How do we know . . . .

[racer]

Sorry, The Church has never defined that in under ten words. I refer you back to post #11... It's short enough, and I agree with it completely.

Forgive me...

But, how do you know that your argument in post #11 is correct? How do you know it's not a false gospel?

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Nope. You up to typing more than a line or two and educating us about him?

Luk 2:25-35
¶ And, behold, there was a man in Jerusalem, whose name [was] Simeon; and the same man [was] just and devout, waiting for the consolation of Israel: and the Holy Ghost was upon him. And it was revealed unto him by the Holy Ghost, that he should not see death, before he had seen the Lord's Christ. And he came by the Spirit into the temple: and when the parents brought in the child Jesus, to do for him after the custom of the law, Then took he him up in his arms, and blessed God, and said, Lord, now lettest thou thy servant depart in peace, according to thy word: For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, Which thou hast prepared before the face of all people; A light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel. And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him. And Simeon blessed them, and said unto Mary his mother, Behold, this [child] is set for the fall and rising again of many in Israel; and for a sign which shall be spoken against; (Yea, a sword shall pierce through thy own soul also,) that the thoughts of many hearts may be revealed.


This same St. Simeon is also the translator of the greek version (Septuagint) of the book if Isaiah.

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

But, how do you know that your argument in post #11 is correct? How do you know it's not a false gospel?

Because Christianity is revealed. It's not an intuitive process. It is faith...
The Church is the bride of Christ.
Forgive me...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

What, you don't remember his name? If not, he could not have been too great.

Cyprian of Carthage.


I never said I did not remember his name.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

How do we know... it is false?

Both sides of the question are equal. It's a matter of trust.

You trust nobody on earth. Sorry about that.

Forgive me...

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Do you even see how your own argument negates itself? I hope so, because I'm too tired to explain it to you.

What I wrote:

There is a Church that the Apostles wrote about and that Church has continued since the Apostles with unbroken successions to this day. If you seek this church then you will find it with the RCC and the EOC and the OOC, the Catholic Church (as was written about 100 AD by the Bishop of Antioch).

Seems pretty simple to me.

Like 1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1+1=

Ever here of Apostolic Succession?

If you check with RCC or EOC or OOC you will find that their Bishops/Patriarchs have a line of succession going all the way back to an Apostle.

I would then ask if you understand that Matthias had hands laid on him with his ordination in Acts 1. But that would be lengthy because of Sola Scriptura that would argue it. Funny thing Sola Scriptura... it lacks truth because it lacks cohesion.

 

[racer]

Because Christianity is revealed. It's not an intuitive process. It is faith...
The Church is the bride of Christ.
Forgive me...

But, how do you know it has been revealed correctly to you and those of your faith, and incorrectly to those who do not agree with your faith?

It can not be done without private judgement.

 

[racer]

Cyprian of Carthage.


I never said I did not remember his name.

Never said you did just asked, but if I find a person worthy of quoting, I usually don't leave out his name.


But, Cyprian did make some very good arguments and adhere to some pretty monumental beliefs.

 

[JacktheCatholic]

Cyprian did make some very good arguments and adhere to some pretty monumental beliefs.

Cool

 

[racer]

How do we know... it is false?

Both sides of the question are equal. It's a matter of trust.

You trust nobody on earth. Sorry about that.

Forgive me...

It's not nice to purposefully twist a persons words to imply he meant something he did not. You better reread what I've written before making ridiculous and untrue statements about me.

I trust people on earth, but I trust God more--and I trust Him enough to know that He will lead me to the truth as long as I faithfully seek it. And, I know the "truth" is not a "church"--yours or mine.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

But, how do you know it has been revealed correctly to you and those of your faith, and incorrectly to those who do not agree with your faith?

It can not be done without private judgement.

Because of Christ's promise.

Forgive me...

 

[racer]

Because of Christ's promise.

Forgive me...

I base my beliefs on His promise, also. So, where does that leave us?

 

[Rick Otto]

quote=OrthodoxyUSA;Ancient History Sourcebook:
St. Vincent of Lerins:
The "Vincentian Canon", AD 434

From Chapter 4 of the Commonitorium​

A.D. 434​

[ed. Moxon, Cambridge Patristic Texts] *​

(1) I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a kind of fixed and, as it were, general and guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy. And the answer that I receive is always to this effect; that if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a healthy faith, we ought, with the Lord's help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, firstly, that is, by the authority of God's Law, then by the tradition of the Catholic Church.​

(2) Here, it may be, someone will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and is in itself abundantly sufficient, what need is there to join to it the interpretation of the Church? The answer is that because of the very depth of Scripture all men do not place one identical interpretation upon it. The statements of the same writer are explained by different men in different ways, so much so that it seems almost possible to extract from it as many opinions as there are men. Novatian expounds in one way, Sabellius in another, Donatus in another, Arius, Eunomius and Macedonius in another, Photinus, Apollinaris and Priscillian in another, Jovinian, Pelagius and Caelestius in another, and latterly Nestorius in another. Therefore, because of the intricacies of error, which is so multiform, there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic.​

Exegesis is standard, but application of exegesis is uneven amongst individuals, even in matters of lesser importance:
"...there is great need for the laying down of a rule for the exposition of Prophets and Apostles in accordance with the standard of the interpretation of the Church Catholic."



