Are Protestants dead?

[Willie T]

I agree, He unites with us in His Body and that He is Love personified and remembering those He died for.....I'm one of those, and that's why I want to know every suffering He experienced for me. If there is a pain that made His face grimace I want to feel it with Him. I don't want to miss a single bit of His agony for me. Every drop of His Precious Blood is worthy of devotion. This is where we find love so that we can love others. When it is said that God loved us first, the crucified Christ is that. The more I enter into His experience of suffering the more I understand how great His love is. The more I am humbled. The more I can grow into His. You are right He doesn't need us to reenact an execution in our minds. We need to. We need to always remember His agony in every detail so we can continue to plumb the depth of Our saviors love.

Yes, I suppose some people do need to reenact that experience.

 

[John tower]

Even if the traditions between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church have split even before pre-schism, there are more closer to apostolic tradition than anyone who can be classified in the main stream definition of a Protestant.

We know from sacred tradition that intercession of saints is fine, which is affirmed in sacred scripture. We also know that the Eucharist is a sacrament that was done in the Early Church, and instituted by Christ himself.We know that Easter Sunday was celebrated in the Early Church. We know that the structure of bishop comes from the Apostles themselves, and so is apostolic succession. We most importantly know that the 3 solas were not believed by any of the Apostles. We know that tradition affirms Mary was the Mother of God.

So even though there are impotant differences, they aren't are as wide as you make them seem.

Also, to answer your some of your questions: Easter is celebrated in a different time because Eastern Orthodox have a different calendar than Roman Catholics and also have a different date.

Endless doctrines and terms of men to try and impress people : how about some simple scripture : terminology of men does not impress me : you are trying too hard !

 

[nonaeroterraqueous]

The people who abandoned Him in St. John 6 sure took him literally.

Then you identify with those who abandoned Jesus.

Why is it helpful for religious groups to attack each other?

Because some of those groups are dangerously wrong.

But He said "This is my body". He didn't say "This represents" or "This is comparable to" or "This is a metaphor". He said "This IS my body."

You should take the time to learn the difference between a metaphor and a simile. It would also help to note that he didn't announce his metaphor when he talked of rebuilding the temple in three days, as well as much of his other figurative speech.

Friend, there's a lot of pseudo-history floating around Protestant Christian circles.

Jumping on the Fake News bandwagon, are we? My information is always fake if I don't get it from the approved sources, I see.

Someone earlier mentioned that Christ led the first communion at Passover. Was he literally eating himself?

 

[sunlover1]

Golly, the Church Fathers discussed these matters, prayed over them, debated them and considered them for centuries.

The Church Fathers ever make a mistake? SURE. Jesus was always correcting them.
Do we think that just because HE left and His SPIRIT came, they suddenly became perfect in memory and understanding? Heck no.

And just because something is "debated and considered for centuries", doesn't mean that it's true or fact.

And yet, with no help whatsoever from them, apparently, you figured it out by reading the book they compiled and gave to you. That's... whatever.

I was Catholic for many years, so I can appreciate your frustration here, but to be honest, it was "reading the Book" that GOD authored, that caused me to find out about His love for me and to discover more truth. His Word of Truth,..
IF i were to ask {Insert name of a man you deem to be a "church father"} about something concerning God, i would then get that "man's" response. We all know what one man said about that idea (Galatians 1:8)
If i were to ask God Himself, I would get Truth indeed.
IF I were to ask God to SAY it or WRITE down what He says, tell me, what might be the difference?
I can't understand God?
Better yet, God would say something to me, that HE wants me to know, yet in a way that only another man can understand and then translate to me?
With all due respect and in love, I suggest you reconsider this because it doesnt seem like a sound argument.

 

[sunlover1]

You should take the time to learn the difference between a metaphor and a simile. It would also help to note that he didn't announce his metaphor when he talked of rebuilding the temple in three days, as well as much of his other figurative speech.


Someone earlier mentioned that Christ led the first communion at Passover. Was he literally eating himself?

