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.
In response to Constantine's comment and in order that there not be any misrepresenting of your position, what Catholic and/or Orthodox teachings do you DISagree with?I'm non-denominational but after studying scripture and church history I've come to agree with many Catholic and Orthodox teachings such as Christ being present in the Eucharist.
I think he's not sure yet. If he were, he would have joined one or the other.In response to Constantine's comment and in order that there not be any misrepresenting of your position, what Catholic and/or Orthodox teachings do you DISagree with?
Based on those, you are attacking something that is NOT WHAT I AM SAYING.
Well it's not read in Liturgy because it didn't make the cut when the Liturgical readings were assembled, since it was contentious at that time, but it's more or less accepted as divinely inspired today, and has been since the Middle Ages, although it wasn't generally bound with the rest of the Bible until after the advent of the printing press.The canons of Trullo are binding in the Eastern Orthodox Church. It also shows how most Protestants don't know what the term "canonical" means in the Eastern Church. Every canon of the eastern Church makes clear that books such as Baruch are canonical (official in every list and canon except in the protestant bible) as it is read in liturgy, but in the Byzantine church Revelation is not canonical as it is not officially read in liturgy. Canons 59&60 of Laodicea, as well as the lists of Gregory Nazianzen, Amphilocius, Cyril of Jerusalem makes this all clear. In the Eastern church "canonical scripture" only refers to books incorporated into its worship it does not denote that some are semi scripture and others superscripture.
I am happy you acknowledge the authority of Holy Scriptures.You are correct that Catholics believe what the catechism teaches and consider scripture the highest authority. One thing I really like about the catholic church is they don't subject the word of God to man-made traditions like we see in Protestantism where God's word is always subordinate to the Protestant's faith alone tradition. Whenever scripture says works are necessary for justification, Protestants dismiss, ignore, reinterpret, explain away, and reject the scriptural teaching in favor of their tradition.
It's a fact. Chart of various OT canons provided twice up thread:I notice you make lots of claims but never provide any evidence to support them. I wonder why.
It's quite relevant. Did Athanasius quote Scriptures or not?Irrelevant.
Well, you thought he'd taken a Protestant position on something or other. I don't recall that happening, so that's why I asked.I think he's not sure yet. If he were, he would have joined one or the other.
Really? Show some of the traditions quoted.They relied on Tradition alone.
Then why are you dissing Protestants, since you are a Protestant Christian?
It is best for us not to guess too much, but when our friend says that he's non-denominational, I don't think that means he's a non-denominational Protestant in the sense of belonging to the typical crypto-Baptist "non-denominational" congregation like we find in every town. I got the impression that it meant something like "uncommitted" or "unaffiliated."Could be SSPX.
yes, but it is still uncanonical as the very (eastern) definition of the term 'canonical scripture' can only mean books read in liturgy. St Athanasius 39th festal epistle is the only eastern Father to include Revelation but makes clear that the Church sanctions other books to be read by laity. He makes clear that canonical scripture does NOT imply some are divinely inspired texts while others are less inspired, its only an adjective to describe texts incorporated in official liturgy. Hence Revelation is non-canonical, deuterocanonical or 'worthy to be read' just like Clement's epistles or the Didache (also approved in the 85 canons) or however you would like to label them. Notice how the book of Baruch is totally canonical in both east and west since forever but protestant bibles place it as deuterocanonical.Well it's not read in Liturgy because it didn't make the cut when the Liturgical readings were assembled, since it was contentious at that time, but it's more or less accepted as divinely inspired today, and has been since the Middle Ages, although it wasn't generally bound with the rest of the Bible until after the advent of the printing press.
What I said was "whatever has not yet been confessed has not yet been forgiven." What you read, however, is "whatever has not been confessed in the presence of an elder is not yet forgiven."
You said:The fact is that sin that has not yet been confessed cannot be forgiven,
Now you are saying: You think that in order to be forgiven, I believe you must go to Confession. I have told you three times this is not true.
Do you not see any reason here for me to be confused?
Can you clear this up for me? What other way can you be forgiven then? What happens to you when you die and have sins that have not been forgiven?
These are legitimate questions. They are not meant to anger you.
You ridiculed me for saying that "at the time of your salvation, your past present and future sins are immediately forgiven."
So, let's forget the whole confession thing, as it seems to be a sticking point here.
How can you face your savior, at the time of your death, if you have not had time to have your most recent sins forgiven before your death?
It really isn't relevant, since Scripture is part of Tradition. You're essentially putting up the choice between using the right hand or the left hand, as if a person would never use both hands in many activities. The Oral Tradition is put up as equal to the written Tradition in Scripture.It's quite relevant. Did Athanasius quote Scriptures or not?
Yes the way you explained it is accurate. However my point was to address the poster who made the original claim "tradition alone."It really isn't relevant, since Scripture is part of Tradition. You're essentially putting up the choice between using the right hand or the left hand, as if a person would never use both hands in many activities. The Oral Tradition is put up as equal to the written Tradition in Scripture.
Since Scripture is part of Tradition, then Tradition alone includes Scripture. The two are inseperable.Yes the way you explained it is accurate. However my point was to address the poster who made the original claim "tradition alone."
It's not part of the Liturgical canon, but it's part of the Orthodox New Testament. Clement and the Didache are not generally bound with the New Testament, even though they're very good to read.yes, but it is still uncanonical as the very (eastern) definition of the term 'canonical scripture' can only mean books read in liturgy. St Athanasius 39th festal epistle is the only eastern Father to include Revelation but makes clear that the Church sanctions other books to be read by laity. He makes clear that canonical scripture does NOT imply some are divinely inspired texts while others are less inspired, its only an adjective to describe texts incorporated in official liturgy. Hence Revelation is non-canonical, deuterocanonical or 'worthy to be read' just like Clement's epistles or the Didache (also approved in the 85 canons) or however you would like to label them. Notice how the book of Baruch is totally canonical in both east and west since forever but protestant bibles place it as deuterocanonical.
Fail. Go back and read the OP. Don't insult the truth and authority of scripture in an attempt to equalize it to your precious church's teaching. Scripture is true because Jesus said it is true. Scripture records this. Does not mean scripture gets authority from itself.Not really any more circular than, "the Bible is authoritative because the Bible says so."
Wrong, Catholics on CF have said differently than what the Catholic catechism says.You are correct that Catholics believe what the catechism teaches and consider scripture the highest authority.
Well you are certainly not Protestant because your logic is beyond belief. Maybe you should be Catholic.Because I don't. I'm not a Catholic so I'm not following the Pope.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?