"Holy Tradition"--Who has the correct interpretation of the Traditions?

[Albion]

I never said that. God is a prime cause of a Church and by that a prime cause of anything good coming from the Church. Neither I said the Bible is a "project of a Church". Writings of an ECFs also aren't "projects". Neither is Liturgy. What I've said is: are part of the Tradition.

The issue remains--who is responsible for the writing of them.

But the fact is they emerged from the Church.

Meaning that the writers were believing Christians just like all the rest of us? Sure. But you wouldn't be going on as you are if this what you mean, would you?

ting them with the Apostles and ware in that Church, and later ware selected by the Church (trough the same divine inspiration) to be included into the NT.

He says that on the beginning of his writing of the Gospel. My conclusion is it relates to what he is about to write. Also: "Even as they delivered them unto us, which from the beginning were eyewitnesses, and ministers of the word;"

It's a general statement, not that the contents of the books were taken from something told to the writers by another human.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Every church, or most of them, has some theory that justifies its claim to uniqueness. So, back to the question...which one that says its guided by Tradition is right?

Well, untill they figure that out:

"Just the Scriptures Ma'am, just the Scriptures"!

Anyone wanna know how I view that symbolic "LOF" in Revelation?

Reve 18:9 And shall be lamenting, and shall be beating breasts over her, the kings of the Land, the ones with her fornicating and indulging, whenever they may be observing the Smoke of the firing/purwsewV <4451> of Her.

Reve 19:20 and is arrested the wild-beast and with it the false-prophet, the one-doing the signs in view of it, in which he deceives the ones getting the mark of the wild beast and the ones worshipping to the image of it, living were cast, the two, into the Lake of the fire the one burning in the sulphur/qeiw <2303>.

 

[sunlover1]

Well, untill they figure that out:

"Just the Scriptures Ma'am, just the Scriptures"!

Anyone wanna know how I view that symbolic "LOF" in Revelation?

Reve 18:9 And shall be lamenting, and shall be beating breasts over her, the kings of the Land, the ones with her fornicating and indulging, whenever they may be observing the Smoke of the firing/purwsewV <4451> of Her.

Reve 19:20 and is arrested the wild-beast and with it the false-prophet, the one-doing the signs in view of it, in which he deceives the ones getting the mark of the wild beast and the ones worshipping to the image of it, living were cast, the two, into the Lake of the fire the one burning in the sulphur/qeiw <2303>.

Sure, but I didnt understand.
"Symbolic"?

BTW, has this thread's question been answered?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Sure, but I didnt understand.
"Symbolic"?

BTW, has this thread's question been answered?

Do ya ever find it odd that Paul never once used this word "gehenna" in his epistles? I really do not know how to accurately translate it myself.

Matthew 23:15 Woe to ye Scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! That ye are going about the sea and the dry/xhran <3584> to make one proselyte, and whenever he may be becoming, ye are making him a son of geennhV twofold-more of ye-selves.

Reve 14:11 And the Smoke of the Tormenting of Them is ascending into Ages to-Ages.

 

[Albion]

BTW, has this thread's question been answered?

As we both know, it hasn't.

So let's try again, with some specifics...

Both the EO and RC (and some others) say that they are guided by infallible Tradition. Their people frequently ask us who believe in Sola Scriptura how we can be right when different churches that are SS come up with contrasting answers.

But of Tradition....never a word about the same situation.

The EO and RC (to mention here just two of a number) say that Tradition is true, is God's "other" revelation, etc. and that it can't be wrong. They appeal to the same Tradition, allegedly.

So how come one has a Pope and says that this is absolutely true by Tradition, and the other says that the Papacy is false and even Protestant in nature?

Same authority, different interpretations. No different from what they say about Sola Scriptura.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As we both know, it hasn't.

So let's try again, with some specifics...

Both the EO and RC (and some others) say that they are guided by infallible Tradition. Their people frequently ask us who believe in Sola Scriptura how we can be right when different churches that are SS come up with contrasting answers.

But of Tradition....never a word about the same situation.

The EO and RC (to mention here just two of a number) say that Tradition is true, is God's "other" revelation, etc. and that it can't be wrong. They appeal to the same Tradition, allegedly.

So how come one has a Pope and says that this is absolutely true by Tradition, and the other says that the Papacy is false and even Protestant in nature?

Same authority, different interpretations. No different from what they say about Sola Scriptura.

Don't a lot of Protestant groups [Non-RCC/Orthodox] use outside the Bible Traditions?

 

[nestoj]

As we both know, it hasn't.

