Roman Catholic teachings denounced by Orthodox groups?

[Thatgirloncfforums]

As a Confessional Lutheran, I'd like to learn more about this. In the LCMS, I think that we would say that the Christian faith is present in these other churches (Anglican, Church of Christ, ect.) but that each, as a distinct group do not profess that faith fully and without error. But, if they have truly been able to overcome their differences enough to say, 'Yes, we all possess the Christian faith', then good for them! Praise God.

I think the ELCA, in spite of my issues with some of their stances, summarizes it fairly well (in regards to their Full Communion Partners):

Full communion is when two denominations develop a relationship based on a common confessing of the Christian faith and a mutual recognition of Baptism and sharing of the Lord’s Supper. This does not mean the two denominations merge; rather, in reaching agreements, denominations also respect differences. These denominations worship together, may exchange clergy and also share a commitment to evangelism, witness and service in the world. Each entity agrees that even with differences, there is nothing that is church-dividing.

A central document to Lutherans is the Augsburg Confession. Article VII of the Augsburg Confession states that “the true unity of the church” is present where the gospel is rightly preached and sacraments rightly administered. The ELCA is committed to this model of full communion as an authentic expression of Christian unity.

Characteristics of full communion

For the ELCA, the characteristics of full communion are theological and missiological implications of the gospel that allow variety and flexibility. These characteristics stress that the church act ecumenically for the sake of the world, not for itself alone. They will include at least the following, some of which exist at earlier stages:

• common confessing of the Christian faith
• mutual recognition of Baptism and a sharing of the Lord's Supper, allowing for joint worship and an exchangeability of members
• mutual recognition and availability of ordained ministers to the service of all, subject to the disciplinary regulations of other denominations
• common commitment to evangelism, witness and service
• means of common decision-making on critical common issues of faith and life
• mutual lifting of any condemnations that exist between denominations.

NOTE: the ELCA is in Full Communion with the Episcopal Church, United Methodist Church, Presbyterian Church (USA), Reformed Church in America, The Moravian Church and The United Church of Christ.

It should also be noted that there is a similar recognition of communion with the Anglican Communion in Europe and the Lutherans via the Porvoo Communion, not to mention various United Churches globally that nationally unite formerly different denominations such as Lutherans, Reformed, Anglicans, etc. in their countries.

 

[bbbbbbb]

As a Confessional Lutheran, I'd like to learn more about this. In the LCMS, I think that we would say that the Christian faith is present in these other churches (Anglican, Church of Christ, ect.) but that each, as a distinct group do not profess that faith fully and without error. But, if they have truly been able to overcome their differences enough to say, 'Yes, we all possess the Christian faith', then good for them! Praise God.

The problem, of course, is that no branch of Christianity actually holds the Christian faith fully and without error. If they did then mortals would no longer be mortal would they?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Is error the same as lack of absolute knowledge?

The problem, of course, is that no branch of Christianity actually holds the Christian faith fully and without error. If they did then mortals would no longer be mortal would they?

 

[bbbbbbb]

Is error the same as lack of absolute knowledge?

No, they are not synonymous. However, the chutzpah exhibited by humanity in our intense need for the security of knowing that we, and we alone, possess the eternal verities of the cosmos, belies the fact that we don't.

 

[prodromos]

The problem, of course, is that no branch of Christianity actually holds the Christian faith fully and without error.

How do you know this? If you admit that your own faith is in error somehow, how can you be certain there is not one Church that has it all correct? You cannot judge on the basis of your own faith since you've admitted there is error within.

If they did then mortals would no longer be mortal would they?

This does not follow.

 

[bbbbbbb]

How do you know this? If you admit that your own faith is in error somehow, how can you be certain there is not one Church that has it all correct? You cannot judge on the basis of your own faith since you've admitted there is error within.

This does not follow.

If someone asserts that they or their particular denomination holds all of God's truth fully and without error who is to determine the validity of such a claim? What basis is to be applied in reaching such a determination?

Surely you are aware that there are a very large number who confidently make such claims, yet they are frequently in significant difference with their counterparts.

 

[prodromos]

If someone asserts that they or their particular denomination holds all of God's truth fully and without error who is to determine the validity of such a claim? What basis is to be applied in reaching such a determination?

Surely you are aware that there are a very large number who confidently make such claims, yet they are frequently in significant difference with their counterparts.

That doesn't answer my question. Your argument is self defeating, since you use the same logic you are claiming is flawed.

 

[dzheremi]

Ah yes, the old "Since bodies disagree with each other, no one can be right" idea, and its corollary "Since no one can be 100% right, no one can really be wrong, either."

