Patrisitic Christianity

Uphill Battle said:

then could we not say that all other doctrines should not be so? The things that they are NOT consistant in? The things that typically seperate us into various denominations?

Click to expand...

the seperations didnt start till the 1500s. So really that question should be for you guys, not us ..

simonthezealot said:

I'm with Uphill on this one, and as I mentioned on another thread Paul was correcting churches as early as the mid 1st century whom already started screwing things up. Why would patristic sources support fundamental Christianity, when so many practiced different forms until some structure was forced in the councels of the 4th century.

Click to expand...

Okay so Paul corrected many churches in the Holy Scriptures. Examples of this would be the Church of Corinth and the Churches in Galatia. Okay. What is your point? Do you not believe that Paul was correct? Or did Christianity did not really begin until the 4th century? If Paul and the other Apostles preached and taught correctly then why can't one believe that the catholic church taught correctly against heretical views later?

BTW I am not Roman Catholic. I think the Roman Church and the Roman See have some real problem with some of their doctrines because of their view on catholicity and tradition. Right now I am technically a Baptist although I am really close to converting to Eastern Orthodoxy. Really I would convert right now if there was something like Anglicanism for the Eastern side of things.
But enough about me. Tradition is a very complicated issue. More complicated than many seem to think it is. The early church did establish the Christian faith. It is through the preaching and teaching of the apostolic tradition which was handed down to us from the ECFs and through the eccumenical councils according to scripture. As Georges Florovsky said tradition is scripture rightly understood (from his essay on the function of Tradition in the Ancient Church or something like that). But it is the catholic church that ensures the apostolic tradition. This catholcity is what the church has believed throughout the centuries. It is not one See or one denomination. It is what the faithful have beleived. The catholcity of the church is what the people have people of the church have determined (through history) is correct. So the TRinity is correct not necessarily because a certain church father said it is what scripture teaches so or even becasue Nicea says it is the correct interpretation of scripture. Niether is it true because the Roman or the ALexandrian See said it was true. It is true because the church (the members of it) have stated that it is. Councils, ECFs, and even different Sees get their legitmacy from the people of the church.

After reading my post I have to offer some explanation. First of all God deteemines truth. We all know that. It is more of how we understand what God's truth is. that is what I am speaing about. Also items such as the councils and the structure of the church (priest, bishop, deacon, etc) does play a role in what the universal church agrees is true. For instance a bishop has more say as to what is true than a layman. However one does not blindly follow a bishop nor a certain church. A bishop whether he be from Constaniople, Alexandria, Pittsburgh, or Rome can err. He will judged not by his standing as a bishop but if he keeps the true tradition that has been handed down by the catholic church.

Sorry if my post is confusing. To me it is not so simple of a subject.

the seperations didnt start till the 1500s. So really that question should be for you guys, not us ..

Click to expand...

C'est un grand canard!

If we even only consider schisms amongst those churches which have (or believe to have, whatever you like) apostolic succession, we find:

In AD 431, the Assyrian Church of the East and other half split due to the Assyrian Church's Nestorian leanings. Both claimed tradition on their side.

In AD 451, the Oriental Orthodox and the remaining half split due to the Council of Chalcedon. Both claim tradition on their side.

In AD 1054, the Orthodox split from the Catholics over many long-standing issues.

And if you think the presence of a universal and infallible bishop keeps clear which side is correct, in AD 1378-1417, the Western Church split in twain when there were more than one claimant to the Pontifical throne. Even canonized Catholic saints supported different sides (ie., St. Vincent Ferrier supported Clement, St. Catherine of Siena supported Urban).

In AD 1529, the English Church broke ties with the Pope over an annulment. N.B., the English Church had the same doctrines as the Roman Church until Henry VIII died.

Fast forward a while and skipping over Apostolic Lutherans (who maintained Apostolic Succession), in AD 1853, those Western Churches who rejected papal infallibility split from the authority of the Roman Church.

There are similar splits in Eastern Orthodoxy as well, but I am not as well versed in them.

tintinnabulation said:

C'est un grand canard!

