Roman Catholic teachings denounced by Orthodox groups?

BobRyan said:

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"

Click to expand...

what?

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

Alright, well...I don't know what to say to this that wouldn't be an offense to our RC friends, but I don't think anyone else's churches have a 'magesterium' to listen in the first place, so I guess I agree with you on that point. That's not a solution.

'Objective', though...what is objective about being anywhere in particular? I'm certainly not going to be objective about those things that separate my communion from the Chalcedonians, for instance, because I believe that the Chalcedonian definition of Christology and Christianity more generally is in error -- just as they believe our (Orthodox) faith to be in error for not including those things that separate us from being able to proclaim one faith with them as we did before Chalcedon. So nobody's being objective about any of this, just as no Protestant or Catholic is really objective when it comes to the Protestant Reformation or points of theological distinction between those two broad groups.

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

Click to expand...

I don't think that most people (no matter what communion or denomination they are in) listen to leaders who say "We are right - we always say we are right", though. Heck, look at the one church that fits your description of a magesterium-bearing church. As you probably know if you've visited the OBOB Catholic confessional forum here lately, many Catholics have objections to what Pope Francis and those around him have been putting out there. Similarly, the Eastern Orthodox have had no problem disciplining the errant leaders among them at various levels, whether it's priests in Romania illegally concelebrating a worship service with their Catholic equivalents or their Patriarch of Jerusalem being ousted (to choose two recent examples). And in my own Church we likewise have modern examples such as the deposition of Pope Yusab II in the 1950s or the discipline faced by the late Metropolitan Bishoy of Damietta for his extreme statements against the salvation of non-Orthodox (which we can know are extreme precisely because it is outside of our traditional ecclesiology and soteriology to make such statements regarding the ultimate destiny of others who are in error; see here, e.g., the famous story preserved in the Desert Fathers of Abba Moses the Ethiopian and the jug/sack of sand).

So I think this is a misunderstanding or misstatement of what most people do and why.

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.

Click to expand...

It is less difficult than you'd probably believe if you follow the Fathers, i.e., the tradition passed down to us by their words and their epistles. (cf. 2 Thessalonians 2:15)

BobRyan said:

starting at 32:10 and going up to 1:29:20 we see a long list of things that apparently must be "renounced" publically as in "I renounce this teaching" -- to join certain Orthodox churches. (Which suprised me somewhat). And a lot of those things are specifically stated to be Roman Catholic - that the these Orthodox groups say must be renounced as heresy.

Now normally I would say "fine we expect some differences like that since they are different denominations" (Though I find it very unusual to have "I renounce this-or-that" in the actual liturgy of a christening or baptism or profession-of-faith vote into membership - for other denominations).

The reason I bring this up is that now and then in the General Theology forum we see complaints about "sola scriptura generates all those Protestant Denominations" as if there is no denominational difference in doctrine between Catholic groups and Orthodox groups - while claiming the "sola scriptura" doctrine is what creates differences and so Catholics supposedly have no such difference with the Orthodox groups as one might find between certain Protestant or Evangelical groups.

BTW - check out this post for a further point on SS vs tradition.




But the video in this OP appears to "shed more light" on that detail than one normally hears about in the General Theology forum.

From the video evidence here it appears their differences are as significant as any other difference between lets say Baptist and Presbyterian etc. In fact the Orthodox/vs/Roman Catholic list of "I renounce" may be much larger than one would find between Presbyterian and Baptist.

Click to expand...

The only real noticeable difference between the EOC and the RCC is that EOC bishops have a striking resemblance to ZZ Top while RCC bishops bear no resemblance to them at all.

GreekOrthodox said:

Listened to a little of it and basically he was mocking the Orthodox faith. He even makes fun of the term "paedocommunion" which simply is Communion given to infants.

Orthodox and Catholics have had excommunications and wars and now more peaceful discussions about our various differences. We know what we're trying to resolve. This is an outsider who has no knowledge other than what he reads on websites and knows none of the theology that is behind this.

