Does Jesus Himself condemn Sola Scripitra?

[The Liturgist]

As humans we all want to make quick judgements and end disputes without thinking about them. It is humiliating to think we may be wrong, but for the sake or truth, we humble ourselves and view history in its entirety prior to coming to a conclusion. My study is not complete and I can always use further correction, but the truth is the truth, and we constantly seek it, not considering we have already obtained all there is

I appreciate your sincere and obvious commitment to the truth, and most of what you have written in the aforementioned level was historically correct. Certainly all parties have to be prepared to swallow some pride for Roman-Orthodox reunion to occur. The mere task of developing a new Synaxarion or Martyrology enumerating who is to be jointly venerated by both churches will be difficult.

I have always regarded you as a friend.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I don’t presume anything. I merely pointed out that it was over a century before Nicea that Victor I excommunicated a man for teaching Christ was only a man
It was 60 years before Nicea that Dionysus taught that Jesus and the Father were of the same substance, hence the term consubstantial
If that long ago, it was known that Arianism was heretical, why was the council even necessary?
Arianism was flourishing in the East and had caught the attention of the Emperor in Constantinople.
I am aware that Pope Victor wanted to excommunicate Bishops in the East over the celebration of Easter. The fact remains that he did not do it. We do not judge Popes on what they want to do, only on what they do. If we judge on wants, all of us would be burning in hell for eternity. Infallibility does not equal impeccability. As such, a final arbiter of Church teaching does not mean that he is not occasionally dragged into the fray.
Satan is an angel of light, he has the power to seem to deceive if it were possible, the very elect. Honorius I considered the arguments of a heresy, there is no record that he taught it as Church doctrine. Satan is not incapable of enticing the Church, we only have the promise that he will not prevail, not that he would be prevented from making an attempt.
We have the parable of the wheat and the tares which shows us Satan has planted his people in God’s wheat field. God does not authorize us to rip out the tares to purify the wheat. Our Lord says, Vengence is mine, I will repay. He did not authorize us to uproot a wheat field and plant another.
Although the things you say are true, they do not rise to the level of justifying a schism then, nor its continued existence today. The only thing keeping it is human pride, from which we need to repent.

 

[jas3]

I am not calling them schismatic.

Sure you are, post #85.

It is a simple observation of fact that since we are not united, we are in schism.

Somehow I doubt you'd say the same things about Rome as you do about the Orthodox, so I don't buy this equivocation.

What causes us to tolerate the schism? Is it pride, false information, laziness?

@The Liturgist gave a good synopsis of the issues preventing reunification right now. It's a shame you only seem to want to focus on historical arguments rather than the elephant(s) in the room.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

I regard you as a friend also. Your rebukes and challenges of me inspire me to press on as they reveal my faults, which is what I need
To aim for truth is not to act as I completely possess it, nor will I ever until that day when I will know as I am fully known
That is a fearful day for me, and I believe more rebukes and corrections here will mean less later on that day

Thank you and peace be with you brother Liturgist

 

[boughtwithaprice]

You ma

Sure you are, post #85.
Somehow I doubt you'd say the same things about Rome as you do about the Orthodox, so I don't buy this equivocation.

@The Liturgist gave a good synopsis of the issues preventing reunification right now. It's a shame you only seem to want to focus on historical arguments rather than the elephant(s) in the room.

You may injur my flesh as much as you want and I cannot say that I do not deserve it
The facts remain that we are in schism, and that schism is not according to the will of God.
God is our Father, Jesus is our brother, Mary is our mother. Jesus taught us to be as little children. Schism is as children that have run away. Most runaways see that they cannot make it on their own in the world and return home to their parents. That is what I pray for

 

[The Liturgist]

God is our Father, Jesus is our brother

Forgive me, but this statement is Christologically problematic, because Jesus Christ is God, and the problem with your remark is that to say God is one thing, and Jesus something else, tends to require either Arianism or Nestorianism.

With regards to Jesus Christ, because of the Incarnation, we can, as did St. Athanasius in De Incarnatione, say “God became man so that man could become god” (a reference to salvation by Theosis, the Orthodox-Patristic model, wherein by grace we become what Christ is by nature), and this extends to the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mother of God.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Forgive me, but this statement is Christologically problematic, because Jesus Christ is God, and the problem with your remark is that to say God is one thing, and Jesus something else, tends to require either Arianism or Nestorianism.

With regards to Jesus Christ, because of the Incarnation, we can, as did St. Athanasius in De Incarnatione, say “God became man so that man could become god” (a reference to salvation by Theosis, the Orthodox-Patristic model, wherein by grace we become what Christ is by nature), and this extends to the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mother of God.

Forgive me, but this statement is Christologically problematic, because Jesus Christ is God, and the problem with your remark is that to say God is one thing, and Jesus something else, tends to require either Arianism or Nestorianism.

