. Everyone of these demonic ideas are soul-condemning and they all originate from the same people who invented their ideas in isolation of christianity in order to hijack it, which they were a success in doing so.

 

[ArmyMatt]

You have mistaken my motives, purpose, and point I was trying to make.

oh I don't think that was your motive or anything, but I do think it is a flaw in that line of thinking. and I had done it for many years myself.

 

[ArmyMatt]

To equate "THE CHURCH" to one branch of it is inaccurate.

Christ established one Church, that is the only evidence in the Scriptures and for 1500+ years of Christian history. this idea of many branches is something else that is very modern. the Protestant West has to use this line of thinking to justify there being 40,000+ denominations and growing, and yet to say that Christianity is one.

 

[dzheremi]

A few thoughts on the parts of you post I highlighted: This is the first time anyone ever has told me that my thinking is "Romish". I almost laughed, because my views are as far from Romanism as it's possible to get.

You may think so, but my point is as I have written: The Orthodox Church does not maintain the mechanical understanding of apostolic succession that you are advancing here, which does come from Rome. It does not matter who ordained you or where your church ultimately extends back to if you have not preserved the apostolic faith since then, which only the Orthodox Church has. There is no "validity" outside of the Orthodox faith. Rome, for her part, teaches that (for instance) my Church has "valid apostolic succession" because it was founded by St. Mark, but we do not say anything similar about Rome. While we can and do say that Rome was founded by an apostle (thus it is right to say that they have apostolic foundations, rather than succession), they are far from having maintained the apostolic faith, so there is nothing "valid" about what they are today. It is not as though they are not Christians, or we don't love them or anything like that...we just have very different ideas of what it means to be an apostolic church. They are a modern church, no matter who founded them.

I bet, though, that the RCC would be shocked and offended at your suggestion that they don't have apostolic succession.

This has not been my experience. Individual RCs who I have known from back when I am RC were offended that we do not extend them the same courtesy, but once I explained that our understanding of what it means to be an apostolic church is different, they tended to get it. They were still sad, but they understood why we don't make those kinds of proclamations about other churches. From our vantage point, it is strange that they do.

So, they claim they're the "one true church", and Orthodoxy claims it is. and there are others who also make that claim. I wonder who is right, or if any of them are.

The one who can show that their faith is in keeping with the faith of the apostles, as demonstrated in the writings of the fathers who sat at the feet of the apostles, attended the councils and wrote their creeds, etc. It's not a guessing game.

I would like to point out that the church in England was not formed in the 16th century but extends back to the earliest centuries. There was a Celtic Church in the British Isles and vicinity which developed separately from the RCC and was different from the RCC. It only succumbed to the RCC at the Synod of Whitby. The ancient Celtic Church had more in common with Orthodoxy than with Rome.

The Church in the Isles was Orthodox at one point, yes, but again: the Church of England is not now, so their past history is immaterial.

If it helps conceptualize things, it can be said that all human beings may be traced back to Africa, ultimately, but I'm not going to go around calling myself an African-American, because that term has very specific meanings that do not describe me.

 

[~Anastasia~]

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

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

To equate "THE CHURCH" to one branch of it is inaccurate.

Stop thinking this, you have been brainwashed by the jealousy of the reformers who know they are a fraud. Stop believing in the nonsense of your forefathers, they have lied to you because of their bias against the near east culture that christianity grew up in. This branch concept is nonsense that a few idiotic europeans invented after they hijacked christianity and transformed the faith into their own distorted image. Wake up man! The gates of Hades have prevailed over the west, this is why a few generations ago they invented the God-hated heresy of branches and sects and schisms, and invisible churches and ecumenism and world council of churches. Everyone of these demonic ideas are soul-condemning and they all originate from the same people who invented their ideas in isolation of christianity in order to hijack it, which they were a success in doing so.

Christ established one Church, that is the only evidence in the Scriptures and for 1500+ years of Christian history. this idea of many branches is something else that is very modern. the Protestant West has to use this line of thinking to justify there being 40,000+ denominations and growing, and yet to say that Christianity is one.

I'm glad you all knew what he's talking about. I had no idea how to respond to the idea that there was anything wrong with saying the early Church was ... the Church.

Especially since CR was ok with it being Eastern, in the post before.

But truly, Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth, the Church in Rome, the Church in Ephesus, and so on. They were ALL "The Church" ... there was no other, and as soon as there became others, it was through schism and/or heresy.

Otherwise I don't know what is being said, or why someone would think it's incorrect to say that the Church was the Church.

Today's Christendom with thousands of "denominations" is NOT what the first century Church looked like. I thought that was commonly agreed-upon.

No offense is intended, CR. I was completely mystified as to why you objected to my statement.

 

[rusmeister]

To equate "THE CHURCH" to one branch of it is inaccurate.

The entire purpose or effect of the idea of "branches", or even "lungs", is to say that there is no actual single Church established by Christ, that it can only exist as something ethereal, abstract, "out there" somewhere.

 

[~Anastasia~]

The entire purpose or effect of the idea of "branches", or even "lungs", is to say that there is no actual single Church established by Christ, that it can only exist as something ethereal, abstract, "out there" somewhere.

