• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

What's the use of faith alone?

ozso

Site Supporter
Oct 2, 2020
27,360
14,953
PNW
✟957,375.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Hymns have been composed using the Psalms as a starting point since antiquity. Excerpts from Psalms such as the Prokeimena (Byzantine Rife), the Gradual (Roman Rite) and so forth are de rigeur. The chief problem with Hillsong and related CCM groups is the departure from the norms of Christian hymnody in all denominations prior to “praise and worship music” being visited upon us.

Many, myself included, were alienated from the churches of our birth by it, for we cannot pray with such sounds blaring.
What was your church of birth?
 
Upvote 0

The Liturgist

Traditional Liturgical Christian
Site Supporter
Nov 26, 2019
15,471
8,145
50
The Wild West
✟753,682.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Generic Orthodox Christian
Marital Status
Celibate
And here you have the rift between Protestant and Catholic.. which makes it quite difficult for either "side" to be charitable. A tragedy indeed.

A false dichotomy, as I’ve tried to tell you repeatedly. It ignores Old Catholics such as the Polish National Catholic Church and the Norwegian Catholic Church, Protestant churches such as High Church Anglicans and Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, whose worship is often more high church than that at Roman Catholic churches (St. Magnus the Martyr, a Church of England parish in the City of London, routinely celebrates the full Latin mass, and many Anglican and Lutheran churches celebrate ad orientem with a formality unknown in some Catholic parishes for decades).

It also ignores the Orthodox churches (Eastern and Oriental) and the also the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, which collectively account for the majority of Aramaic speakers, together with a minority of Syriac Orthodox (Oriental) and Antiochian (Eastern) Orthodox.

+

While the Protestant vs. Catholic schism is unfortunate, it postdates the Patristic era in the Catholic church, which regards St. John of Damascus as the last Church Father, with everyone of note in the Roman church after him regarded as a Scholastic (even if their theology was essentially Patristic, as in St. Odo of Cluny; the main Scholastic movement whose theology is discontinuous with the Patristic fathers, hence the different terminology, began with Anselm of Canterbury and reached an apex with Thomas Aquinas.

Conversely the Orthodox churches have no upper date limit on Patristic theology…we have 18th century fathers like St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, the Kollyvades brothers and St. Seraphim of Sarov, 19th century fathers like St. Ignatius Brianchaninov and St. John of Kronstadt, 20th century fathers like St. Nektarios of Pentapolis, St. Tikhon of Moscow, St. Rafael of Brooklyn, St. Silouan the Athonite, St. John Maximovitch, St. Joseph the Hesychast… And Elder Ephraim has a good chance of being one of the first 21st cenfury fathers to be glorified in a few decades.

Of course the Orthodox already have many new saints due to the martyrdoms in the Middle East since the “Arab Spring”. Unlike in the Roman church, Orthodox martyrs are glorified (canonized) immediately.
 
Upvote 0

XrxrX

Active Member
Jul 13, 2025
128
47
Not of this world
✟1,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yes, and you probably should delete the parts of your posts that have now been pointed out to you as slanderous.
I'd be willing to in order to keep the peace, however, although I was certainly not trying to pick a fight on the issue.. and so couched it jocularly, it stands there were several issues in that regard. Was not Origen universalist? Tertullian's "deathbed baptism"? Irenaeus' Gnostic bent? Not to mention Augustine's . So, the jab isn't unfounded despite the rationalizations. But, it's a tangent we needn't engage in.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

XrxrX

Active Member
Jul 13, 2025
128
47
Not of this world
✟1,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
A false dichotomy, as I’ve tried to tell you repeatedly. It ignores Old Catholics such as the Polish National Catholic Church and the Norwegian Catholic Church, Protestant churches such as High Church Anglicans and Evangelical Catholic Lutherans, whose worship is often more high church than that at Roman Catholic churches (St. Magnus the Martyr, a Church of England parish in the City of London, routinely celebrates the full Latin mass, and many Anglican and Lutheran churches celebrate ad orientem with a formality unknown in some Catholic parishes for decades).