Meanwhile, the early Church had no trouble declaring the Montanists, Marcionites, Ebionites, Donatists, Arians, and others to be wrong, and the Church herself to be right. And since this is the same Church who produced the scriptures and their canons, the apostolic and early fathers, the desert fathers and mothers, the anaphoras of our various liturgies, and so on, we obviously must take after them in believing the same, at least in as much as is necessary to continue upholding these as what make up the substance of our faith and practice as communities -- even if we don't necessarily agree with each other 100% of the time on every matter.

Maybe our non-denominational friends don't understand this viewpoint because they themselves do not uphold these things which are so self-evidently foundational to the Christian life. If that's the case, then it is to their detriment, not ours as Orthodox, or Catholics, or High Protestants, or Nestorians, or whatever. (To name but four groups who still disagree with one another on various matters.)

 

[bbbbbbb]

Ah yes, the old "Since bodies disagree with each other, no one can be right" idea, and its corollary "Since no one can be 100% right, no one can really be wrong, either."

Meanwhile, the early Church had no trouble declaring the Montanists, Marcionites, Ebionites, Donatists, Arians, and others to be wrong, and the Church herself to be right. And since this is the same Church who produced the scriptures and their canons, the apostolic and early fathers, the desert fathers and mothers, the anaphoras of our various liturgies, and so on, we obviously must take after them in believing the same, at least in as much as is necessary to continue upholding these as what make up the substance of our faith and practice as communities -- even if we don't necessarily agree with each other 100% of the time on every matter.

Maybe our non-denominational friends don't understand this viewpoint because they themselves do not uphold these things which are so self-evidently foundational to the Christian life. If that's the case, then it is to their detriment, not ours as Orthodox, or Catholics, or High Protestants, or Nestorians, or whatever. (To name but four groups who still disagree with one another on various matters.)

One needs to differentiate between essential, orthodox truth which must be held by all Christians and other opinions which, although they might be true or not, divide Christians. Here at CF we all agree that it is summarized by the Nicene Creed.

When one branch of Christianity proclaims that its leader is the vicar of Jesus Christ who can (and does) speak infallibly, proclaiming the absolute truth of God and the other branches disagree, then that one branch might possess the fullness of truth (as it believes it does) and other branches do not, or it might be in error as the other branches believe it to be and the branches possess truth on this particular doctrine - or they might all be in error. Without a truly ecumenical council to pass judgement on this, or any other issue, the church will remain divided with many of its branches claiming to possess all truth on every particular issue ranging from essential issues such as Christology to relatively trivial issues such as dietary restrictions for fasting.

 

[Not David]

Ah yes, the old "Since bodies disagree with each other, no one can be right" idea, and its corollary "Since no one can be 100% right, no one can really be wrong, either."

Meanwhile, the early Church had no trouble declaring the Montanists, Marcionites, Ebionites, Donatists, Arians, and others to be wrong, and the Church herself to be right. And since this is the same Church who produced the scriptures and their canons, the apostolic and early fathers, the desert fathers and mothers, the anaphoras of our various liturgies, and so on, we obviously must take after them in believing the same, at least in as much as is necessary to continue upholding these as what make up the substance of our faith and practice as communities -- even if we don't necessarily agree with each other 100% of the time on every matter.

Maybe our non-denominational friends don't understand this viewpoint because they themselves do not uphold these things which are so self-evidently foundational to the Christian life. If that's the case, then it is to their detriment, not ours as Orthodox, or Catholics, or High Protestants, or Nestorians, or whatever. (To name but four groups who still disagree with one another on various matters.)

People who follow that idea sound more like agnostic that Christian (well, each religion contradicts the other so we don't know the true religion)

 

[prodromos]

People who follow that idea sound more like agnostic that Christian (well, each religion contradicts the other so we don't know the true religion)

That would be the logical conclusion of 7b's argument.

 

[concretecamper]

If someone asserts that they or their particular denomination holds all of God's truth fully and without error who is to determine the validity of such a claim? What basis is to be applied in reaching such a determination?

sounds like SS fails. Sounds like you need an authority.

Thank you soooooo much for proving we need an Authoritative Magisterium.

 

[BobRyan]

I said:
In any case - I simply note that the "feature" that "differences do exist" extends well beyond evangelical and Protestant into Orthodox and Roman Catholic as we see in that video.

Who gave you the impression that they didn't, though? I know the Eastern Orthodox are very open about this fact, anyway. And even though the video didn't deal with us in particular, we are also not shy about that fact. Only some more modern-leaning RCs play the "we're all really saying the same thing" game, and even that's hardly a (RC) communion-wide belief on the ground. (The more ecclesiologically conservative types who tend to think of VII as a victory for Satan or whatever generally don't think like that.)

Every time the subject of "Sola Scriptura" testing of all doctrine and practice comes up in the General Theology section - one response that we are sure to see posted is that SS causes problem of division and sticking with tradition would not do that. But we can see in this example that such is not the case as noted on page in the OP.

 

[BobRyan]

sounds like SS fails. Sounds like you need an authority.

