How do I choose which Tradition to follow? (2)

[Rick Otto]

This thread was split automatically after 1000 replies and this thread has been automatically created.
The old thread automatically closed is here: "How do I choose which Tradition to follow?"

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=Albion; To a degree, sure, but the EO-RC-OO-OC Traditions are not only "one true church" oriented but are based on a belief that mythology and speculation, if consistent, is divine revelation equal to that given in Scripture. I have no sympathy ProphesyKid's theology, but at the least we can say that someone derived these theories from a reading of God's word, however mistaken the interpretation of it might be.

The bolded part leaves out the part of the base that proves his point - the claim of catholicity - hyper unity, if I may, it constitutes an implicit but no less enforced contract of professional if not personal, loyalty to the group's body of revelation however closed or open-ended it may be.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by Albion

To a degree, sure, but the EO-RC-OO-OC Traditions are not only "one true church" oriented but are based on a belief that mythology and speculation, if consistent, is divine revelation equal to that given in Scripture. I have no sympathy for the kind of thing you are opposing here but at the least we can say that someone derived these theories from a reading of God's word, however mistaken the interpretation of it might be.
​

response=StandingUp; "Paganism, mixture, corrupted church IOW. Grieveous wolves enter. Whatever the metaphor. It's always a problem when it's "them" and never "we" to whom it applies. How does one pick one's Tradition? Bible."

 

[Albion]

It looks like the split occurred while I was editing my original wording.

 

[Rick Otto]

Originally Posted by PROPHECYKID

That is what you believe. Daniel 2 clearly tells me that there must be some mixing take place. Unless you can give a bible based interpretation of Daniel 2 as opposed to what I said, you would be the one in error.
​

response=Albion; The problem is that you are deciding what constitutes the going astray and when it happened. That's not from Daniel. Even you said that "it is highly possible...," meaning that it could also be wrong.

How could Daniel communicate a going astray without defining 'astray' if only in idioms generic to OT, not NT & modern? "Mixing" is "astray" if unadulterated is the way.

 

[squint]

The bolded part leaves out the part of the base that proves his point - the claim of catholicity - hyper unity, if I may, it constitutes an implicit but no less enforced contract of professional if not personal, loyalty to the group's body of revelation however closed or open-ended it may be.

I found it quite strange many years ago, after having a discussion about salvation with a local RCC priest, on the fact of actually 'having' salvation.

Technically speaking, if I have an accurate view of this, that none of the currently alive members can really say they are saved or not.

They have at best 'reasonable assurances' based on a myriad of particular details. But none can really even claim, outright, that they are saved.

Only that they might be.

It appears to be somewhat ambiguous that a claim of being thee one sole and only purveyor of salvation, and not even being able to determine definite salvation beyond a maybe is a bit odd in itself.

Is salvation really that ambiguous that it gets reduced to the reasonable assurances of somebody else who is likewise only reasonably assured?

Such constructs can only derive reasonable assurance at best because that is all they hold out.

They are reasonably assured that their constructs are thee one an only. But they really can't say for sure.

?

 

[Albion]

Daniel Shows The Way

But We Don't Know What He Say.

Mixing Is Astray

If Unadulterated is The Way.

 

[Albion]

I found it quite strange many years ago, after having a discussion about salvation with a local RCC priest, on the fact of actually 'having' salvation.

Technically speaking, if I have an accurate view of this, that none of the currently alive members can really say they are saved or not.

Very true, and they seem proud to tell us that.

They have at best 'reasonable assurances' based on a myriad of particular details. But none can really even claim, outright, that they are saved.

I doubt that even the reasonable assurances can be said to be part of that theology. The famous beer truck scenario has to be considered.

It appears to be somewhat ambiguous that a claim of being thee one sole and only purveyor of salvation, and not even being able to determine definite salvation beyond a maybe is a bit odd in itself.

 

[Rick Otto]

Daniel Shows The Way

But We Don't Know What He Say.

Mixing Is Astray

If Unadulterated is The Way.

Is this "Anglican Rap"?

 

[Albion]

Is this "Anglican Rap"?

Yeh. If we can get four lines out, we're done.

 

[squint]

Was trying to put up an observation earlier, that if one is to put their trust in any particular 'thee one and only' that it is only the goose of the individual who is staking his eternal destiny on such claimants or the likewise individual 'fear' that is automatically introduced into the formulas, that of not being totally right because of the demand of thee one and only.

The demand of thee one and only is that only their unit is 'totally right' therefore thee one and only is thee only totally right. It can be no other way for thee one and only can it?

Particularly if one is staking their eternal destiny on such claims and claimants.

No one really wants to sit under less than totally right do they?

And in such claims FEAR is automatically induced into such equations.

The format of all christian sectarianism is based on the fear that one must be totally right or that one MIGHT not be totally right.

So the claimants themselves in making such claims have effectively introduced that fear into the equations of faith and also in the way of cause and effect, any individual who fears that thee one and only might not be totally right then SPLITS, not being able to place their individual destinies in such claimants hands.

It is in fact this general format that effectively severed these various units and the same format continues to divide sects.

