*Catholic Forum* Thoughts on this Article

[anna ~ grace]

Orthodoxbridge: Why is Jay Dyer's High View of Scripture Labeled Protestant?

The above is a critique of an Eastern Orthodox blogger, by another Eastern Orthodox Christian.

The article is interesting, to be sure, and got me thinking on similar issues within Catholicism, and in light of how Protestant Christians view and use Scripture.

Prior to priests and later lay people reading and trying to interpret Scripture for themselves without the Church, most Christians would have understood and lived the Christian life through the Mass, sacred artwork, the Church's teachings, Holy Days, prayers, devotions, hearing Scripture read and hearing homilies, learning about the lives of the Saints, and living out everyday life.

The Reformation changed this, and nothing has been the same since.

What are your thoughts on the article? Does any of it ring true for the Catholic Church, in your view, or not so much?

 

[dzheremi]

Just FYI, the Ancient Faith blog "Orthodox Reformed Bridge" has some interesting insights on the confession that the other blog's post is asking about, available here.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Just FYI, the Ancient Faith blog "Orthodox Reformed Bridge" has some interesting insights on the confession that the other blog's post is asking about, available here.

Thank you, Dzher! That's interesting. Still reading through it.

Good quote;

"As mentioned earlier, conservative Protestants and Evangelicals will be happy to learn that Orthodoxy affirms the infallibility of Scripture. However, they will need to wrestle with the claim that just as the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible, so likewise He inspired the Church."

 

[Michie]

Thank you for posting and good luck. A topic I have always wondered about. Holy Scripture is for all knocking on the door of our Savior. But who owns the correct interpretation of Scripture?

 

[anna ~ grace]

I think Scripture itself points more to the Church than to itself, ultimately.

Titus 1:4-9, Matthew 16:18.

Scripture is good. But we are confronted, also with the question of "ok, post-Apostles, then what?" Were the earliest Christians as Scripturally focused at the exclusion of anything else as the early Baptists and Mennonites, or were they Traditional and Apostolic first and foremost?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Orthodoxbridge: Why is Jay Dyer's High View of Scripture Labeled Protestant?

The above is a critique of an Eastern Orthodox blogger, by another Eastern Orthodox Christian.

The article is interesting, to be sure, and got me thinking on similar issues within Catholicism, and in light of how Protestant Christians view and use Scripture.

Prior to priests and later lay people reading and trying to interpret Scripture for themselves without the Church, most Christians would have understood and lived the Christian life through the Mass, sacred artwork, the Church's teachings, Holy Days, prayers, devotions, hearing Scripture read and hearing homilies, learning about the lives of the Saints, and living out everyday life.

The Reformation changed this, and nothing has been the same since.

What are your thoughts on the article? Does any of it ring true for the Catholic Church, in your view, or not so much?

Maybe not so much. Let me ramble a minute or two.

There are quite a few Protestants who become captivated by historic Christianity but can't go all the way to becoming Catholic. But they can manage maybe as Orthodox because the Orthodox don't have a pope and have a sort of plausible deniability with regards to Marian doctrines and the like. They haven't left Protestantism entirely behind in quite the same way someone becoming Catholic would. I suspect that there is tension between cradle Orthodox and the converts from Protestantism way more than the tension between cradle Catholics and those who have joined us from Protestantism. That because becoming Catholic is a bigger step than becoming Orthodox in that you get a pope and Mary as a Catholic while there are all sorts of things the Orthodox can deny like the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception. When a Protestant becomes Catholic they do historic Christianity whole hog. They can be Orthodox without some of the things they find most distasteful in the Catholic Church.

Part Two: There really may be many neo-Orthodox who are still more or less Protestant and other Orthodox who are critical of that. I know nothing of Jay Dyer, but maybe that's what's going on.

We ALL need to read our Bibles, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants. The Catholic Church is right to offer indulgences for reading the Bible. If smartly done it is even a font of unity. If dumbly done it is a font of disunity. Doing it right matters. Again, I know nothing about Dyer, but methodology matters, Sola Scriptura is bad methodology, and ignorance of Scripture, as St Jerome said, is ignorance of Christ.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Edit; Sorry, got off topic...

 

[dzheremi]

Maybe not so much. Let me ramble a minute or two.

There are quite a few Protestants who become captivated by historic Christianity but can't go all the way to becoming Catholic. But they can manage maybe as Orthodox because the Orthodox don't have a pope

Copts and Alexandrian Greeks: Oh. Okay, then. We'll go wait in the car.

and have a sort of plausible deniability with regards to Marian doctrines and the like.

Hmm? Both Orthodox and Catholics affirm very strongly the third ecumenical council, which condemns any who refuse to explicitly affirm St. Mary's role as Theotokos.

That because becoming Catholic is a bigger step than becoming Orthodox in that you get a pope

Again, both Catholics and Orthodox "get a pope". They don't get the same guy as pope or the same ecclesiology, but they do both get a pope.

and Mary as a Catholic

How do Orthodox not "get" St. Mary?

while there are all sorts of things the Orthodox can deny like the Assumption of Mary and the Immaculate Conception.

So does not believing certain Roman Catholic-specific things about St. Mary mean that Orthodox do not "get" her? I ask because last time I discussed the Immaculate Conception here on CF with a Catholic (it was a while ago on the EO subforum; can't recall the exact thread), the conclusion that we reached was that Roman Catholics may believe (via the Assumption) that she did not die a natural death before being assumed to heaven, while Orthodox cannot (we must believe that she died; there are lots of reasons for this that are outside of the scope of this thread, so I don't intend to pull the conversation that way). In fact, in writing about the dogmatic definition promulgated in 1950 by Pope Pius XII, Wikipedia notes that "Pope Pius XII deliberately left open the question of whether Mary died before her Assumption." So it would appear that it is possible for Catholics to agree with the Orthodox that she did die. It is just the reverse that is not possible.