It also ignores the Orthodox churches (Eastern and Oriental) and the also the Assyrian Church of the East and the Ancient Church of the East, which collectively account for the majority of Aramaic speakers, together with a minority of Syriac Orthodox (Oriental) and Antiochian (Eastern) Orthodox.

+

While the Protestant vs. Catholic schism is unfortunate, it postdates the Patristic era in the Catholic church, which regards St. John of Damascus as the last Church Father, with everyone of note in the Roman church after him regarded as a Scholastic (even if their theology was essentially Patristic, as in St. Odo of Cluny; the main Scholastic movement whose theology is discontinuous with the Patristic fathers, hence the different terminology, began with Anselm of Canterbury and reached an apex with Thomas Aquinas.

Conversely the Orthodox churches have no upper date limit on Patristic theology…we have 18th century fathers like St. Nicodemus the Hagiorite, the Kollyvades brothers and St. Seraphim of Sarov, 19th century fathers like St. Ignatius Brianchaninov and St. John of Kronstadt, 20th century fathers like St. Nektarios of Pentapolis, St. Tikhon of Moscow, St. Rafael of Brooklyn, St. Silouan the Athonite, St. John Maximovitch, St. Joseph the Hesychast… And Elder Ephraim has a good chance of being one of the first 21st cenfury fathers to be glorified in a few decades.

Of course the Orthodox already have many new saints due to the martyrdoms in the Middle East since the “Arab Spring”. Unlike in the Roman church, Orthodox martyrs are glorified (canonized) immediately.
I am chiefly speaking of RCC, which considers Protestants as "anathema" unless they've changed policy, which I know many advocate for.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,696
2,877
45
San jacinto
✟204,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yes, I know many here see it that way, as the modern world escaping the wonderful Christian traditions of the past, as represented by liturgies and repetitious exercises, and perhaps some abdications of freedoms that people normally enjoy. But I don't, with all due respect.

I see these things not as necessarily carrying the essence themselves, nor even being required observances. More, they were given to us as "gifts," which a local church would want to secure their doctrine and which a State would want to provide moral order in the society.

I think people flock to Jesus at certain times of revival, while Christian states over time grow old and lose their faith, ie apostacize. Religion isn't restored by restoring liturgies and sermons rife with psychology such as self-denial and affirming self-esteem. The former would be more conservative, and the latter liberal.

Rather, the Christian spirit can only be restored by reemphasizing Jesus himself as the source of energy in a dead, secular world. Then, rather than marking Christian rituals as "required," they would naturally be *wanted.*
I think you've missed the heart of the issue, which is that the sacraments build a physical connection with the past. Setting aside the philosophical explanations for a moment, sacramental observance is meant to bring to mind our dependence on Christ through constantly revealing to us the central event of our faith. Part of it involves teaching the significance of the sacraments, but the more important part is wrapped up in the Greek word "ameneusis" which is more than just memory but is about building a bridge between past and present. The sacraments dissolve the distance and are integral to the life of faith, not simply nice additions, precisely because they center on Jesus.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fhansen
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
3,426
786
Pacific NW, USA
✟162,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Yes, I'm in agreement with this, the observance can either draw one closer to God or it can be done as a reminder of what God has done. Although to some this appears as a mental nod of the head, but it is a spiritual engagement. If you will whenever we gather together in His name it is spiritual. How this spiritual engagement is understood depends largely on ones background and experience. It is a divine encounter both because of what it symbolises and what it represents when understood.
I grew up in a church where both existed--a sincere appreciation for the ritual and an emptiness associated with mere repetition. Most of the church I wondered if they really had faith. Some in my own family seemed to be strictly Sunday Christians, not mentioning a word about Jesus during the week and yet keeping the 10 Commandments.

So, it is not ritual that is of highest importance in my personal experience. It is when I repented of the sins of commission as well as of ommission that I came into direct relationship with the Lord. And it is then this that binds us to true religion, a commitment to a covenant relationship with God, once we see how holy He is and how indifferent we have been.

Religious worship and its myriad forms are purely secondary in importance. Enoch never had them, ie sacraments, religious hierarchies, and liturgies. Noah never had them. And Abraham, the father of our faith, never had them.