The EO and RC (to mention here just two of a number) say that Tradition is true, is God's "other" revelation, etc. and that it can't be wrong. They appeal to the same Tradition, allegedly.

That's exactly what I was trying to explain: there is no "other Revelation". Only one and it includes all. I'm obviously failing to express myself.

So how come one has a Pope and says that this is absolutely true by Tradition, and the other says that the Papacy is false and even Protestant in nature?

Simple, 'Cause the RC's are wrong. How can one know which is right? Study and decide.

Same authority, different interpretations. No different from what they say about Sola Scriptura.

Our authority doesn't come from the Tradition. You're mixing things. Better wording would be "they claim the same source of knowledge but have a different interpretation". Authority comes from God to the Church.

Just one explanation. I can't speak for others, but Tradition actually can't be described with the word "infallible". Tradition is what comes from the Church, is fully accepted and proven unchangingly true. Organism of the Church is infallible. Tradition is universal knowledge but it is easily distorted or lost without the Church (my opinion is without the Church either we wouldn't have it or we wouldn't be able to separate it from the lies - just look at all the "Gospels".).

God helps

 

[Albion]

That's exactly what I was trying to explain: there is no "other Revelation". Only one and it includes all. I'm obviously failing to express myself.
[/size]

Oh, yes, but it's all semantics. You can say that the Bible is part of Tradition, that Tradition includes the Bible, etc. but it doesn't change anything. You depend upon material for dogma which is not taught by the Bible. And I know that a misinterpreted or tortured phrase taken from here or there in the Bible and connected, illogically, to some other one can produce a nubbin of a thought that can then be called the subject of "Development of Doctrine."

You can make any idea at all seem to have had been hinted at in the Bible if you work at it long enough. Still, you won't be satisfied with the Bible, so that's what I was talking about. BTW, many Catholics/Orthodox here have indeed said that it is a second stream of revelation or words to that effect, whether or not that is exactly how their church would put it.

Simple, 'Cause the RC's are wrong. How can one know which is right? Study and decide.

Study and decide? When a Protestant says to do that, he's immediately hit with charges of "personal opinion," "individual interpretation of scripture," and so on--it can't be right, they say. Must follow what the Church says, don't you know?

But we are still left to conclude that BOTH can't be right at once on such important doctrines as I mentioned, yet both say they follow the self-same Tradition. How then can Tradition be correct?

Our authority doesn't come from the Tradition.

No, not your authority. It is Tradition that your church makes to be the authority for your doctrines.

Better wording would be "they claim the same source of knowledge but have a different interpretation". Authority comes from God to the Church.

All right. Then who is correct when several churches, all claiming to follow Tradition and not the Bible Alone, disagree?

Just one explanation. I can't speak for others, but Tradition actually can't be described with the word "infallible". Tradition is what comes from the Church, is fully accepted and proven unchangingly true.

I think I see what you mean, so I'll say 'certainly true.' But again, we're talkking about churches that say they are teaching truth that is certain because of where it came from--but disagree on the doctrines.

Tradition is universal knowledge but it is easily distorted or lost without the Church

At bottom, Tradition says whatever the church in question decides it does. There is no standard whatsoever, and not even a permanent reference point as we have in the unchanging Word of God.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

At bottom, Tradition says whatever the church in question decides it does. There is no standard whatsoever, and not even a permanent reference point as we have in the unchanging Word of God.

CHARGE!!!!!!

http://www.scripture4all.org/

Reve 1:13 And having been about cast/clothed a cloak, having been dipped to blood, and has been called the name of Him, the Word of the GOD/YHWH.

 

[Albion]

CHARGE!!!!!!

I'm sorry that that last comment of mine came out so forcefully, but really...

this thread has been going for some time now and the defenders of Tradition have hardly bothered to...well, defend Tradition. They'll say nice things about it but they don't seem comfortable enough with it to answer the question.

Since different churches, all claiming the same Tradition, arrive at diametrically opposed conclusions about what it is revealing to them, how can Tradition possibly be a correct way of ascertaining God's truth?

 

[Thekla]

whoops; you forgot ethos/ithos

does the tradition/Tradition manifest the same "ethos" ;

how can one make an objective (human) determination when even an "objective human" determination must rely on the physical brain and foundational axioms ?

in asking such a question, we merely show what we already know; we are creatures/created - and the goal/question is derived from our creatureliness ..

 

[sunlover1]

As we both know, it hasn't.

So let's try again, with some specifics...

Both the EO and RC (and some others) say that they are guided by infallible Tradition. Their people frequently ask us who believe in Sola Scriptura how we can be right when different churches that are SS come up with contrasting answers.