Click to expand...

I look at the 1054 schism like this. There were 5 head bishops governing the churches in their jurisdiction. When everything was said and done 4 of them adopted the name Orthodox leaving the bishop of Rome all alone in his claim to papal supremacy. It doesn’t stand to reason that if the bishop of Rome had always wielded supreme executive authority as he claims that everyone else would all the sudden reject this idea after a thousand years of tradition leaving no one but Rome to back this claim.

concretecamper said:

the massive division in Christianity post reformation dwarfs by a factor of 1,000 the division that occurred pre reformation.

So one can rightly conclude SS is the MAIN reason.

Click to expand...

I would agree with that but unfortunately it comes down to interpretation of the scriptures and the reformers don’t have the backing of the earliest church writers to support their interpretations. I mean a teachers students can give an accurate testimony as to what their teacher was teaching, more accurately than say someone who wasn’t born until 1500 years later after that teacher had died.

BobRyan said:

No doubt they don't use those words - but they all do strongly affirm the correctness of their teaching. So even though they don't use the exact words as I stated - the sentiment of "correctness of our views" is there in every case. I am not complaining about that - I am just saying that fact alone is insufficient to determine the right answer between two competing doctrinal points of view.

Click to expand...

Well yeah. That's why you don't just take someone's word for it, but look at the substance of what they say.

Again, I don't see this as a point against tradition itself as a thing or the adherence to it, since literally everyone does this (or if they don't, they should).

With respect, I'm not sure you are giving your interlocutor's arguments their fair due. Or perhaps your interlocutors aren't making much of an argument beyond "We have a magisterium to listen to and you don't", which...yeah...that's not an argument, in and of itself.

Now if you want to have a discussion on what the value is in maintaining tradition(s) from the perspective of those who admit that this is what we are doing and those who do not, that could be interesting, but I don't know that this is the thread or subforum for it. That sort of thing would probably be better served by a more invitational OP in the Traditional Theology subforum, since that subforum exists for traditional Christians of all stripes to share information with one another in a non-confrontational/non-argumentative setting. (I don't mean to imply that you are being argumentative by posting this thread, only that it obviously degenerates quite quickly into argument absent the guarantee of moderation of such posting, as in the TT subforum.)

BobRyan said:

The reason I bring this up is that now and then in the General Theology forum we see complaints about "sola scriptura generates all those Protestant Denominations" as if there is no denominational difference in doctrine between Catholic groups and Orthodox groups - while claiming the "sola scriptura" doctrine is what creates differences and so Catholics supposedly have no such difference with the Orthodox groups as one might find between certain Protestant or Evangelical groups.

Click to expand...

There’s a lot of problems with these statements and the biggest one of all is it’s stereotyping all doctrinal disputes as if they all have the same cause which is incorrect. I mean you have to look at each individual case separately people can’t just group them all into one particular cause.

Magisterial teaching needs interpreting as well. Also, Scripture is no more difficult to understand than the RC Magisterium.

Thirdly, is it logical to interpret say, St. Paul's words according to the interpretation of say, Pope Benedict? Tradition is fundamental, because we are saved together, as one body. But Tradition should never be viewed as necessary because Scripture is somehow deficient to save. St. John wrote for that very purpose afterall. We're Christians, not Jews or Muslims. We don't require a Talmud or Hadiths (extra authoritative sources to tell us what the Scriptures say)

concretecamper said:

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

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

Click to expand...

Protestants don't all define SS the same way, nor do they all apply it the same way. Besides this isn't even the cause of Christianity's divisions.
The main cause between Western Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy, is the procession of the Spirit and Papal supremacy. The main cause between Catholicism and Lutheranism is Papal supremacy and the accruing of merit. What of the Copts and Syrians? (They don't adhere to PS either).
Wherever Papal supremacy goes, the Church is severed. First, by the Pope, and secondly by the doctrines which he believes he is free to bind consciences by: Purgatory, The Immaculate Conception, Transubstantiation, Merit of the Saints, ect.