What I do is leave it at what He said and don't try to figure it out lol.
He said take and eat, this is my body that was broken,..
He said that His flesh was "real food" His blood, "real drink" etc.
I think that the RC Church tries to take control of it, saying that it's "they" who "make it so". and I think that often protestant churches try to explain it away.
IMO, who can really say for sure how or what?
He said it was His flesh, He said to "taste and see" etc., I just leave it at that.
Is that hurting anything?
Another thing that many churches do is try to police who is "worthy" to partake.
But communion is for all who call upon the name of Jesus.
If Jesus said, "do this often, in remembrance of me", and i enter a church that says, "Uh no, you need to first become a member of our club".. I'm thinking He's going to frown on them denying me His body and His blood.
I digress.
Anyhow,
Eat and drink HIM!
"OFTEN".

 

[Albion]

If I had no grape juice or crackers , I’d use saliva and a crumb from the floor if I had to. It ain’t the elements—- it’s the remembrance.

Hmm. Not only don't we have to believe that what we are consuming is what Christ said it was (in one sense or another), but now we are not to be bothered to use the same food he said to use, either!

Of course, that means that remembering or memorializing--which these people claim is the meaning of the Lords Supper--doesn't really need to be done. Under those conditions, something else is being observed...if there is any observing at all. Many churches that those folks belong to have Communion four or fewer times a year!

It all fits together logically. It just doesn't fit together scripturally.

I am not surprised (as I once was) when people insist that they are Christians but cannot be bothered to go to church--any church--although the Bible instructs us to do that, too.

But they say that they are Sola Scriptura or that the Bible is all they need, etc.

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Dogma is just a Latin word for doctrine, this is a doctrinal discussion. When there is an essential doctrine that's dogma, Protestants, Catholics and Orthodox all have them, and of course, should.

Difference is theology is the study of established beliefs based on scripture. Dogma, or doctrine is established beliefs sometimes which have nothing to do with scripture but like in this case what the RCC calls oral tradition.

With that being said, what we really are talking about is transubstiantiation.

 

[jamesbond007]

This discussion (such as it is) grows tiresome. St. John 6:31-68. Address that or don't bother replying. Thanks.

I think you presented a pretty good argument even though we disagree. In John 6:63, it explains that Jesus was discussing it figuratively so I think we heathens will live. I do have one question for you, how do you interpret the Apostles walking away from Jesus after hearing him?

"60 Many therefore of his disciples, when the heard [this], said, This is a hard saying; who can hear it?

61 But Jesus knowing in himself that his disciples murmured at this, said unto them, Doth this cause you to stumble?

62 [What] then if ye should behold the Son of man ascending where he was before?

63 It is the spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I have spoken unto you are spirit, are are life.

64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who it was that should betray him.

65 And he said, For this cause have I said unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it be given unto him of the Father.

66 Upon this many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him."

John 6:60-66

 

[sunlover1]

You're welcome to remember it. Indeed, remembering it is an objectively good thing to do. By all means, remember it in your "Lord's Supper".

But your grape juice and crackers? That's not the Eucharist, friend.

Why not?
What is?
What exactly did Jesus use?
And do you use "exactly" that same thing?
Why can you use a wafer?
He didn't.

 

[gideon123]

I see many critical comments on this thread.

I ask everyone, esp. the OP, is your real intention to glorify God? Is your conversation doing this?

Blessings!!

 

[2Timothy2:15]

Whats the difference between them?

Theology =
the study of the nature of God and religious belief.
religious beliefs and theory when systematically developed.
plural noun: theologies

another words systematically studying scripture and building doctrine from that.

Dogma =
a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.
"the Christian dogma of the Trinity"

another words establishing doctrine based on scripture, oral tradition, or the opinion of someone in authority. Which ultimately may not be based on scripture.

i.e. the pope

 

[dreadnought]

Because some of those groups are dangerously wrong.

And you never are?