But of Tradition....never a word about the same situation.

The EO and RC (to mention here just two of a number) say that Tradition is true, is God's "other" revelation, etc. and that it can't be wrong. They appeal to the same Tradition, allegedly.

So how come one has a Pope and says that this is absolutely true by Tradition, and the other says that the Papacy is false and even Protestant in nature?

Same authority, different interpretations. No different from what they say about Sola Scriptura.

Right, no difference.
We are humans trying to understand God.
We do our best and that's all we can do.
I can at least honestly say that using SS, there are still a
gzillion different interpretations of the Scriptures.
But that wont stop me, because the entrance of His
Word bringeth light.

Don't a lot of Protestant groups [Non-RCC/Orthodox] use outside the Bible Traditions?

I sure would think so!
What did you have in mind?

 

[Vasileios]

We had a discussion some months ago about Tradition, didn't we Albion. I had given you a list then about what constitutes Tradition. So, that answer has been given before...

As a bare minimum, this would include firstly the Bible, then the rulings of the Seven Ecumenical Councils, as far as dogma and doctrine is concerned. Although, and I have mentioned this before, doctrine is really itnerwoven in every aspect of the Church, be it iconography, writings of the saints, hymnology, the liturgy etc...

As for the RCC and the EO, we had a common Tradition up to a point. As you well know, at some point during the 5th century, what we understand to be false understandings crept in the RCC tradition and from then it diverges.

So, you cannot really say we have the "same" Tradition. We have the Bible in common, and that at least is common with every other Christian but from there it is a different situation.

Your argument really holds no water, because you should take the Body of believers that share the same Tradition, and that of course is either JUST the Orthodox or JUST the RCC, and from there you will see that there is no divergence of opinion at all, which is something not to be said about the "Sola Scriptura" crowd.

So, as for who has it right, study. You are more than encouraged to study. Especially since you are outside the visible Church, really, it is quite necessary that you do so, in our opinion. Nobody is going to force you to convert so you should really take matters seriously.

 

[sunlover1]

As for the RCC and the EO, we had a common Tradition up to a point. As you well know, at some point during the 5th century, what we understand to be false understandings crept in the RCC tradition and from then it diverges.

But how do we know it was the RCC's Tradition that is faulty?
they have a strong peter argument.
See the confusion one might run into if trying to find Which is right?
Of course I dont worry about who is more 'right' because I believe
that God's church is made up of only those who are His, not
those who are called [insert denomination here].
I have a pastor, and I believe that God's equipped him for the
work of the ministry.

Your argument really holds no water, because you should take the Body of believers that share the same Tradition, and that of course is either JUST the Orthodox or JUST the RCC, and from there you will see that there is no divergence of opinion at all, which is something not to be said about the "Sola Scriptura" crowd.

Could do the same with the SS crowd, just pick one denomination,
they all hold to the same statement of faith.
Again, I dont hold to such line of thinking though.

So, as for who has it right, study.

Amen, study to show yourself approved.
And die to self and live for Christ, that's the key to life.
IMO,
sunlover

(good to see you post Vas)

 

[Vasileios]

But how do we know it was the RCC's Tradition that is faulty?
they have a strong peter argument.
See the confusion one might run into if trying to find Which is right?
Of course I dont worry about who is more 'right' because I believe
that God's church is made up of only those who are His, not
those who are called [insert denomination here].

That's why I said "study". However, while you agreed with my last paragraph, here you simply wave the matter off, to avoid the trouble of discerning who is right and who is wrong.

Truth matters. Especially if for 1000 years there was ONE Church that visibly protected herself from heresies by meeting together, excommunicating heretics and warning the faithful about those dangers, right from the Book Acts to the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I never understand how people so easily wave a millenia of history as a glorious mistake that God just let happen in His Church.

Could do the same with the SS crowd, just pick one denomination,
they all hold to the same statement of faith.
Again, I dont hold to such line of thinking though.

Indeed. The question then backfires: How come the fruit of Sola Scriptura is so many denominations? There are three distinct bodies that explicitly reject SS: EO, OO and RCC. That's 3. Bad. Schisms, fair enough.

Compare with the thousands of denominations that sprung out of the SS method. The only way to justify this is by saying "eh, it doesn't really matter". But if we are honest, when someone starts a new denomination, he is doing it for a reason he thinks important. Thousands of times, people felt strongly that no denomination was "right" and they were and did their own thing. It got so muh out of hand that today there is this impassive stance against the phenomenon, even viewed favourably, a buffet of beliefs, chose the ones that suit your tastes!