The standard of interpretation of the Church Catholic should conform to the rule of exegesis like it (the standard of interpretation) does for everyone, instead of a rule being concocted that conforms exegesis to the interpretations of the Church Catholic.

(3) Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly 'Catholic,' as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality [i.e. oecumenicity], antiquity, and consent. We shall follow universality if we acknowledge that one Faith to be true which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is clear that our ancestors and fathers proclaimed; consent, if in antiquity itself we keep following the definitions and opinions of all, or certainly nearly all, bishops and doctors alike.

"that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all" Is a concept cognitively disconnected from the reality that the livingstones of the Church Catholic are constantly at different and changing levels of maturity & understanding. The motivation behind this concept is purist extremism and the desire for an unassailable earthly authority is a reflection of the fear of self-responsibility and an unreal expectation of being able to achieve and maintain a state of mind free of doubt. It is not a mature desire & expectation.​

(4) What then will the Catholic Christian do, if a small part of the Church has cut itself off from the communion of the universal Faith? The answer is sure. He will prefer the healthiness of the whole body to the morbid and corrupt limb. But what if some novel contagion try to infect the whole Church, and not merely a tiny part of it? Then he will take care to cleave to antiquity, which cannot now be led astray by any deceit of novelty.

Not now, (what's happened can't be changed) but back then it was vulnerable, so antiquity is not a gaurantee of veracity.​

And the novel contagion has not only tried, but actualy succeeded in infecting the whole Church, impairing but not killing it.​

What if in antiquity itself two or three men, or it may be a city, or even a whole province be detected in error? Then he will take the greatest care to prefer the decrees of the ancient General Councils, if there are such, to the irresponsible ignorance of a few men.

Certainly the councils were helpful, but not by any means perfect.​

But what if some error arises regarding which nothing of this sort is to be found? Then he must do his best to compare the opinions of the Fathers and inquire their meaning,...

Finaly the individual is held responsible for judging interpretations...​

...provided always that, though they belonged to diverse times and places, they yet continued in the faith and communion of the one Catholic Church;

That is what is in question, tho.​

and let them be teachers approved and outstanding.

Universaly approved, always & by everyone?​

And whatever he shall find to have been held, approved and taught, not by one or two only but by all equally and with one consent, openly, frequently, and persistently, let him take this as to be held by him without the slightest hesitation.

I guess exscept for the filioque, the Nicene Creed comes close to being that.

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

It's not nice to purposefully twist a persons words to imply he meant something he did not. You better reread what I've written before making ridiculous and untrue statements about me.

I trust people on earth, but I trust God more--and I trust Him enough to know that He will lead me to the truth as long as I faithfully seek it. And, I know the "truth" is not a "church"--yours or mine.

Even though scripture tells you it is?

Forgive me...

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

[bible]1 timothy 3:15[/bible]

Gee . . . I dont see ANY reference to Scripture in that passage at all . . .

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

I base my beliefs on His promise, also. So, where does that leave us?

With differing views of what "The Church" is.

Who didn't know that?

Forgive me...

 

[OrthodoxyUSA]

Gee . . . I dont see ANY reference to Scripture in that passage at all . . .

Nor do I, The Church has the authority. And she is the author of the NT.

Forgive me...

 

[Asinner]

But, how do you know it has been revealed correctly to you and those of your faith, and incorrectly to those who do not agree with your faith?

It can not be done without private judgement.

Because that which is false does not produce 50,000,000 martyrs in one century, selflessness, unceasing prayer to the Holy Trinity, humility, meekness, love, or the gifts of the Spirit.

Love,
Christina

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

then we have no inerrant scripture as we only possess copies

Yes . . . the autographa (the original writings) are the only inerrant transcriptions. The doctrine of inspiration has NEVER held that the copies are inerrant.

What we do have we are sure about though because of the sheer number of MSS and the agreement that they do have . . . approx. 99% . . . and the areas of divergence do not change doctrine.

For instance,

One early MSS may say "the Lord came to them and said . . ." and another may say in the same place "the Lord JESUS CHRIST came to them and said" . . . the message is not changed at all . . . nor doctrine . . . but one is what was written by the original author . . . and one was not but was the insertion of a later scribe. This being the case . . . the MSS cannot be inerrant.

 

[sunlover1]

Because that which is false does not produce 50,000,000 martyrs in one century, selflessness, unceasing prayer to the Holy Trinity, humility, meekness, love, or the gifts of the Spirit.

Love,
Christina

There are martyrs in other religions that also "seem" to be
so very pious, humble etc.
I have friends who are sikh, and they LOOK better
than most Christians I know, but it's 'their' own
righteousness.
That will never be "good enough' no matter how
good it is.

So I'd not use men to measure anything.
If we do that, no one will turn to Christ,
because we Christians look pretty ugly sometimes.

IMO