If we even only consider schisms amongst those churches which have (or believe to have, whatever you like) apostolic succession, we find:

In AD 431, the Assyrian Church of the East and other half split due to the Assyrian Church's Nestorian leanings. Both claimed tradition on their side.

In AD 451, the Oriental Orthodox and the remaining half split due to the Council of Chalcedon. Both claim tradition on their side.

In AD 1054, the Orthodox split from the Catholics over many long-standing issues.

And if you think the presence of a universal and infallible bishop keeps clear which side is correct, in AD 1378-1417, the Western Church split in twain when there were more than one claimant to the Pontifical throne. Even canonized Catholic saints supported different sides (ie., St. Vincent Ferrier supported Clement, St. Catherine of Siena supported Urban).

In AD 1529, the English Church broke ties with the Pope over an annulment. N.B., the English Church had the same doctrines as the Roman Church until Henry VIII died.

Fast forward a while and skipping over Apostolic Lutherans (who maintained Apostolic Succession), in AD 1853, those Western Churches who rejected papal infallibility split from the authority of the Roman Church.

There are similar splits in Eastern Orthodoxy as well, but I am not as well versed in them.

Click to expand...

thanks for saving me the trouble.

Knowledge3 said:

I have several patristic sources that say Eastern Orthodoxy in her relation to the Church is the true identity of the Christian faith.

Click to expand...

and all others are.....?

Knowledge3 said:

Inter-denominational Protestant Christians.

Click to expand...

As in relation to the One True Church (tm), the one you consider your church to be.

Are we members of the body of Christ? How, if we are seperated from the One True Church(tm) Is Christ's body divided?

and if we are not part of the body, what are we then? you answer is over simplistic, and doesn't address the implications to what you claim your church to be.

Knowledge3 said:

I have several patristic sources that say Eastern Orthodoxy in her relation to the Church is the true identity of the Christian faith.

Click to expand...

Not to be offensive or sidetrack this thread, but man that iconostasis theology seems to tread on some mighty shifty ice when compared to the history books of the OT.

Blackhawk said:

Okay so Paul corrected many churches in the Holy Scriptures. Examples of this would be the Church of Corinth and the Churches in Galatia. Okay. What is your point? Do you not believe that Paul was correct? Or did Christianity did not really begin until the 4th century? If Paul and the other Apostles preached and taught correctly then why can't one believe that the catholic church taught correctly against heretical views later?

.

Click to expand...

1st off the passing of universal authority is a later invention of the Catholic church at Rome.

My point is this. To put heavy weight on the anf's is much riskier than putting heavy weight on scripture, each one differed from the other on differing subjects...With the bible you have consistency.

No Paul was correctly guided and properly instructed the churches at galatia, corinth and collosse.

Blackhawk,
I have to commend you as a still "baptist" on presenting the Orthodox view very well. You have done your homework. I am referring to post #22.

tintinnabulation,

It may be good to define terms here. There are two definitions that I am familiar with, but there could be more. The only one that matters is what the Early Church and the Church held prior to the most recognized schism, that of Rome in 1054.
Apostolic succession is both the continual line of succesion of persons, but also of the unbroken faith.
RCC only defines it as a linear, unbroken line of succession of persons.
Then we come to the following statments:

If we even only consider schisms amongst those churches which have (or believe to have, whatever you like) apostolic succession, we find:

Click to expand...

Any church in schism, by definition is no longer in succession. It is outside of the Church. Do you know what schism means?

In AD 431, the Assyrian Church of the East and other half split due to the Assyrian Church's Nestorian leanings. Both claimed tradition on their side.

Click to expand...

Yes, both claim. But what do you claim, what do you believe is correct. Who left, a single person, Nestorian, who was declared a heretic along with his teachings. True, following that, many fellow adherents followed. But do you really mean to say, that one individual determines Truth. This is what most protestants do, but that is their error.

In AD 451, the Oriental Orthodox and the remaining half split due to the Council of Chalcedon. Both claim tradition on their side.

Click to expand...

