What does it mean for the Church to be "the pillar and ground of truth?"

[Light of the East]

This is a very important question I am pondering. It is important because if we do not have a specific place which is the guardian of the Truth, then there is no place at all where one can find Truth. In other words, the Protestant Rebellion would be utterly justified and anyone can say anything and have no one with the authority to say that they are wrong.

Here is the problem I am facing: it appears, from examination of Christian history, that several of the doctrines of the Latin Rite, which governs over all the Catholic Church, came not specifically from either the ecummenical councils of the Church as a whole (which is the proper place for development of correct doctrine and morals) but rather from the non-divine musings of certain men in the Church. These ideas were set forth by these men and the Latin Church, for some reason, enthusiastically adopted them as Truth, to the point that now they are enshrined in the Catholic Catechism.

So what exactly did Peter mean when he stated that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth? What Truth? Is there a core of Truth which is non-negotiable and which is the foundation which the Church defends - such as, for instance, the Sacraments?

I need to be in the Church which teaches the Truth...but the more I study some of the things in the Catechism, the more I see they are out of line with that which the Early Fathers taught and believed.

Thanks for your comments, links, and helpful suggestions.

 

[Rhamiel]

I am sorry, but you are going to have to go into specifics a bit

what are you troubled by that you find as unauthoritative?

 

[Light of the East]

I am sorry, but you are going to have to go into specifics a bit

what are you troubled by that you find as unauthoritative?

I have recently been made aware of some of the differences between the Eastern and Western views on the afterlife and the purpose of salvation. The "penal substitution" view espoused by the West appears to have gotten its start from the musings of Augustine. By the time these views reached Constantinople and the fathers of the Church there rejected them as heretical, they had taken a firm grip on the West, and over a period of time, have become entrenched in the Catechism.

Anslem of Canterbury put the finishing touches on them.

The view of the afterlife for the wicked as being one which includes eternal torment was not promoted in the East prior to Augustine. The idea in the East was more that the fire and chastening were more corrective than punitive, and lasted only as long as needed to produce a change in the soul of the wicked and bring about metanoia.

In addition, there appear to have been serious translation problems from the East to the West due to the fact that both Jerome and Augustine were not Greek speaking by birth. I am reading information which points to the idea that the word "eternal" (such as in eternal fire) is not a description of how long the sinner stays in the fire, but rather of the nature of the fire itself, i.e., that it never goes out. Which is a description of God, for Sacred Scripture states that our God is fire. It is the fire of his love.

Then there is the issue of Purgatory, indulgences, and merit, all of which the East rejects. They reject it, of course, because their view of salvation is not that of legal payment for sin, but theosis, or the change of the soul by the acquiring of God's nature.

At the same time, I also question the fact that the Eastern Church says very little about the Covenant of God in their writings. Yet the word "covenant" is found over 300 times in the Bible, and is therefore an important part of God's dealing with us. Orthodox ecclesiology appears to not understand the nature of federal, or covenant, headship, as seen by their not accepting a single leader over the earthly covenant people, which is the Church on earth.

In either case, if there is truth to what I am saying, then someone is wrong, yet both cannot be wrong if one of them is the true Church and is therefore the "pillar and ground of truth."

And, of course, we can utterly throw out any idea of any Protestant sect being either the Church or a pillar of truth. Chaos does not lend itself to expressing truth.

 

[tadoflamb]

.

So what exactly did Peter mean when he stated that the Church is the pillar and ground of Truth?

I believe you're thinking of St. Paul. (1 Timothy 3:15)

 

[Light of the East]

I believe you're thinking of St. Paul. (1 Timothy 3:15)

Correct. My bad.

 

[Open Heart]

I have recently been made aware of some of the differences between the Eastern and Western views on the afterlife and the purpose of salvation. The "penal substitution" view espoused by the West appears to have gotten its start from the musings of Augustine. By the time these views reached Constantinople and the fathers of the Church there rejected them as heretical, they had taken a firm grip on the West, and over a period of time, have become entrenched in the Catechism.

Anslem of Canterbury put the finishing touches on them.

The view of the afterlife for the wicked as being one which includes eternal torment was not promoted in the East prior to Augustine. The idea in the East was more that the fire and chastening were more corrective than punitive, and lasted only as long as needed to produce a change in the soul of the wicked and bring about metanoia.

In addition, there appear to have been serious translation problems from the East to the West due to the fact that both Jerome and Augustine were not Greek speaking by birth. I am reading information which points to the idea that the word "eternal" (such as in eternal fire) is not a description of how long the sinner stays in the fire, but rather of the nature of the fire itself, i.e., that it never goes out. Which is a description of God, for Sacred Scripture states that our God is fire. It is the fire of his love.

Then there is the issue of Purgatory, indulgences, and merit, all of which the East rejects. They reject it, of course, because their view of salvation is not that of legal payment for sin, but theosis, or the change of the soul by the acquiring of God's nature.

At the same time, I also question the fact that the Eastern Church says very little about the Covenant of God in their writings. Yet the word "covenant" is found over 300 times in the Bible, and is therefore an important part of God's dealing with us. Orthodox ecclesiology appears to not understand the nature of federal, or covenant, headship, as seen by their not accepting a single leader over the earthly covenant people, which is the Church on earth.

In either case, if there is truth to what I am saying, then someone is wrong, yet both cannot be wrong if one of them is the true Church and is therefore the "pillar and ground of truth."

And, of course, we can utterly throw out any idea of any Protestant sect being either the Church or a pillar of truth. Chaos does not lend itself to expressing truth.

Good questions. I have to think about this for a long time.