It is all about abandoning our narcissitic ways and choosing to follow our Creator's blueprint, which requires absolute devotion to Him and surrendering anything that is an affront to Him. It is the kind of love we were made to have and to display.

We are to respect God's mandates, and only after that, men who have certain appointments or ministries. It is not the human orders that provide the spirituality, but God alone, who blesses the various ministries.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: Rose_bud
Upvote 0

XrxrX

Active Member
Jul 13, 2025
128
47
Not of this world
✟1,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Is there anyone who "vaunts them over scripture"? And accusing the Patristics of being heresiarchs is still a highly inflammatory charge.
I would argue vaunting them even "equal" to scripture in authority is equally problematic.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
3,426
786
Pacific NW, USA
✟162,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
Exo 20.4 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments."

True religious forms, including sacraments. worship services, songs, creeds, etc. are only designed to put us into a covenant relationship with God in the Spirit. These things can help to secure that covenant relationship. They can also become gods in themselves--merely images that we worship in place of God, causing divisions and arguments that are not part of true worship of or love for God.

Do we think God cares if water is properly devoted? Do we think God cares how we are baptized in water? Do we really think that everybody must understand every syllable of a Christian creed?

All these things are helpful and sometimes needed. But they must never replace our love for God and for each other. Everything must have its place, but only God the highest place.
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
15,881
3,966
✟383,778.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
When I go up to receive the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist, that is real grace, because that's really Jesus that I'm eating and drinking in, with, and under the elements of the bread and wine. There is forgiveness of sins there, because here is the Christ who gave His life for me, and I am partaking of His once-and-perfect sacrifice on the cross, and here God declares me just, God proclaims that I am in Christ--for I am baptized, united to Christ in His death and resurrection, my sins washed away, and here I partake of that perfect sacrifice, I am here partaking of the same Jesus.
Yes, and to add some thoughts, FWIW. As to the Body and Blood, this brings to mind the reason for the “Do this in memory of Me" verse. Because the regular doing of the sacrament is for the purpose of keeping us reminded of our continuous need for Him and the nourishment implied simply in our freely partaking of Him. It isn't just some memorial service, IOW, but the fulfillment of a vital necessity. We need to know that we require this divine contact regularly, lest we forget, and begin slipping away into mundanity or worse.

And the sacraments have that as their purpose. They "cement" basic Christian theology into acts that can easily be understood and carried out. We must be baptized (the sacrament of faith) in order to enter God's fold. We can argue all day long about the thief on the cross and God's ability to forgo the necessity of any particular command being physically fulfilled and Scripture can sorta kinda be argued either way on this but we know what Jesus both modeled and commanded and we know what the early churches everywhere believed and practiced so there should be no real question as to what God gives as the normative way of coming to Him. In any case, come to Him we must and that sacrament makes this necessity clear, while serving as a definitive public profession of our faith as the way to do it.

The Eucharist is clearly enough described in Scripture as being central to the regular gathering of the church along with the reading of the sacred writings. And it was taken so seriously that one should not even partake without examining their consciences first (1 Cor 11:28-29). This demonstrates 1) that the intimate, ongoing communion with our Lord is essential to our spiritual health, to our life, and 2) that this vital communion can be threatened by our returning to the flesh, by our engaging in sin that is radically opposed to love of God and neighbor.

But, if we have a change of heart and confess our sins, He’ll purify us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). So, we’re provided a definite “place to go” for this need, so that complacency in observing it isn’t easily allowed to prevail. The sacrament of Confession/Reconciliation is for that very purpose, of reestablishing communion with God if we’ve seriously strayed away from Him. I believe this sacrament isn’t recognized by most Lutherans, but I’ve come to appreciate it and the reason behind it.