 

[Ronald]

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

John 6:53 New King James Version (NKJV)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Lets back up. This occurred after He fed the 5000 and walked on water. It is not such a hard teaching. Jesus was trying to get rid of the Pharisees and others who weren't there even because of the miracles. Some weren't His sheep.
Vs. 26 I tell you the truth, you are looking for me, not because you saw miraculous signs, but because you ate the loaves and had your fill."
Vs. 28 Then they asked, " What must we do to do the work God requires?"
Vs 29 " ... believe in the one He has sent."
Then they wanted to see a miraculous sign like manna that Moses gave.
Vs 35 " Then Jesus declared, I AM the bread of LIFE. He who comes to Me will never go hungry, and he who believes in Me will never be thirsty."
So, there it is, He is the bread that we eat, spiritually. By believing in Him we consume the bread. By receiving communion, we remember His sacrifice. He told us to do this in remembrance of His bodily blood sacrifice.
Vs. 36 "But as I told you, you have seen Me and yet you do not believe."
Vs. 41 " At this the Jews began to grumble because He said, " I am the bread that came down from heaven."
They doubted Him saying, ..." Isn't this the son of Joseph ...?"
Vs 43 "Stop grumbling ..."
44 " No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him."
He reiterates in vs. 47: "I tell you the truth, he who believes has everlasting life."
49 "Your forefathers ate the manna in the desert, yet they died."
50 But here is the bread that comes down from heaven, which a man may eat and not die." Again, he is talking about believing in Him, consuming the truth of His words, Who He is and what He did for us, not literal bread or His literal body. The bread in communion is symbolic and purposed for us to remember. Physical food doesn't save us. It doesn't become His body nor does the grape juice or wine become His blood. It was a Passover meal then and with every meal thereafter, it was done to reflect on His sacrifice.
52 " Then the Jews began to argue sharply among themselves. "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?"
They didn't understand, didn't get what he said was a metaphor, symbolic for believing. It was a spiritual teaching not meant literally.
54 " Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life ..."
He knew they didn't understand and that this teaching would get rid of them.
They were all dismayed, even the disciples didn't quite get it.
Vs 61 "... Does this offend you?"
He explains, The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing." Right there He tells them it was not His physical flesh, but from the Spirit _ it's a spiritual transformation, a gift, by Grace through faith, not by works.
Vs. 66 "From this time many of the disciples turned backed and no longer followed Him."
Why? They were not His sheep.


We receive communion to remember, reflect on His sacrifice, our joining together in that common belief. It is a symbolic ritual. If you think the host turns into His flesh and the juice or wine into His blood ... why don't you taste it? Because its just bread and wine. Even Jesus said, "The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing".

 

[mindlight]

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

John 6:53 New King James Version (NKJV)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

At least half the protestants I know believe in some version of the real presence in communion. Calvinists see it in terms of The Spirit providing a real connection - which is also the anglican view. Catholics in transsubstantiation and lutherans consubstantiation. In practice I doubt if Jesus minds the difference so long as there is reverence and understanding. He who gave us life before we could eat and drink is perfectly able to renew, refresh or restore life by a variety of means. The Eucharist is not the only way Jesus can do this. The thief on the cross never took communion.

 

[GingerBeer]

We receive communion to remember, reflect on His sacrifice, our joining together in that common belief. It is a symbolic ritual. If you think the host turns into His flesh and the juice or wine into His blood ... why don't you taste it? Because its just bread and wine. Even Jesus said, "The Spirit gives life, the flesh counts for nothing".

It may be your custom to limit the significance of communion to remembering and reflecting and to symbolic meanings. That is not the custom of the majority of professing Christians who receive communion.

 

[JacksBratt]

I started this thread as a spin off thread from another thread i have going. As i was discussing the Lords supper, I was told by Catholics that Protestants dont actually partake of the real Lords supper. If this is true then doesnt that mean that protestants are dead, according to John 6:53?

John 6:53 New King James Version (NKJV)
53 Then Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you.

Hmm.... just thinking.

I always get slammed for being of the "sola scriptura" camp and taking the bible as my source for truth above any other..... especially by RC's.

Now, I am being told that I am dead.... due to "sola scriptura"?