See above.
[/quote]In AD 1054, the Orthodox split from the Catholics over many long-standing issues.[/quote]
Actually, neither is true. What history records is that the Roman Bishop. Leo II, I believe, thought that he had authority to excommunicate the other 4 communions. First, he did not have the authority, but he died anyway, the next Pope, simply went on his way and established what became the RCC Church. The remaining 4 heirarchies, then called themselves Orthodox.
But this also puts Rome outside of the Church, in schism.

And if you think the presence of a universal and infallible bishop keeps clear which side is correct, in AD 1378-1417, the Western Church split in twain when there were more than one claimant to the Pontifical throne. Even canonized Catholic saints supported different sides (ie., St. Vincent Ferrier supported Clement, St. Catherine of Siena supported Urban).

Click to expand...

I happen to agree with you on this one. There were also three popes at the same time for a short time.

In AD 1529, the English Church broke ties with the Pope over an annulment. N.B., the English Church had the same doctrines as the Roman Church until Henry VIII died.

Click to expand...

Here it makes no difference really. A church, a person, a group breaking from a schimatic church does not have succession either.

Fast forward a while and skipping over Apostolic Lutherans (who maintained Apostolic Succession), in AD 1853, those Western Churches who rejected papal infallibility split from the authority of the Roman Church.

Click to expand...

I might ask, apostolic to what? Roman Catholicism? By Roman definition, this would be correct.

There are similar splits in Eastern Orthodoxy as well, but I am not as well versed in them.

Click to expand...

I know of none at the present time. It should be noted that three Oriental Churches, the Assyrian and non-Chalcedon Churches have been in negotiations with the Orthodox for quite some time to return to the Church. The Egyptian or Coptic Church is must further advanced and you may see them joining the Orthodox within the next many years. Things move slow on these things but it will happen. The important thing to note in all three- None of these communions differ from the Orthodox, EXCEPT, in the original teaching that caused the heresy in the first place. They differ in customs but not in the other points of doctrine and practice. One cannot say the same thing for the RCC.

Then in a subsequent post you also stated this:

The Church of Sweden, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland, the Estonian Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Church of Norway, the National Church of Iceland, the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Lithuania, etc.
There may be a few others that maintain apostolic succession.

Click to expand...

Again, my question is apostolic succession to what. By what definition. even RCC, Lutherans may be close, but they do differ. If not, they might as well be RCC again.
If you draw this definition to its conclusion, you know that Mormon is Apostolic. I can show you the same linear, person to person connection. Just so you know what definitions can lead to:
The Original Church, links by many bishops that eventually separated via the RCC. Then 500 years later, both Luther and Calvin, former RCC broke off, but retain apostolic succession. From any protestant then, Joseph Smiths parents were Methodists. He grew up as a Methodist, thus he starts the Mormon Church and you have a continual apostolic succession. Do you still want to hold to just a linear line of individuals?
As you can see, it becomes totally meaningless. It becomes nothing more than a rationalization.

simonthezealot,

My point is this. To put heavy weight on the anf's is much riskier than putting heavy weight on scripture, each one differed from the other on differing subjects...With the bible you have consistency

Click to expand...

One does not need to put any weight on a CF. They have no authority in themselves. Those that are actually accorded Church Fathers, the Saints of the Church, got that designation because they were faithful to the Gospel once given. Some, were not so accorded because they did have a errant view, such as Iraneous, Origin, and some others. Those that were not faithful, in many ways, or insisted on their errant views, were declared heretics. Truth is held and maintained by the Church, not a Church Father.
Do you really mean that the bible has consistancy. Consistancy in text? Because if you mean in interpretation, I'm going to ask to to verify that? Obviously, you cannot. Those that ascribe to Scripture as their sole rule of faith and practice, do not ascribe to the Bible as authority, but only as a source. The authority is held by the interpreter. A book has no authority. So, since protestants are the only ones who use sola scriptura, what is consistant? That everyone differs?

Knowledge3 said:

I have no idea.

I have fled to the protection and guidance of the Mother and her Church.

Click to expand...

the "mother" and "her" church???