Again, fair enough, but like I said, we see Truth as uncompromising. Truth is Christ. His Church is His Body. Where His Truth is revealed, no errors are allowed. No choices about what is True. It either IS or it isn't. As far as I know all Orthodox converts were people who would not settle for anything short of THE Truth. The conversions to Orthodoxy thread in TAW is really a much more eloquent witness of this particular point I'm trying to make.

And my observation has been that a great deal has been lost, especially in the everyday life and struggle of the Christian, with the schism from the Church.

 

[sunlover1]

That's why I said "study". However, while you agreed with my last paragraph, here you simply wave the matter off, to avoid the trouble of discerning who is right and who is wrong.

Truth matters. Especially if for 1000 years there was ONE Church that visibly protected herself from heresies by meeting together, excommunicating heretics and warning the faithful about those dangers, right from the Book Acts to the 7 Ecumenical Councils. I never understand how people so easily wave a millenia of history as a glorious mistake that God just let happen in His Church.


Indeed. The question then backfires: How come the fruit of Sola Scriptura is so many denominations? There are three distinct bodies that explicitly reject SS: EO, OO and RCC. That's 3. Bad. Schisms, fair enough.

Compare with the thousands of denominations that sprung out of the SS method. The only way to justify this is by saying "eh, it doesn't really matter". But if we are honest, when someone starts a new denomination, he is doing it for a reason he thinks important. Thousands of times, people felt strongly that no denomination was "right" and they were and did their own thing. It got so muh out of hand that today there is this impassive stance against the phenomenon, even viewed favourably, a buffet of beliefs, chose the ones that suit your tastes!

Again, fair enough, but like I said, we see Truth as uncompromising. Truth is Christ. His Church is His Body. Where His Truth is revealed, no errors are allowed. No choices about what is True. It either IS or it isn't. As far as I know all Orthodox converts were people who would not settle for anything short of THE Truth. The conversions to Orthodoxy thread in TAW is really a much more eloquent witness of this particular point I'm trying to make.

And my observation has been that a great deal has been lost, especially in the everyday life and struggle of the Christian, with the schism from the Church.

Holy Smokes this is a long post and I just looked at the clock.
Much as I was enjoying our conversation, I must resume tomorrow.
But I do undrestand what you're saying and I also understand how
our beliefs differ, but I will post my thoughts anyhow, and I look
forward to your response. Thank you for the friendly discussion.

Tomorrow sometime then.
sunlover

 

[Albion]

That's why I said "study"....The question then backfires: How come the fruit of Sola Scriptura is so many denominations? There are three distinct bodies that explicitly reject SS: EO, OO and RCC. That's 3. Bad. Schisms, fair enough.

Compare with the thousands of denominations that sprung out of the SS method. The only way to justify this is by saying "eh, it doesn't really matter". But if we are honest, when someone starts a new denomination, he is doing it for a reason he thinks important. Thousands of times, people felt strongly that no denomination was "right" and they were and did their own thing. It got so muh out of hand that today there is this impassive stance against the phenomenon, even viewed favourably, a buffet of beliefs, chose the ones that suit your tastes!

Yeh, heard that one many times before, but the fact remains and is indisputable that HOW MANY churches take the side of Tradition or, for that matter, how many are Sola Scriptura doesn't matter. There is no agreement among a number of churches on both sides...proving, if the critics of Sola Scriptura are correct in their claim, that NONE OF THEM CAN BE CORRECT, or that their methodology--either SS or Tradition--must be defective.

The CLAIM is what's wrong. Either Sola Scriptura or Tradition may be right, but it's on account of which method is right, not how many churches on are either side. There is no unity among the SS churches, but there is no unity among the Tradition churches. This does not actually prove one or the other wrong, so we must look at the methods themselves to answer that...and the Word of God certainly is more likely to give us truth than a collection of legends and intermittent comments from bishops and theologians (Tradition).

Again, fair enough, but like I said, we see Truth as uncompromising.

Don't we all.

Truth is Christ. His Church is His Body. Where His Truth is revealed, no errors are allowed. No choices about what is True. It either IS or it isn't.

We all say the same thing.

As far as I know all Orthodox converts were people who would not settle for anything short of THE Truth. The conversions to Orthodoxy thread in TAW is really a much more eloquent witness of this particular point I'm trying to make.

...and converts to almost every religion or Christian sect say the same thing.

 

[Vasileios]

OK, if you fail to see a difference that one side has the number 3 and the other a number ranging from 9,000 to 30,000 (whatever), not much I can add to the discussion.