With regards to Jesus Christ, because of the Incarnation, we can, as did St. Athanasius in De Incarnatione, say “God became man so that man could become god” (a reference to salvation by Theosis, the Orthodox-Patristic model, wherein by grace we become what Christ is by nature), and this extends to the status of the Blessed Virgin Mary as Mother of God.

Yes I see your point, but the fact remains is that God became man, one of us. He humbled Himself and subjected Himself to a woman, Mary, as His mother.
Mary is not God’s mother by nature, but by the will of God, neither is God man by nature but by His own will, He took on our nature but not our concupiscence
The nature and substance of God is a mystery and man’s claims to understand it have lead to many heresies. It is humility and obedience to Apostolic authority that leads us back to orthodoxy. The primary Christian virtue is humility, the demonstration of which is obedience.
God reveals His will to us in His own humility, and He calls us to follow Him by example. Do what I do, as I do what I say. Satan refused humility and said I will not serve. Mary completely accepted God and bore Him, she has the fullest amount of the grace of God. Behold the handmaid of the Lord, be it done to me according to your word.
Having the fullest measure of God’s grace, she is with God but not God herself. She is the rightful queen of heaven and earth, as the Psalmist says, at your right hand stands the queen in gold of Ophir.


One can also say that your denial of the Filioque is problematic. The council of Nicea concluded that Jesus and the Father are the same substance or consubstantial. How can the same substance have a difference? I know you say it is more complicated than that, but I believe that if we sat down and listened to each other we could see that our views are not that far apart.


Correction is always welcome as heresy is to be scorned

 

[jas3]

How can the same substance have a difference?

Because the Persons/hypostases, although consubstantial, are not identical. The Father is not a son; the Son is not a father. The Son is begotten; the Father is unbegotten. Similarly, as was taught as the Council of Constantinople and in Sacred Scripture, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father doesn't proceed from the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, the Son being begotten of the Father doesn't mean the Spirit is begotten. Procession and begetting are different. The only way you could argue for the filioque on the grounds of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son is if the Son is somehow "more consubstantial" with the Father than the Holy Spirit, so that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son but the Son isn't begotten of the Father and the Spirit. I hope it's clear though that that would actually be making a differentiation in the undifferentiated Divine Essence.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

A thought occurred to me regarding the OP and how we are taking to each other. As humans, our concupiscence has us behave in a win/lose mentality. If I am right, then the other person must be wrong. This frequently cause us to disregard Christ’s command to love our enemies and employ tactics which attempt to humiliate the other person. Jesus did not behave that way.
In the scripture from the Gospel, which I quoted in the OP, Jesus was speaking with Orthodox Jews. He said, you have the scriptures thinking that you have eternal life in them, but the scripture speak of me, yet you don’t believe.
I will not judge you, Moses will be your judge.

Here we have the Creator of the Universe, He who was, who is and who is to come refraining from judgement. He, in my understanding was saying, you believe the scriptures? Alright, I wrote the scriptures and dictated them to Moses, and they speak of me, but if you are relying on them instead of me, I will refrain from judgement, since they are my words. Moses knows my words and what I was trying to convey in writing them, he will open their meaning to you and I will allow him to be your judge, as you say you are relying on his words. Moses will judge
In the same way, the New Testament speaks of the Church, and the Church is here, yet many do not believe, the Catholic Church refrains from judgement.
I whole heartedly correct my OP, in that Jesus does not condemn Sola Scriptura, as they are His words, yet relying on scripture alone does not give us the whole truth. It gives us truth but not the whole truth. The scripture speak of the Church as the pilar and foundation of truth, and Christ’s authority was given to the Apostles, specifically Peter.
If one wants to rely solely on scripture to rule their life, I cannot judge them. Like Jesus, we say Peter and Paul will be their judge. I can point out that Peter and Paul spoke of the Church, and there is more to Christianity than what we get from Sola Scriptura, but I cannot judge in a win/lose mentality
What is known by Sola Scriptura is true, as they are the words of God, yet it is incomplete and subject to errors of interpretation. If one wants to limit himself to Sola Scriptura, then go ahead, I will not judge, but I must warn you that you may feel extreme shame and regret once the full truth is revealed to you on the day of judgement
The Catholic Church recognizes the denominations as Christian, yet we are frequently judged by all of them. Stick with Sola Scriptura if you want, but as for me and my house, we submit to the Lord and His One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church

 

[The Liturgist]

Because the Persons/hypostases, although consubstantial, are not identical. The Father is not a son; the Son is not a father. The Son is begotten; the Father is unbegotten. Similarly, as was taught as the Council of Constantinople and in Sacred Scripture, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father doesn't proceed from the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, the Son being begotten of the Father doesn't mean the Spirit is begotten. Procession and begetting are different. The only way you could argue for the filioque on the grounds of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son is if the Son is somehow "more consubstantial" with the Father than the Holy Spirit, so that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son but the Son isn't begotten of the Father and the Spirit. I hope it's clear though that that would actually be making a differentiation in the undifferentiated Divine Essence.