Anyway, by these simple sacraments even the simplest of folk can both know the most basic part they must play while having the practical means to play it, with all of these pointing to the need for and the reception of God’s grace. Any and all of these can be done cavalierly, mechanically, without sincere faith, but then they’ll be of no value either way.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

XrxrX

Active Member
Jul 13, 2025
128
47
Not of this world
✟1,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It’s in Dei Verbum, the Vatican II dogmatic constitution on Holy Scripture. Worth a read if you have never read it. Might surprise you.
It speaks well of scripture certainly, but doesn't specify the absolute Primacy of scripture in authority, plus, insisting: "For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.". I'm not aware of a biblical "divine commission" of any Magisterium required to "interpret" scripture for the believer. Certainly more "Talmudic" than Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,696
2,877
45
San jacinto
✟204,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It speaks well of scripture certainly, but doesn't specify the absolute Primacy of scripture in authority, plus, insisting: "For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.". I'm not aware of a biblical "divine commission" of any Magisterium required to "interpret" scripture for the believer. Certainly more "Talmudic" than Christian.
There's a reason for that, Catholics and Orthodox don't see Scripture as a separate authority...it is embedded in tradition and in agreement with it. They are not two competing authorities, but two concordant authorities.
 
  • Like
Reactions: XrxrX
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
3,426
786
Pacific NW, USA
✟162,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
I think you've missed the heart of the issue, which is that the sacraments build a physical connection with the past.
Why do we need to "build" a physical connection with the past? Did we lose it somehow? Are you describing a fall in the Middle Ages in which a reconnection with the apostolic/church fathers era had to be reestablished?

We can "rebuild" memories of ancient rites simply by writing histories about them. If relics of the past are no longer needed, why restore them at all? Technology has changed. The world has changed.
Setting aside the philosophical explanations for a moment, sacramental observance is meant to bring to mind our dependence on Christ through constantly revealing to us the central event of our faith. Part of it involves teaching the significance of the sacraments, but the more important part is wrapped up in the Greek word "ameneusis" which is more than just memory but is about building a bridge between past and present. The sacraments dissolve the distance and are integral to the life of faith, not simply nice additions, precisely because they center on Jesus.
Actually, I think they are just "nice additions" from the past. To restore an ancient statue, or to reconstruct a buried civilization, is an exciting thing--not necessary but interesting and helpful to understanding how things were. Some things would do well to be restored. Some things would do well to leave buried, except as a "memory."

I think some of the religious rituals that existed in ancient and medieval times in Europe were associated with conditions unique to their times. For example when a country becomes a Christian Kingdom it is helpful if all of the subjects exercise Christian rituals in church, thus upholding the Christian order of the country. People will have to endure a religious structure that is designed for all, regardless of how "religious" they are.

But those things may be practiced in individual churches and denominations now without the same impact. They do not order the entire State around Christian truth, but only within the church or denomination. Reciting the creeds over and over may hardly be necessary since people today go to church precisely to find refuge in these truths as opposed to what is going on in the State.

I do find myself looking back to some of the rituals and practices of my early Lutheran upbringing. But fate takes us where it will, and we have to address things in the moment, and not just spend time trying to restore structures that existed in very different conditions in the past. I hope I'm not being offensive to you?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

XrxrX

Active Member
Jul 13, 2025
128
47
Not of this world
✟1,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
There's a reason for that, Catholics and Orthodox don't see Scripture as a separate authority...it is embedded in tradition and in agreement with it. They are not two competing authorities, but two concordant authorities.
Exactly, and that is untenable for the Protestant. Extrabiblical works can, and certainly Should be "concordant", but not equal in authority.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: rebornfree
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,696
2,877
45
San jacinto
✟204,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Why do we need to "build" a physical connection with the past? Did we lose it somehow? Are you describing a fall in the Middle Ages in which a reconnection with the apostolic/church fathers era had to be reestablished?
No, I'm talking about our participating in the life of Christ through the sacraments.
We can "rebuild" memories of ancient rites simply by writing histories about them. If relics of the past are no longer needed, why restore them at all? Technology has changed. The world has changed.
It's not about "rebuilding" it's about becoming involved in the historical events. As you yourself said, the sacraments are gifts from Christ
Actually, I think they are just "nice additions" from the past. To restore an ancient statue, or to reconstruct a buried civilization, is an exciting thing--not necessary but interesting and helpful to understanding how things were. Some things would do well to be restored. Some things would do well to leave buried, except as a "memory."
You're making false comparisons. Statues and other artifacts don't invite us into participation.
I think some of the religious rituals that existed in ancient and medieval times in Europe were associated with conditions unique to their times. For example when a country becomes a Christian Kingdom it is helpful if all of the subjects exercise Christian rituals in church, thus upholding the Christian order of the country. People will have to endure a religious structure that is designed for all, regardless of how "religious" they are.
The sacraments aren't simply "religious rituals", and they were instituted by Christ. Treating them as optional observances robs Christianity of much of its content.
But those things may be practiced in individual churches and denominations now without the same iimpact. They do not order the entire State around Christian truth, but only within the church or denomination. Reciting the creeds over and over may hardly be necessary since people today go to church precisely to find refuge in these truths as opposed to what is going on in the State.
A lot of that is because of philosophical beliefs that shouldn't be held among Christians and a lack of education on what the sacraments are.
I do find myself looking back to some of the rituals and practices of my early Lutheran upbringing. But fate takes us where it will, and we have to address things in the moment, and not just spend time trying to restore structures that existed in very different conditions in the past. I hope I'm not being offensive to you?
One of the things about such rituals is they foster a sense of unity that is largely missing outside of liturgical churches. The sacraments bind the congregation in worship rather than just being a collection of individuals worshiping in the same place.
 