No one can be Catholic unless they are in communion with him. Talk about ego.

concretecamper said:

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. SS solves nothing and causes confusion and division. A man made doctrine is bound to fail, as we see with SS.

Click to expand...

Define SS for me, please.

BobRyan said:

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.

Click to expand...

You have not been through all 10,000 (your number, not mine), to make such an assertion.
Confessional Lutherans believe that they interpret Scripture correctly, it's why they demand of their Pastors, faithful adherence to the Confessions.
So there's one.

concretecamper said:

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.

Click to expand...

Thatgirloncfforums said:

But Tradition should never be viewed as necessary because Scripture is somehow deficient to save.

Click to expand...

where does scripture say scripture is sufficient to save?

1 John 5:13
I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life

concretecamper said:

where does scripture say scripture is sufficient to save?

Click to expand...

John says it. His words are sufficient to bestow and confirm Faith. This isn't an argument over paper and ink, this is about the Apostles vs the Popes

Thatgirloncfforums said:

1 John 5:13
I have written these things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life

Click to expand...

so, you are claiming that all a Christian needs are the verses of 1John 1-13? I agree, John has some pretty good stuff to say in verses 1-13 but this isnt even close to proving scripture is sufficient for salvation. Try again.

No. That's not what I am claiming. Again, this isn't about pen and paper or one verse. We aren't Koranists. This is about authority. Doctrinal authority lies with the Apostle John because he was directly called by the Word, to utter the Word. Think: Trinity. It does not lie with Popes insomuch as they claim universal supremacy. Although their claim to being the patriarchal head of the local Roman See is legit.
The papal Church is anti-conciliar and anti-Catholic, although it retains many Catholic traditions, because the popes have accrued authority that neither the Apostles nor the rest of Christendom recognizes. In other words, Rome is not moving as one body with the rest, but has become sectarian and schismatic. Rome's schism from the rest of Christendom gave birth to the other schisms we see. The schisms do not fall at the feet of the Apostles' writings to the Church.

concretecamper said:

so, you are claiming that all a Christian needs are the verses of 1John 1-13? I agree, John has some pretty good stuff to say in verses 1-13 but this isnt even close to proving scripture is sufficient for salvation. Try again.

Click to expand...

Thatgirloncfforums said:

No. That's not what I am claiming. Again, this isn't about pen and paper or one verse. We aren't Koranists. This is about authority. Doctrinal authority lies with the Apostle John because he was directly called by the Word, to utter the Word. Think: Trinity. It does not lie with Popes insomuch as they claim universal supremacy. Although their claim to being the patriarchal head of the local Roman See is legit.
The papal Church is anti-conciliar and anti-Catholic, although it retains many Catholic traditions, because the popes have accrued authority that neither the Apostles nor the rest of Christendom recognizes. In other words, Rome is not moving as one body with the rest, but has become sectarian and schismatic. Rome's schism from the rest of Christendom gave birth to the other schisms we see. The schisms do not fall at the feet of the Apostles writings to the Church

Click to expand...

ugh, I challenged you to show me where scripture claims to be sufficient for salvation, which have yet to show. Now you bring all this mess into the discussion? Good luck, I'm not going down this rabbit hole again

I showed you and then you said it was insufficient.
Word of advice: try to learn from Lutherans and other Protestants. You seem to struggle with that. You have your own ideas about what others believe and where they are coming from. You won't budge or be taught. Try to work on that, otherwise please stop debating nonCatholics. Thanks.

concretecamper said:

ugh, I challenged you to show me where scripture claims to be sufficient for salvation, which have yet to show. Now you bring all this mess into the discussion? Good luck, I'm not going down this rabbit hole again

Click to expand...