 

[Albion]

At least half the protestants I know believe in some version of the real presence in communion. Calvinists see it in terms of The Spirit providing a real connection - which is also the anglican view.

Actually not, so you might want to look into the difference when you have a moment.

 

[John tower]

Then you identify with those who abandoned Jesus.


The True Secret to Spiritual Growth!
August 2, 2017gigoboy777 Leave a comment


The True Secret to Spiritual Growth ! The greatest hindrance to spiritual growth is being controlled by one group , having one group dictate to you what is the truth ! Every group in existence tells their followers that they have the quote : ” REAL TRUTH ” and in this way they get their followers to listen only to them . As long as you are limited to the teachings of one group you cannot possibly grow spiritually , you are totally controlled . Jesus Christ said the only way to break free of the control of any group is to follow his word only , not men : John 8 ( 31 & 32 ) : If you continue in my word you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free ! Free from what ? : Free from the control of men . When you are finally freed from the control and limitations of the groups of men by following God’s word alone , your spiritual growth becomes unlimited . This is the true secret to spiritual growth , following the word of God , not men ! The bible goes on to say that the only true interpreter of his word is his Holy Spirit , never men : 1 John 2 ( 27 ) : But the anointing which you have received of him abides in you , AND YOU NEED NOT THAT ANY MAN TEACHES YOU, but as the same anointing TEACHES YOU OF ALL THINGS ! If you follow God’s word only with his spirit only interpreting it for you , you can never again be controlled by men ! Again this is the true secret to spiritual growth ! This of course does not mean that you cannot listen to men , but you must always make God’s word the final authority , by always checking if what they teach is according to God’s word : Acts 17 ( 11 ) : Receive the word with all readiness of mind , AND SEARCH THE SCRIPTURES WHETHER THESE THINGS ARE SO ! The church people do not do this , and so THEY BECOME CONTROLLED BY MEN , INSTEAD OF GOD ! Most people in the churches today think that they are following God , but they are not : they are being controlled by men, not God : they are limited by the teachings of men , not God : and so of course they cannot grow spiritually at all : they are spiritually dead and don’t even know it . Christ wants you to follow his word only , so you can find his real truth , which will automatically free you from the controls and limitations of groups which kill spiritual growth : John 8 ( 31 & 32 ) : If you continue in MY WORD , you shall know THE TRUTH, and THE TRUTH SHALL MAKE YOU FREE ! So if you want true spiritual growth , start following God’s word alone , not the teachings of men , in the endless groups of men and your spiritual growth will become unlimited, no longer limited by the teachings of groups ! BE CONTROLLED BY GOD , NOT MEN OR THE GROUPS OF MEN !


Post navigation


Because some of those groups are dangerously wrong.



You should take the time to learn the difference between a metaphor and a simile. It would also help to note that he didn't announce his metaphor when he talked of rebuilding the temple in three days, as well as much of his other figurative speech.



Jumping on the Fake News bandwagon, are we? My information is always fake if I don't get it from the approved sources, I see.

Someone earlier mentioned that Christ led the first communion at Passover. Was he literally eating himself?

 

[Ronald]

It may be your custom to limit the significance of communion to remembering and reflecting and to symbolic meanings. That is not the custom of the majority of professing Christians who receive communion.

I know. What Jesus meant when He said "This is my body, take and eat it" was a clarification of that whole episode that had them confused. They still didn't get it until later.
It should be no surprise that the Word is spiritual food that nourishes us and that our faith comes by the Word. Since Jesus is the Word, and a piece if bread isn't, it must be symbolic.
If you want to believe eating the bread is spiritually nourishing, go ahead. What of people who do this week after week but don't read the Bible or pray? That is where spiritual nourishment comes. We grow from being fed the Word and commune with God through prayer, not a piece a bread and sip of grape juice.
I am not devaluing communion, I take it because Jesus said to, but LET ME BE CLEAR, I AM ALIVE IN CHRIST, not because I partake in the ritual, but because I believe and the Holy Spirit gave me life andlives in me.