Correct.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Because the Persons/hypostases, although consubstantial, are not identical. The Father is not a son; the Son is not a father. The Son is begotten; the Father is unbegotten. Similarly, as was taught as the Council of Constantinople and in Sacred Scripture, the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Father doesn't proceed from the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, the Son being begotten of the Father doesn't mean the Spirit is begotten. Procession and begetting are different. The only way you could argue for the filioque on the grounds of the consubstantiality of the Father and the Son is if the Son is somehow "more consubstantial" with the Father than the Holy Spirit, so that the Spirit proceeds both from the Father and the Son but the Son isn't begotten of the Father and the Spirit. I hope it's clear though that that would actually be making a differentiation in the undifferentiated Divine Essence.

I see your point, although in Scripture we see Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said receive the Holy Spirit, which appears that the Holy Spirit proceeded from Him. I agree that the Persons of the Trinity are distinct and not modalism
This is a mystery which requires much contemplation. Your point of view has merit, but the Filioque does not appear to contradict scripture

 

[The Liturgist]

Correction is always welcome as heresy is to be scorned

Then read The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John Damascene, and the writings of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria, and compare with Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter Michael Pomazansky.

 

[jas3]

I see your point, although in Scripture we see Jesus breathed on the Apostles and said receive the Holy Spirit, which appears that the Holy Spirit proceeded from Him.

That would be temporal procession, not eternal procession, which is what's professed in the Creed. I second the recommendations @The Liturgist has made, and I would add Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's His Broken Body which, while not a patristic text, has a fairly accessible explanation of the issues at play in the filioque controversy.

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Then read The Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith by St. John Damascene, and the writings of St. Athanasius and St. Cyril of Alexandria, and compare with Orthodox Dogmatic Theology by Protopresbyter

Will do


May I also recommend

That would be temporal procession, not eternal procession, which is what's professed in the Creed. I second the recommendations @The Liturgist has made, and I would add Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's His Broken Body which, while not a patristic text, has a fairly accessible explanation of the issues at play in the filioque controversy.

I intend to read those books, thank you

May I recommend
Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma by
Ludwig Ott

 

[boughtwithaprice]

Ok I ordered 5 books, the three recommended and st Athanasius and St Cyril
On the Incarnation and the Christological controversy respectively

They arrive on Saturday, I’ll have to get back to you in about a month or so, depending on how fast I can read them

 

[boughtwithaprice]

That would be temporal procession, not eternal procession, which is what's professed in the Creed. I second the recommendations @The Liturgist has made, and I would add Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's His Broken Body which, while not a patristic text, has a fairly accessible explanation of the issues at play in the filioque controversy.

I’ll have to do further reading, but the Nicene creed published by the USCCB does not include the word “eternally” in the Filioque
In my view that could include both eternal and temporal procession which would remove the controversy.


Like I said, I have to do more readings. It’s just my observation

 

[The Liturgist]

That would be temporal procession, not eternal procession, which is what's professed in the Creed. I second the recommendations @The Liturgist has made, and I would add Fr. Laurent Cleenewerck's His Broken Body which, while not a patristic text, has a fairly accessible explanation of the issues at play in the filioque controversy.

Technically Orthodox Dogmatic Theology is not yet Patristic but many want both its author and its translator, Fr. Seraphim Rose, glorified, which would make it Patristic because unlike the RCC we don’t draw a line between Patristic theology and the very different Scholastic Theology, since we never embraced Scholasticism. The RCC generally regards St. John Damascene (as they call St. John of Damascus) to be the last Church Father, which is obviously unfair even to Roman saints who were contemporary with the beginnings of Scholasticism but still primarily Patristic, such as St. Odo of Cluny.

By the way it amuses me that Deep Space Nine had a character renowned for his unflappable morality who shared a name with a French saint played by an American actor of French and Francophone Suisse ethnicity.

 

[The Liturgist]

In my view that could include both eternal and temporal procession which would remove the controversy.

How do you figure? Its eternal procession that is controversial. If the Nicene Creed used by Rome said something like “who proceeds from the Father, and was sent by the Son on Pentecost” no one could call it erroneous, but it would still of course violate the canons of the Council of Ephesus which prohibit replacing, modifying or tampering with the Creed, much like how Federal regulations prohibit disabling, tampering with or destroying lavatory smoke detectors on aircraft, and for reasons equally important for safety.

 

[The Liturgist]

Will do

I can assist you in accessing them if needed, as well as all Orthodox liturgical texts translated into English, including some only translated by my LiturgyWorks group, like the disused Armenian anaphorae.

 

[The Liturgist]

Ok I ordered 5 books, the three recommended and st Athanasius and St Cyril
On the Incarnation and the Christological controversy respectively

They arrive on Saturday, I’ll have to get back to you in about a month or so, depending on how fast I can read them

Bravo, I salute you. I was about to offer assistance in getting them. Perhaps while you’re waiting you might enjoy some Byzantine Rite or West Syriac liturgical texts?