Catholic bashing....

[steve_bakr]

That's just self-serving jargon. In order to justify the notion of "Holy Tradition" as the process of determining God's will, it's necessary to throw Scripture into the same mix as opinion, myth, and legend. The Bible books actually stand on their own.

Like it or not, the determination of the inspired books of the NT occurred within the context of the Church.

 

[Albion]

Like it or not, the determination of the inspired books of the NT occurred within the context of the Church.

Well, sure. The Christian churches throughout the Roman Empire of the first two centuries used these books and considered them to embody God's will and intention for his people. There's nothing about that which makes any particular church council the "originator" or "authorizer" of God's word, nor is it historically accurate to think that the church thought of these writings no differently than it did of the opinions of various bishops or teachers, folklore, custom, or the like.

But that is exactly the intent when anyone says that the Bible was the doing of the Church, rather than correctly describing the Bible books as having been compiled or recognized for what they are (revelation).

 

[Tangible]

... and then there is the Today's-Roman-Catholic-Church-is-equal-to-the-Early-Church fallacy as well.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, sure. The Christian churches throughout the Roman Empire of the first two centuries used these books and considered them to embody God's will and intention for his people. There's nothing about that which makes any particular church council the "originator" or "authorizer" of God's word, nor is it historically accurate to think that the church thought of these writings no differently than it did of the opinions of various bishops or teachers, folklore, custom, or the like.

But that is exactly the intent when anyone says that the Bible was the doing of the Church, rather than correctly describing the Bible books as having been compiled or recognized for what they are (revelation).

Which is the Catholic Church...Christ didn't institute churches. One Church. One Faith. One Lord.

 

[Tangible]

The Catholic Church, yes. The Roman (Vatican) Catholic Church, no.

 

[Albion]

... and then there is the Today's-Roman-Catholic-Church-is-equal-to-the-Early-Church fallacy as well.

I know. And isn't it a bit strange that the Eastern Orthodox posters always let pass without comment the claims that their church didn't even exist before 1054? I guess it's not permitted to say anything that would suggest that what the Protestants here point out might be correct.

 

[Root of Jesse]

The Catholic Church, yes. The Roman (Vatican) Catholic Church, no.

Of course you know that there is no "Roman" Catholic Church, right? But whatever. THE Catholic Church. Which is what I said.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Nice how all this non-Catholic Bashing works, isn't it? Blah, blah, blah.

I know the OP meant what he said. And those others who signed on. I also believe it's ok to disagree. But past that, it's bash, bash, bash...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I know. And isn't it a bit strange that the Eastern Orthodox posters always let pass without comment the claims that their church didn't even exist before 1054? I guess it's not permitted to say anything that would suggest that what the Protestants here point out might be correct.

You've never heard me comment on it before?

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Tangible]

Of course you know that there is no "Roman" Catholic Church, right? But whatever. THE Catholic Church. Which is what I said.

Right, THE Catholic Church, from which your church is one descendant.

 

[ChristianT]

I know. And isn't it a bit strange that the Eastern Orthodox Eastern posters always let pass without comment the claims that their church didn't even exist before 1054? I guess it's not permitted to say anything that would suggest that what the Protestants here point out might be correct.

A *Protestant* with a correct point?!

Seriously though, of all the Orthodox commentators I've heard who talk about sola scriptura and tradition and Holy Tradition, all of them have acknowledged that "the Reformers had a truly noble cause, however their reactions also went to extremes or became overreactions to Catholic 'progressions of doctrine'."

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[Albion]

A *Protestant* with a correct point?!

OK, very funny.

Seriously though, of all the Orthodox commentators I've heard who talk about sola scriptura and tradition and Holy Tradition, all of them have acknowledged that "the Reformers had a truly noble cause, however their reactions also went to extremes or became overreactions to Catholic 'progressions of doctrine'."

I don't remember anything about that, but what do you think of the point I made? I'm not asking that any EO agree with Protestant theology, although it would be nice to occasionally read something like you've said above.