Is anyone with any form of reasoning willing to stake their individual eternal destiny on such grounds?

I find that format itself rather illogical.

Is the truthful call of thee one and only only a call to TOTALLY RIGHT?

That is the claim and must be the claim to be thee one and only.

How many traditions constitute totally right? Would it not have to be every jot and tittle correct and perfect? Every determination? Every adherence? It must ALL be totally right to make that claim.

In the Old Testament there were men killed over not being able to produce the proper pronunciation of a single word.

s

 

[MarkRohfrietsch]

Subscribing to this new thread...

 

[steve_bakr]

Was trying to put up an observation earlier, that if one is to put their trust in any particular 'thee one and only' that it is only the goose of the individual who is staking his eternal destiny on such claimants or the likewise individual 'fear' that is automatically introduced into the formulas, that of not being totally right because of the demand of thee one and only.

The demand of thee one and only is that only their unit is 'totally right' therefore thee one and only is thee only totally right. It can be no other way for thee one and only can it?

Particularly if one is staking their eternal destiny on such claims and claimants.

No one really wants to sit under less than totally right do they?

And in such claims FEAR is automatically induced into such equations.

The format of all christian sectarianism is based on the fear that one must be totally right or that one MIGHT not be totally right.

So the claimants themselves in making such claims have effectively introduced that fear into the equations of faith and also in the way of cause and effect, any individual who fears that thee one and only might not be totally right then SPLITS, not being able to place their individual destinies in such claimants hands.

It is in fact this general format that effectively severed these various units and the same format continues to divide sects.

Is anyone with any form of reasoning willing to stake their individual eternal destiny on such grounds?

I find that format itself rather illogical.

Is the truthful call of thee one and only only a call to TOTALLY RIGHT?

That is the claim and must be the claim to be thee one and only.

How many traditions constitute totally right? Would it not have to be every jot and tittle correct and perfect? Every determination? Every adherence? It must ALL be totally right to make that claim.

In the Old Testament there were men killed over not being able to produce the proper pronunciation of a single word.

s

I didn't choose Catholicism out of fear and that shouldn't be anyone's motivation. The best motivation of choosing one's faith Tradition is the desire to find God's will for our way of living out and expressing our faith in Jesus Christ.

But since the OP is concerned with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Traditions, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church holds these Traditions to be essentially very close.

 

[Albion]

But since the OP is concerned with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Traditions, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church holds these Traditions to be essentially very close.

To each other? Well, as has been pointed out before, there are significant differences despite the similarities:

Papal Supremacy

Papal Infallibility

20+ councils considered ecumenical although only one church was represented

Transubstantiation

Purgatory

Immaculate Conception

Married priests

and more.

So everyone has to make a choice of Traditions, even if a bunch of churches each say that they go by Tradition.

 

[squint]

I didn't choose Catholicism out of fear and that shouldn't be anyone's motivation. The best motivation of choosing one's faith Tradition is the desire to find God's will for our way of living out and expressing our faith in Jesus Christ.

Well, the claim in vogue here is that there is ONLY ONE to choose from and that claim of itself means all other claimants are by default NOT THE ONE.

But since the OP is concerned with the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Traditions, it is my understanding that the Catholic Church holds these Traditions to be essentially very close.

That is not the claim. There are at a minimum in this exercise, 3 ONLY ONE claimants.

Picking any one of them by instant requirement has to be wrong based on each claimants claims because there is only ONE TRUE CHURCH.

Close enough doesn't work under each claimants claims.

Who sits in the RIGHT ONE as there is ONLY ONE?

???

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Well, that ain't Solo Scriptura, friend!


For the umpteenth time, the difference is that you make these human traditions into Christian dogma. We only use the human experience to be sure we are reading Scripture correctly. Now, you can go off and joke with your pals about that--"Look, these people actually believe the Bible!"

so which dogmas have EO made not found in scripture?

 

[Albion]

so which dogmas have EO made not found in scripture?

Apparently you are prepared to answer there are NO dogmas in the EO because you don't follow the mechanical means used by the RC to define them. On the other hand, you are proud that there are no disagreements among EO people (unlike those quarrelsome Protestants). Perhaps you can reconcile those two points for us.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Apparently you are prepared to answer there are NO dogmas in the EO because you don't follow the mechanical means used by the RC to define them. On the other hand, you are proud that there are no disagreements among EO people (unlike those quarrelsome Protestants). Perhaps you can reconcile those two points for us.

Oh i never said we don't have our disagreements. There are a few issues that EO do not agree on all the time wrt teachings. And of course things like politics etc. But by in large we agree quite well. I just want some examples of essential beliefs (if you prefer that term instead of dogma) that we hold that are not based in scripture.

 

[Ortho_Cat]

Don't Anglicans believe in purgatory? Is that a biblical concept? I'll bet there are more than a few around here would contend that it isnt (including myself).

 

[Standing Up]

so which dogmas have EO made not found in scripture?

RC asks the same. Each, however, disagrees with each other over numerous doctrines/dogmas. How did you choose which contradictory Tradition, even though they both claim to have all their contradictory dogmas found in scripture.