Upvote 0

Fervent

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2020
6,696
2,877
45
San jacinto
✟204,355.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Exactly, and that is untenable for the Protestant. Extrabiblical works can, and certainly Should be "concordant", but not equal in authority.
And why should Protestant extrabiblical doctrine take precedence over the historic understandings?
 
Upvote 0

fhansen

Oldbie
Sep 3, 2011
15,881
3,966
✟383,778.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
It speaks well of scripture certainly, but doesn't specify the absolute Primacy of scripture in authority, plus, insisting: "For all of what has been said about the way of interpreting Scripture is subject finally to the judgment of the Church, which carries out the divine commission and ministry of guarding and interpreting the word of God.". I'm not aware of a biblical "divine commission" of any Magisterium required to "interpret" scripture for the believer. Certainly more "Talmudic" than Christian.
And yet, private interpretations are denounced while oral tradtions are also upheld. In fact, Scripture and Tradition are upheld as two streams of revelation that are both complementary of each other and essential to having a full understanding of the faith.
 
Upvote 0

RandyPNW

Well-Known Member
Jun 8, 2021
3,426
786
Pacific NW, USA
✟162,414.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican
There's a reason for that, Catholics and Orthodox don't see Scripture as a separate authority...it is embedded in tradition and in agreement with it. They are not two competing authorities, but two concordant authorities.
Yes, but historically they have been both--both competing factions and unified expressions of Christ's Gospel.
 
Upvote 0

XrxrX

Active Member
Jul 13, 2025
128
47
Not of this world
✟1,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And, as I said, that faith is what engrafts us into the Vine, that sets us apart as "My people" so that He now puts His 'law in our minds and writes it on our hearts', Jer 31:33. He justifies us. That's not a doctrinal potion but basic Christianity.
I don't disagree with how you've worded it here, but it's extension of your theology on it that I take issue with. You are saying that "we remain in the Vine by "continuing" to walk in faith with Christ", and I'm saying it's not our walking, continuing or faithfulness that engrafts us in the Vine. People have misapplied "abide", it's meaning is a Location, not an effort. "Abide in Me as I abide in you..".. well, "As He abides" is an eternal indwelling, not a conditional "if". Rebirth is a threshold experience, not a doorway in and out. Once born again, there is no going back.. there is no "escape", there's no refund. It's ETERNAL. So, this is where we have a divergence of understanding.
 
Upvote 0

XrxrX

Active Member
Jul 13, 2025
128
47
Not of this world
✟1,812.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And yet, private interpretations are denounced while oral tradtions are also upheld. In fact, Scripture and Tradition are upheld as two streams of revelation that are both complementary of each other and essential to having a full understanding of the faith.
The Bereans weren't denounced for their scrupulous interpretation, and much is made of 2 Thess 2:15, that is specifically citing evangelism by the Apostles themselves.. not an institution of Talmudic like gatekeeping. Apples and oranges. We are absolutely called to study for ourselves, and be led by the Spirit as our ultimate Guide in all things. This doesn't discount the value of human teachers or guidance.. but it states their place.
 
Upvote 0