 

[redleghunter]

Even if the traditions between the Orthodox and the Catholic Church have split even before pre-schism, there are more closer to apostolic tradition than anyone who can be classified in the main stream definition of a Protestant.

Can you list these unwritten early church apostolic traditions and when they were realized as apostolic?

We know from sacred tradition that intercession of saints is fine, which is affirmed in sacred scripture.

Please show me this in Sacred Scriptures. Which apostle established this and where do we find the NT church observing this?

We also know that the Eucharist is a sacrament that was done in the Early Church, and instituted by Christ himself.

Yes, The Lord's Supper (1 Corinthians 11:20) was instituted by Christ and confirmed by the apostle Paul.

We know that Easter Sunday was celebrated in the Early Church. We know that the structure of bishop comes from the Apostles themselves, and so is apostolic succession.

Churches gathering to celebrate the Resurrection of Christ is a fine tradition. My point was it was not an apostolic tradition because two variants of The One True Church differ.

Yes, the structure of elders, bishops or overseers are clearly the same office as Paul explains to Timothy and Titus. How it shook out hundreds of years later is a matter of debate. Especially as none of the NT Scriptures institutes a Christian "Priesthood" other than the priesthood of believers.

We most importantly know that the 3 solas were not believed by any of the Apostles. We know that tradition affirms Mary was the Mother of God.

The apostles used the Scriptures (Torah, Prophets, Psalms-Luke 24:44-50) to confirm their truth claims with the Power of God (Miracles) as did Christ during his First Advent ministry. Not an unwritten tradition to be found. Even the institution of the Lord's Supper is based on Passover and Isaiah 53. Therefore, in the absence of anything other than Holy Scriptures (which in the OT attested Messiah would perform miracles) we call that alone, apart from, only.

Sola Fide? When reading the very same Pauline epistles Luther read, Chrysostom concluded we are justified/saved by faith alone, only, apart from.

Chrysostom does use 'alone' not once but twice in his homily on Acts chapter 15:

Do you mark how closely the trials succeed each other, from within, from without? It is well ordered too, that this happens when Paul is present, that he may answer them. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question. Acts 15:2 And Paul does not say, What? Have I not a right to be believed after so many signs? But he complied for their sakes. And being brought on their way by the Church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren. Acts 15:3 And observe, the consequence is that all the Samaritans also, learn what has come to the Gentiles: and they rejoiced. And when they had come to Jerusalem, they were received of the Church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. Acts 15:4 See what a providence is here! But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together to consider of this matter.

And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up and said unto them, Men and brethren, you know how that of old days God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel, and believe. Acts 15:5-7 Observe Peter from the first standing aloof (κεχωρισμένον) from the affair, and even to this time judaizing. And yet (says he) ye know. ch. 10:45; 11:2 Perhaps those were present who of old found fault with him in the matter of Cornelius, and went in with him (on that occasion): for this reason he brings them forward as witnesses. From old days, he says, did choose among you. What means, Among you? Either, in Palestine, or, you being present. By my mouth. Observe how he shows that it was God speaking by him, and no human utterance. And God, that knows the hearts, gave testimony unto them: he refers them to the spiritual testimony: by giving them the Holy Ghost even as unto us. Acts 15:8 Everywhere he puts the Gentiles upon a thorough equality. And put no difference between us and them, having purified their hearts by faith. Acts 15:9 From faith alone, he says, they obtained the same gifts. This is also meant as a lesson to those (objectors); this is able to teach even them that faith only is needed, not works nor circumcision. For indeed they do not say all this only by way of apology for the Gentiles, but to teach (the Jewish believers) also to abandon the Law.

(NPNF1-11. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans - Christian Classics Ethereal Library) (Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistle to the Romans)

Chrysostom in his Homilies on the epistle of Romans once again makes it clear that it is faith alone:

Ver. 24, 25. Being justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood, to declare His righteousness.