Secondly, Tradition is not an arbiter, or a "method", it is what has been given. End of story. If all the Fathers agree on something, then this is what has been given. We look to the Holy Spirit for the Truth and the Holy Spirit shines forth from the Saints. The gates of hell don't prevail because the Holy Spirit is with the Church. Read the life of St. Seraphim of Sarov. His dialogue with Motovilov, to see the Holy Spirit working. We have tons of these examples throughout the centuries from the beginning to now. Living links of tradition.

What you call legends is simply REALITY. There never was a time without such a glorified link. We have the elders Porphyrios, Paisios, the elder Sophrony of Essex, all reposed recently, before them we had St. John Maximovich, St. Nectarios.

Our theologians are not people from univerisities. They are people who have gone through the process of catharsis, illumination and theosis, the Church is very clear on who can INTERPRET.

And as for your comment on "Don't we all?", well, apparently not, as you accept that the Church (itslef a an organism filled with contradictions) is filled with errors and nobody can do anything about it.

As for my comments about the converts, I suggest reading the thread to understand what I mean about NO compromise. I'm sure other people feel that way here and there, but in Orthodoxy this is really prevalent.

Sorry for the hasty response. I really should be doing some other work right now...

 

[sunlover1]

That's why I said "study". However, while you agreed with my last paragraph, here you simply wave the matter off, to avoid the trouble of discerning who is right and who is wrong.

Absolutly not. I'd never wave off truth seeking. It's what many of us
at CF are doing, seeking truth. From the threads one might think truth
is elusive, but for me I've found that His Word is truth.

Truth matters

I never understand how people so easily wave a millenia of history as a glorious mistake that God just let happen in His Church.

I can understand why you might feel that way, but we have completely
different perspectives on what went down, how and why.

Indeed. The question then backfires: How come the fruit of Sola Scriptura is so many denominations?

I dont see the surprise in that, factions began way back in the NT times.
But that doesnt discount the fact that the entrance of the Word of God
does bring light.
I'm not going to ditch Scripture just because men are dense.

There are three distinct bodies that explicitly reject SS: EO, OO and RCC. That's 3. Bad. Schisms, fair enough.

Three schisms, then countless of different offshoots that even though
they go by the same name they're 'rites' etc. Differences, more differences.
But whoopdy doo. Since when do we judge God's Word by what man
does?
Scripture says to love your neighbor as yourself, do we say Scripture
is faulty if none loves his brother?

Compare with the thousands of denominations that sprung out of the SS method.

Doesnt matter how many. There IS one body, there IS one church,
I dont frankly give a rip what people want to "lable" them as.
God is my pope, whoever He sends to me is my pastor, and I will
live by the Spirit, as a member of His church, singing His praises.

The only way to justify this is by saying "eh, it doesn't really matter". But if we are honest, when someone starts a new denomination, he is doing it for a reason he thinks important. Thousands of times, people felt strongly that no denomination was "right" and they were and did their own thing. It got so muh out of hand that today there is this impassive stance against the phenomenon, even viewed favourably, a buffet of beliefs, chose the ones that suit your tastes!

We do all choose the one that suits our 'tastes'. The way you put it
makes it sound naughty, but it's exactly what each of us does, we
make a choice, that's how you came to your denomination, that's
how I came to mine. I chose.
Well actually, i didnt suit my taste, because my church is an African
american church and so everything is unfamiliar to me, the music,
the culture etc.
But it's where I belong and so it's home, family and love, in Christ.

Again, fair enough, but like I said, we see Truth as uncompromising.
Truth is Christ. His Church is His Body.

Where His Truth is revealed, no errors are allowed. No choices about what is True. It either IS or it isn't. As far as I know all Orthodox converts were people who would not settle for anything short of THE Truth.

Well I hope you dont think that we who arent in your denom prefer
error over truth, and that yours alone possess God's truth.
His truth is found in Christ, Christ is in me.

The conversions to Orthodoxy thread in TAW is really a much more eloquent witness of this particular point I'm trying to make.

Conversion stories abound, but if we seek GOD with all of our
heart, He says, then we will find Him.
I dont believe that He's only found in your denomination, or any
denomination for that matter.

And my observation has been that a great deal has been lost, especially in the everyday life and struggle of the Christian, with the schism from the Church

Yes, much is lost in division, but I've found unity in Christ, wherever
I've looked, I just disregard the signs on the doors.

Blessings,
sunlover

 

[MamaZ]

I have to agree sunlover.. I join a local assembly as part of the body of Christ. Not because of the name that waves above the door.. If Gods word is preached and The assembly is Christ centered I will join with them with praise and Worship to my Lord.