What floors me is that they will let Roman Catholics talk on and on about being the oldest church, the only one founded by Christ, about Peter being made a Pope by Christ, and especially, that all the Ecumenical Councils and their decisions were the work of the Roman Catholic Church and only the Roman Catholic Church.

What would account for the complete silence of the otherwise very active, very vocal EO posters here, except that disagreeing with a Roman Catholic on a point like those might give "aid and comfort" to the Protestants here?

 

[ChristianT]

OK, very funny. I don't remember anything about that, but what do you think of the point I made? I'm not asking that any EO agree with Protestant theology, although it would be nice to occasionally read something like you've said above. What floors me is that they will let Roman Catholics talk on and on about being the oldest church, the only one founded by Christ, about Peter being made a Pope by Christ, and especially, that all the Ecumenical Councils and their decisions were the work of the Roman Catholic Church and only the Roman Catholic Church. What would account for the complete silence of the otherwise very active, very vocal EO posters here, except that disagreeing with a Roman Catholic on a point like those might give "aid and comfort" to the Protestants here?

I can agree, it would make sense to be consistent regardless of who we would be agreeing with - truth is truth the same. However, to the Orthodox, it's a silly claim that the Ecumenical councils were only due to the Roman Catholic Church, or other similar claims to being the full and oldest Church. This is because the Schism is interpreted as the bishop of Rome leaving the Pentarchy - the 4 others of the traditional 5 Patriarchates. So I guess when it happens and an Orthodox person can respond, it's just easy to take it for granted.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Just because nobody listens doesn't mean that nobody complains.

God be gracious to me a sinner.

 

[ebia]

And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father's house--for I have five brothers--so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.' But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' And he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent.' He said to him, 'If they do not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead.'" (Luke 16:27-31, ESV) The rich man asked Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to warn his brothers about the awfulness of where he (the rich man) was now residing because he was under the impression that the Bible wasn't self-authenticating. The rich man thought that something more was necessary in order to convince his brothers about the reality of which the Bible speaks, and that if Lazarus was resurrected from the dead to go and warn them, then his brothers would listen and be convinced. But Abraham replied that even if someone was to rise from the dead to go and warn them they still wouldn't listen if they weren't previously prepared to listen to Moses and the Prophets. So this parable teaches that for those who are Christ's sheep the bare Word of the Scriptures is all that's needed to convince them of the truth of that which it teaches, because it authenticates itself in the minds of Christians as being the Word of God, and doesn't need any external confirmation about its validity. So the Catholic idea that you have to have a committee of the faithful to decide what is and what isn't the Word of God isn't correct, because God's Word is in itself self-authenticating to Christians.

So it means "I know it's the word of god because I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I read it"

When you said "the bible is self-authenticating" I thought 'self' was referring to the bible, not your-self.

 

[ebia]

If you and I both see the same car wreck, we will have two different stories to tell, from two different pov's. Was the car wreck not "self explanatory"?

The level of disagreement over the bible seems to be well beyond that.

Sure it was. God's word was written FOR us, BY Him. If one has a question, they can ask Him and what He has done for others, He'll continue to do in/for us. Who did you 'think' should explain God's Word to you?

Like every Christian until very recently; that it's meant to be understood in the community of God's people.

 

[Albion]

I can agree, it would make sense to be consistent regardless of who we would be agreeing with - truth is truth the same. However, to the Orthodox, it's a silly claim that the Ecumenical councils were only due to the Roman Catholic Church, or other similar claims to being the full and oldest Church. This is because the Schism is interpreted as the bishop of Rome leaving the Pentarchy - the 4 others of the traditional 5 Patriarchates. So I guess when it happens and an Orthodox person can respond, it's just easy to take it for granted.

But they seem never to miss an opportunity to stick it to Protestants, even when their assertions must be thought similarly silly. Anyway, that's how it looks from here.

 

[sunlover1]

Which is the Catholic Church...Christ didn't institute churches. One Church. One Faith. One Lord.

How'd you figure that your denomination is "IT"?
How bout all of us are THE CHURCH?

 

[Albion]

We're all part of the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic church, depending upon whether or not we hold to the true faith. It doesn't really matter what name our particular denominations go by.