See by how many proofs he makes good what was said. First, from the worthiness of the person, for it is not a man who does these things, that He should be too weak for it, but God all-powerful. For it is to God, he says, that the righteousness belongs. Again, from the Law and the Prophets. For you need not be afraid at hearing the without the Law, inasmuch as the Law itself approves this. Thirdly, from the sacrifices under the old dispensation. For it was on this ground that he said, In His blood, to call to their minds those sheep and calves. For if the sacrifices of things without reason, he means, cleared from sin, much more would this blood. And he does not say barely λυτρώσεως, but ἀπολυτρώσεως, entire redemption, to show that we should come no more into such slavery. And for this same reason he calls it a propitiation, to show that if the type had such force, much more would the reality display the same. But to show again that it was no novel thing or recent, he says, fore-ordained (Auth. Version marg.); and by saying God fore-ordained, and showing that the good deed is the Father's, he shows it to be the Son's also. For the Father fore-ordained, but Christ in His own blood wrought the whole aright.

To declare His righteousness. What is declaring of righteousness? Like the declaring of His riches, not only for Him to be rich Himself, but also to make others rich, or of life, not only that He is Himself living, but also that He makes the dead to live; and of His power, not only that He is Himself powerful, but also that He makes the feeble powerful. So also is the declaring of His righteousness not only that He is Himself righteous, but that He does also make them that are filled with the putrefying sores (κατασαπέντας) of sin suddenly righteous. And it is to explain this, viz. what is declaring, that he has added, That He might be just, and the justifier of him which believes in Jesus. Doubt not then: for it is not of works, but of faith: and shun not the righteousness of God, for it is a blessing in two ways; because it is easy, and also open to all men. And be not abashed and shamefaced. For if He Himself openly declares (ἐ νδείκνυται) Himself to do so, and He, so to say, finds a delight and a pride therein, how do you come to be dejected and to hide your face at what your Master glories in? Now then after raising his hearers expectations by saying that what had taken place was a declaring of the righteousness of God, he next by fear urges him on that is tardy and remissful about coming; by speaking as follows:

[...]

He continues:

Ver. 27. Where is boasting then? It is excluded, he says. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.

Paul is at great pains to show that faith is mighty to a degree which was never even fancied of the Law. For after he had said that God justifies man by faith, he grapples with the Law again. And he does not say, where then are the well doings of the Jews? Where their righteous dealing? But, where is then the boasting? so taking every opportunity of showing, that they do but use great words, as though they had somewhat more than others, and have no work to show. And after saying, Where then is the boasting? he does not say, it is put out of sight and has come to an end, but it is excluded, which word rather expresses unseasonableness; since the reason for it is no more. For as when the judgment has come they that would repent have not any longer the season for it, thus now the sentence being henceforth passed, and all being upon the point of perishing, and He being at hand Who by grace would break these terrors, they had no longer the season for making a plea of amelioration wrought by the Law. For if it were right to strengthen themselves upon these things, it should have been before His coming. But now that He who should save by faith had come, the season for those efforts was taken from them. For since all were convicted, He therefore saves by grace. And this is why He has come but now, that they may not say, as they would had He come at the first, that it was possible to be saved by the Law and by our own labors and well-doings. To curb therefore this their effrontery, He waited a long time: so that after they were by every argument clearly convicted of inability to help themselves, He then saved them by His grace. And for this reason too when he had said above, To declare His righteousness, he added, at this time. If any then were to gainsay, they do the same as if a person who after committing great sins was unable to defend himself in court, but was condemned and going to be punished, and then being by the royal pardon forgiven, should have the effrontery after his forgiveness to boast and say that he had done no sin. For before the pardon came, was the time to prove it: but after it came he would no longer have the season for boasting. And this happened in the Jews' case. For since they had been traitors to themselves, this was why He came, by His very coming doing away their boasting. For he who says that he is a teacher of babes, and makes his boast in the Law, and styles himself an instructor of the foolish, if alike with them he needed a teacher and a Saviour, can no longer have any pretext for boasting. For if even before this, the circumcision was made uncircumcision, much rather was it now, since it is cast out from both periods. But after saying that it was excluded, he shows also, how. How then does he say it was excluded? By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith. See he calls the faith also a law delighting to keep to the names, and so allay the seeming novelty. But what is the law of faith? It is, being saved by grace. Here he shows God's power, in that He has not only saved, but has even justified, and led them to boasting, and this too without needing works, but looking for faith only. And in saying this he attempts to bring the Jew who has believed to act with moderation, and to calm him that has not believed, in such way as to draw him on to his own view. For he that has been saved, if he be high-minded in that he abides by the Law, will be told that he himself has stopped his own mouth, himself has accused himself, himself has renounced claims to his own salvation, and has excluded boasting. But he that has not believed again, being humbled by these same means, will be capable of being brought over to the faith. Do you see how great faith's preëminence is? How it has removed us from the former things, not even allowing us to boast of them?
(CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 7 on Romans (Chrysostom) Chrysostom Homily 7 on Romans)