I would think that if the Orthodox position regarding this is really so alien to the Roman Catholic, then Roman Catholics would not be allowed to believe as we do on this matter.

What am I not understanding about the RC position on this issue? It seems like the asymmetry here is on the Orthodox side, as the RC can hold to either view (whereas we cannot), so at least some may hold to belief that Orthodoxy would find acceptable.

(The Immaculate Conception is much more cut and dry.)

We ALL need to read our Bibles, Catholics, Orthodox, Protestants

Amen. I think (and I don't want to presume too much, as I am not EO; the only reason I am using "we" in the previous paragraphs to begin with is because I know from having conversed with them about it that there is not any difference between the OO and EO views of St. Mary's assumption) that the point that is made by the EO document is that one is not to read the Bible as something separate from the Holy Tradition of the Church, as though it is up to each individual to find their own version of truth in it by their own personal, subjective reading. I would imagine that this is something that Catholics, Orthodox, and even some Protestants who do hold to some idea of Tradition (e.g., Traditional Anglicans) can agree on.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Copts and Alexandrian Greeks: Oh. Okay, then. We'll go wait in the car.

Your snark is noted.

OK, I get it the OO Orthodox have a pope. The EO Orthodox don't and Protestants really get hung up over a pope. They also really get hung up over Mary, and find it easier to join something which is less dogmatic about her, as the Orthodox have been. The Orthodox pray for the dead but refuse the word 'purgatory' so same thing. Protestants can thus join a historic Christian Church without offending their anti-Catholic sensibilities by becoming Orthodox. Because you leave so much for them where they can make up their own minds in their old ways. I wonder if they sometimes retain more of their Protestantism in doing so. I suspect so. If they became Catholic they would have to have confronted all of those things and either accepted them or not have been Catholic. The Orthodox have 'economy' which lets them believe what they want. So they can skip the pope, skip Mary, skip prayers for the dead, and whatever else. They can retain their anti-Catholic prejudices, and I think many do, going from one kind of anti-Catholic to another.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Edit; Sorry, got off topic...

I do that too. I wonder if my recent speculative post is very germane to what you wanted to know. Considering I have no idea about Dyer.

 

[anna ~ grace]

Your snark is noted.

OK, I get it the OO Orthodox have a pope. The EO Orthodox don't and Protestants really get hung up over a pope. They also really get hung up over Mary, and find it easier to join something which is less dogmatic about her, as the Orthodox have been. The Orthodox pray for the dead but refuse the word 'purgatory' so same thing. Protestants can thus join a historic Christian Church without offending their anti-Catholic sensibilities by becoming Orthodox. Because you leave so much for them where they can make up their own minds in their old ways. I wonder if they sometimes retain more of their Protestantism in doing so. I suspect so. If they became Catholic they would have to have confronted all of those things and either accepted them or not have been Catholic. The Orthodox have 'economy' which lets them believe what they want. So they can skip the pope, skip Mary, skip prayers for the dead, and whatever else. They can retain their anti-Catholic prejudices, and I think many do, going from one kind of anti-Catholic to another.

Something that I have noted, as I've read and kind of observed from the outside both TAW conversations and their Schism or near-Schism crisis, and OBOB and the crisis in the Catholic Church right now.

The East is suffering from a lack of Charity. The West is suffering from a lack of Wisdom. Both are needed.

I do definitely believe in the Two Lungs theory. I also believe that the whole, unified Church of course needs the Copts, the Syriacs, Armenians, and Ethiopians back. The non-Chalcedonians. We need each other.

The Protestants need the Church, too. It's a big leap, but it's possible. With man it is not possible, but with God, all things are possible. How, I don't know. But I do believe that God will do something soon, for all of us. But we have to hang on. One Church, One Shepherd. Probably not Francis. But maybe a successor.

 

[anna ~ grace]

I do that too. I wonder if my recent speculative post is very germane to what you wanted to know. Considering I have no idea about Dyer.

Different, but connected, and welcome. Good topic, needs to be discussed, imo.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Something that I have noted, as I've read and kind of observed from the outside both TAW conversations and their Schism or near-Schism crisis, and OBOB and the crisis in the Catholic Church right now.

The East is suffering from a lack of Charity. The West is suffering from a lack of Wisdom. Both are needed.

Their schisms are as painful to watch unfold as our mess.

I do definitely believe in the Two Lungs theory. I also believe that the whole, unified Church of course needs the Copts, the Syriacs, Armenians, and Ethiopians back. The non-Chalcedonians. We need each other.

The Protestants need the Church, too. It's a big leap, but it's possible. With man it is not possible, but with God, all things are possible. How, I don't know. But I do believe that God will do something soon, for all of us. But we have to hang on. One Church, One Shepherd. Probably not Francis. But maybe a successor.

Two lungs and all sorts of rites, one shepherd and one teaching, many consonant spiritualities in the one faith. I won't see that in my lifetime because of the hardness of hearts, as there is so much hatred right now, but maybe the right successor to pope Francis can tug us all in that direction. I miss John Paul, who made it look like it could actually happen some day.

 

[dzheremi]

OK, I get it the OO Orthodox have a pope. The EO Orthodox don't

Referring to their respective patriarchs as Pope is a pan-Alexandrian tradition (began long before the schism, with Pope Heraclas, d. 248), so yes they do. The current EO Pope of Alexandria is Pope Theodore II.

The Orthodox have 'economy' which lets them believe what they want.

Economy has to do with the application of the canons (either more strictly or more loosely), not with what is required belief, so that's not accurate. A person may be given a modified fasting rule, for instance, but they would not be told that they are free to believe that St. Mary did not die before her assumption. That's not economy.