Thank you soooooo much for proving we need an Authoritative Magisterium.

Every church already has their magisterium telling them "rest assured -- we are right". I don't know why people think otherwise. You need SS testing to settle it.

 

[concretecamper]

Every church already has their magisterium telling them "rest assured -- we are right".

I dont think so.

I don't know why people think otherwise. You need SS testing to settle it

becasue one SS denomination says water Baptism is a Sacrament and many others reject the notion. All base their beliefs on scripture. Both cant be right. SS solves nothing and causes confusion and division. A man made doctrine is bound to fail, as we see with SS.

 

[dzheremi]

Every time the subject of "Sola Scriptura" testing of all doctrine and practice comes up in the General Theology section - one response that we are sure to see posted is that SS causes problem of division and sticking with tradition would not do that. But we can see in this example that such is not the case as noted on page in the OP.

Well, not all tradition is the same. The Roman Catholics have their traditions, and the Orthodox theirs, and the various Protestants theirs, etc. So of course we still disagree. If we didn't, we wouldn't be in different communions in the first place.

I guess I don't really see how this is some big revelation or silver bullet that invalidates the idea of following tradition, but okay. I'm still going to stick with what my Church teaches, and I have no doubt others will be doing the same with regard to their own churches, whether they label it tradition or not.

 

[BobRyan]

Well, not all tradition is the same. The Roman Catholics have their traditions, and the Orthodox theirs, and the various Protestants theirs, etc. So of course we still disagree. If we didn't, we wouldn't be in different communions in the first place.

Exactly. The idea that the "solution" is to simply listen to our own church magisterium tell each one of us "yes we are right - we always say we are right" is not an objective solution to solving differences.

I guess I don't really see how this is some big revelation or silver bullet that invalidates the idea of following tradition, but okay. I'm still going to stick with what my Church teaches, and I have no doubt others will be doing the same with regard to their own churches, whether they label it tradition or not.

That is the easy one and most people take that route no matter what church they are in.

But it is like "exegesis" vs eisegesis - it is always easiest to eisegete into the text "whatever you need it to say" - but to the more objective exegetical solution is more difficult but also likely to be more accurate.

 

[BobRyan]

I dont think so.
becasue one SS denomination says water Baptism is a Sacrament and many others reject the notion. All base their beliefs on scripture. Both cant be right...

as opposed to "all base their beliefs on their own church tradition and magisterium and all can't be right"?

that is the part that is baffling - how is it that everyone just paying attention to the teaching/traditions of their own magesterium is supposed to solve those differences better than the much more objective method of sola scriptura?

There is nothing at all "objective" to the everyone-listen-to-their-church-leaders "solution". At least sola scriptura has an objective component to it. The argument against it -- that the magisteriums in question will also try and bend that sola-scriptura exercise to meet the objective of their traditions - is expected. But that is not an argument against the objective method - it is an argument against letting magisterium traditions influence that objective method. And we see that in Mark 7:6-13 where Christ shows how to do it objectively.

 

[concretecamper]

as opposed to "all base their beliefs on their own church tradition and magisterium and all can't be right"?

that is the part that is baffling - how is it that everyone just paying attention to the teaching/traditions of their own magesterium is supposed to solve those differences better than the much more objective method of sola scriptura?

There is nothing at all "objective" to the everyone-listen-to-their-church-leaders "solution". At least sola scriptura has an objective component to it. The argument against it -- that the magisteriums in question will also try and bend that sola-scriptura exercise to meet the objective of their traditions - is expected. But that is not an argument against the objective method - it is an argument against letting magisterium traditions influence that objective method. And we see that in Mark 7:6-13 where Christ shows how to do it objectively.

I cant think of one of the 10,000s of thousands of protestant denominations that claims they have everything right when it comes to scriptural interpretation.

 

[BobRyan]

I cant think of one of the 10,000s of thousands of protestant denominations that claims they have everything right when it comes to scriptural interpretation.

I can't think of a single orthodox, Catholic, Protestant or Evangelical denomination that claims "yes that is right - we are teaching error as if it were truth". None of them point to even one doctrine saying "yes we teach this - but in this case we are teaching error".

So some members may say that about their own Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant, Evangelical group - but the leaders and traditions of that group never claim such a thing.

Imagine if they all admitted to their error and were accurate in that regard - and all one has to do is keep reading each group's "statement about our errors" section of their dogma/teaching/doctrines until they find one that lists no errors in that section... then choose that one.

That was not happening in the NT with Jews vs Christians and it does not happen today either. So we need to use an external objective method for deciding the matter - and that is SS. By definition it has an objective element to it - and by definition the other method does not.

The fact that one can also "bend wrench" the SS method to eliminate its objective element does not delete the fact that it is the only one of the two options that has that objective to it should one choose to take advantage of it.