And if the above seems like a fluke, Chrysostom double and triples down here:

'For the righteous,' says he, 'He made a sinner; that He might make the sinners righteous.' Yea rather, he said not even so, but what was greater far; for the word he employed is not the habit, but the quality itself. For he said not made [Him] a sinner, but sin; not, 'Him that had not sinned' only, but that had not even known sin; that we also might become, he did not say 'righteous,' but, righteousness, and, the righteousness of God. For this is [the righteousness] of God when we are justified not by works, (in which case it were necessary that not a spot even should be found,) but by grace, in which case all sin is done away. And this at the same time that it suffers us not to be lifted up, (seeing the whole is the free gift of God,) teaches us also the greatness of that which is given. For that which was before was a righteousness of the Law and of works, but this is the righteousness of God.
(Chrysostom Homily 11 on Second Corinthians http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/220211.htm)

And here from Ephesians:

Ver. 8. For by grace, says he have you been saved.

In order then that the greatness of the benefits bestowed may not raise you too high, observe how he brings you down: by grace you have been saved, says he,

Through faith;

Then, that, on the other hand, our free-will be not impaired, he adds also our part in the work, and yet again cancels it, and adds,

And that not of ourselves.

Neither is faith, he means, of ourselves. Because had He not come, had He not called us, how had we been able to believe? For how, says he, shall they believe, unless they hear? Romans 10:14 So that the work of faith itself is not our own.

It is the gift, said he, of God, it is not of works.

Was faith then, you will say, enough to save us? No; but God, says he, has required this, lest He should save us, barren and without work at all. His expression is, that faith saves, but it is because God so wills, that faith saves. Since, how, tell me, does faith save, without works? This itself is the gift of God.

Ver. 9. That no man should glory.

That he may excite in us proper feeling touching this gift of grace. What then? says a man, Hath He Himself hindered our being justified by works? By no means. But no one, he says, is justified by works, in order that the grace and loving-kindness of God may be shown. He did not reject us as having works, but as abandoned of works He has saved us by grace; so that no man henceforth may have whereof to boast. And then, lest when you hear that the whole work is accomplished not of works but by faith, you should become idle, observe how he continues,

Ver. 10. For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God afore prepared that we should walk in them.

Observe the words he uses. He here alludes to the regeneration, which is in reality a second creation. We have been brought from non-existence into being. As to what we were before, that is, the old man, we are dead. What we are now become, before, we were not. Truly then is this work a creation, yea, and more noble than the first; for from that one, we have our being; but from this last, we have, over and above, our well being.

(Chrysostom Homily 4 on Ephesians CHURCH FATHERS: Homily 4 on Ephesians (Chrysostom)

Your opposition to Sola gratia should be covered well by Chrysostom in the above spoiler as well.

So even though there are impotant differences, they aren't are as wide as you make them seem.

There are. But don't take my word that there are some vast differences between the Latin Rite and the Eastern Orthodox, we can ask one @The Times

Also, to answer your some of your questions: Easter is celebrated in a different time because Eastern Orthodox have a different calendar than Roman Catholics and also have a different date.

Therefore, the yearly calendars were not apostolic traditions as well.

Now that we have eliminated what is not apostolic tradition in nature, other than the Rule of Faith, how do we know what these allegedly unwritten oral traditions truly are?