I have sometimes tried to come up with diplomatic ways to refer to all the denominations, etc. - I will try never to use "branches" again as it seems to imply something I never intended.

 

[Kristos]

It's sticky business - defining "Church" boundaries. We Orthodox would obviously say that we recognize our church as the "One, Holy and Apostolic Church". Some also add that we do not judge where the Church is not - but sometimes that seems like a nod toward denominationalism or ecumenism depending on how you define it. Sometime people will define the Orthodox as having the "fullness" of the Church, but what does that say about people who don't have the fullness? Are they in or out? The political answer is to avoid the question

 

[GregConstantine]

I think we hesitate to say are they "in or out" when it comes to individual people, as we cannot judge the heart and soul of an individual person.

We do make definitive statements about where the Church is, and make definitive statements about other non Orthodox institutions, denominations, religions, etc.

This upsets modern Roman Catholics who do not even have a proper understanding of what their own Church teaches about these things.

 

[CelticRebel]

You may think so, but my point is as I have written: The Orthodox Church does not maintain the mechanical understanding of apostolic succession that you are advancing here, which does come from Rome. It does not matter who ordained you or where your church ultimately extends back to if you have not preserved the apostolic faith since then, which only the Orthodox Church has. There is no "validity" outside of the Orthodox faith. Rome, for her part, teaches that (for instance) my Church has "valid apostolic succession" because it was founded by St. Mark, but we do not say anything similar about Rome. While we can and do say that Rome was founded by an apostle (thus it is right to say that they have apostolic foundations, rather than succession), they are far from having maintained the apostolic faith, so there is nothing "valid" about what they are today. It is not as though they are not Christians, or we don't love them or anything like that...we just have very different ideas of what it means to be an apostolic church. They are a modern church, no matter who founded them.

This has not been my experience. Individual RCs who I have known from back when I am RC were offended that we do not extend them the same courtesy, but once I explained that our understanding of what it means to be an apostolic church is different, they tended to get it. They were still sad, but they understood why we don't make those kinds of proclamations about other churches. From our vantage point, it is strange that they do.

The one who can show that their faith is in keeping with the faith of the apostles, as demonstrated in the writings of the fathers who sat at the feet of the apostles, attended the councils and wrote their creeds, etc. It's not a guessing game.

The Church in the Isles was Orthodox at one point, yes, but again: the Church of England is not now, so their past history is immaterial.

If it helps conceptualize things, it can be said that all human beings may be traced back to Africa, ultimately, but I'm not going to go around calling myself an African-American, because that term has very specific meanings that do not describe me.

Again see the highlighted parts. I wish I knew how to quote parts of posts like you did.

Anyway, I am not advancing this view, I am simply stating what these different Churches hold. I actually agree with what you said about Rome.

I am not contending that today's Anglican Church is the Celtic Church of old -- far from it. I was simply pointing out the fact that there was a church in the British Isles from apostolic times which was neither Roman nor Orthodox. The ancient Celtic Church gave a much more prominent place to women than either Rome or Orthodoxy did/does.

 

[CelticRebel]

Stop thinking this, you have been brainwashed by the jealousy of the reformers who know they are a fraud. Stop believing in the nonsense of your forefathers, they have lied to you because of their bias against the near east culture that christianity grew up in. This branch concept is nonsense that a few idiotic europeans invented after they hijacked christianity and transformed the faith into their own distorted image. Wake up man! The gates of Hades have prevailed over the west, this is why a few generations ago they invented the God-hated heresy of branches and sects and schisms, and invisible churches and ecumenism and world council of churches. Everyone of these demonic ideas are soul-condemning and they all originate from the same people who invented their ideas in isolation of christianity in order to hijack it, which they were a success in doing so.

You do not know what I believe, as evidenced by the false charges in your post. Considering your hostility and bias, I don't see how it is possible to have a conversation with you. Which is sad because I thought we were doing quite well up until now. I guess it was bound to happen, though; I've come to expect it, whatever forum I happen to be on.

 

[CelticRebel]

I'm glad you all knew what he's talking about. I had no idea how to respond to the idea that there was anything wrong with saying the early Church was ... the Church.

Especially since CR was ok with it being Eastern, in the post before.

But truly, Paul wrote to the Church at Corinth, the Church in Rome, the Church in Ephesus, and so on. They were ALL "The Church" ... there was no other, and as soon as there became others, it was through schism and/or heresy.

Otherwise I don't know what is being said, or why someone would think it's incorrect to say that the Church was the Church.

Today's Christendom with thousands of "denominations" is NOT what the first century Church looked like. I thought that was commonly agreed-upon.

No offense is intended, CR. I was completely mystified as to why you objected to my statement.

No offense taken.

Yes, in the NT, there were individual local assemblies of believers, called churches. There was no overarching hierarchical institution -- no Eastern Orthodox Church, no Roman Catholic Church. As you said, there was a church at Corinth, a church at Ephesus, and so on.

 

[CelticRebel]

The entire purpose or effect of the idea of "branches", or even "lungs", is to say that there is no actual single Church established by Christ, that it can only exist as something ethereal, abstract, "out there" somewhere.

No so. There are individual local assemblies (the NT word), or churches, scattered all over the countryside where I live.