Questions Orthodox "can't answer"

[Barky]

hey all,

I was wondering if one of you theologians in TAW could answer these questions that you supposedly "can't". Some of these questions are just absurd I know but I would like a kind of "official" response. It is a lot of information I know but I would humbly request a response. thanks

Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?
2. If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
3. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?
4. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?
5. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
6. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
7. If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
9. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.
10. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?
11. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?
12. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?
13. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?
14. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other? b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?
15. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?
16. Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?
17. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople? If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?
18. When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition, when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?
19. If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day? (The Orthodox, are at least consistent in accepting this tradition, not that they are correct.)
20. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Orthodox church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Roman Catholic church.)
21. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)
22. If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach, then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine? Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?
23. If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

 

[seashale76]

Which came First: The Church or the New Testament? by Father A. James Bernstein
http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html

A lot of the questions you posted are formed from the position of a false premise in many cases. In other words, they were formulated based off of a straw-man idea of what we believe.

 

[buzuxi02]

There will always be errors made. What is infallible is the conscience of the Church lead by the Holy Spirit. I cant answer for RC practises but i can for Orthodox

The Church through Her scriptures, Ecumenical councils, canonical iconography, Liturgical texts, sacraments -(aka Holy Traditions) contain all the truths of the Christian Faith revealed. Of course this may not be apparent and the human element can err, leading many astray.

There was never a need for a dogma of the Holy Trinity before Arius, because before this the Trinity was an experience of the believer who worshipped God in the Trinity. The Trinity was worshipped in a liturgical setting, it was not an issue of doctrine or scholarship but one of experience (see Jude 20-21, 2Cor 13.14). But once Arius began teaching differently a need arose to define the relationship of The Trinity.
Thus Nicea was held in 325a.d. to clarify the relationship between the Father and the Son.

Of course the truth takes time to be revealed to all segments of the people. An Ecumenical council only becomes ecumenical when the 'oikomene' (the world per se) accepts it.

The Second Ecumenical council was pronounced "ecumenical" at the Fourth Council 70 years later. The Council of Nicea 325 a.d. was accepted by the entire ekklesia, about 50 years later.

The councils of course only clarify that which already has been believed in all places and all times since the beginning. But this may take some time in order for it to sink in. Since heresy can become deeply rooted and cause confusion and turmoil. At the same time a given situation was never "zero'd in on", and never fully dealt with before.

This is why the bishops come together in a council to present the Apostolic tradition of their See. And only the authentic traditions (those which all the churches agree on) win out, because the Holy SPIRIT who preserves those traditions lead the later Saints, who become known as "Fathers" to propagate further those authentic traditions thru their writings, influence and life which bear good fruit.

This was the case with the Cappadocian Fathers who singlehandedly put an end to the Trinity controversy some 40-50 years after Nicea, they solidified Nicea as truly an ecumenical council and all others became robber synods. One of these Fathers, St Basil even wrote that it was right for God to allow the peoper understanding of the relationship to be restored between Father and Son first, before the relationship of the Holy Spirit be dealth with. Once the Cappadocian Fathers defeated Arianism the heresy of Pneumatochianism arose almost as if to take its place, this heresy denied the divinity of the Spirit. These same Fathers never allowed this heresy to become heated like the Arian heresy for they were spiritual giants. In 381 a.d. in the Ecumenical council of Constantinople- the Creed was expanded to include the role of the Holy Spirit within the Trinity and also the condemnation of the Chiliast heresy (thousand year reign on earth).

As far as scripture, the book of Revelation in the East began being accepted little by little by the various Apostolic Churches until all accepted it in about 500 a.d. As the heresy of chiliasm was defeated and bacame an extinct heresy of the past, and no longer threatened the life of the Church, the book of Revelation was then allowed to gradually rise to its proper place.

I can answer virtually all your questions but too many for such a thread but you get the gist of it all.

This is what is meant by the Conscience of the Church.

 

[Philothei]

hey all,

I was wondering if one of you theologians in TAW could answer these questions that you supposedly "can't". Some of these questions are just absurd I know but I would like a kind of "official" response. It is a lot of information I know but I would humbly request a response. thanks"

Okay, I am a theologian but ... there are three problems with us EO

First: we are having differetn Juristictions and some practices are different depending on the Juristicion.
Second: Our Bishops are the ultimate authority in matters of dogma .. so if you want "officall" you should seek the opinion of our Bishops....

Third: This is the internet anyone can claim to be anything and "opinions" (unless you go the the actual web sites of different EO churches) ... are just that generalized opinions.

Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?


This is a question for the RC not us. We do not believe in inffalabilty of any Bishop or councils that are rather radified by the next and the counsiness of the whole Church. (Buzuxi already covered that...)
2. If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did the eastern churches reject or question the inspiration of Revelation, then later accept it? Conversely, the east accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Orthodox church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple?
We always "accepted' the revelation I think you are confused that we do not "read" or preach about the revelation in Church... The reason is that the book of Revelation is thought by the Fathers as a book "not to try to be interpeted" since it c an easily lead to heresy and false expectaion about Christ's second comming e.g. many Millenisist groups predicting (falsly) when Christ is coming back.
No human institution including all Protestant churches are infallible... The Church is a human institution with divine head permiated by the HS.. Ultimately the HS leads its Church to the Truth. Men err the Church will never "fail".

3. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

??? I really do not understand this one? The RC did not give the Bible the Holy Catholic (universal) Apostolic Church did. The canons of the NT and OT were formulated according to the different Christian traditions in the West and the East.... Call it human pride... Each church decided to give emphasis to different books and discarded the ones who thought to be uneccassary... go figure....


4. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

There was a long history of "independent" councils... the history is a bit confusing but it seems to me that the Carthage was an initiative of Rome....
Here:

367​

The earliest extant list of the books of the NT, in exactly the number and order in which we presently have them, is written by Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, in his Festal letter # 39 of 367 A.D..

382​

Council of Rome (whereby Pope Damasus started the ball rolling for the defining of a universal canon for all city-churches). Listed the New Testament books in their present number and order.

393​

the Council of Hippo, which began "arguing it out." Canon proposed by Bishop Athanasius.

397​

The Council of Carthage, which refined the canon for the Western Church, sending it back to Pope Innocent for ratification. In the East, the canonical process was hampered by a number of schisms (esp. within the Church of Antioch). However, this changed by ...

AD787​

The Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, which adopted the canon of Carthage. At this point, both the Latin West and the Greek / Byzantine East had the same canon. However, ... The non-Greek, Monophysite and Nestorian Churches of the East (the Copts, the Ethiopians, the Syrians, the Armenians, the Syro-Malankars, the Chaldeans, and the Malabars) were still left out. But these Churches came together in agreement, in 1442A.D., in Florence.

1442​

AD : At the Council of Florence, the entire Church recognized the 27 books. This council confirmed the Roman Catholic Canon of the Bible which Pope Damasus I had published a thousand years earlier. So, by 1439, all orthodox branches of the Church were legally bound to the same canon. This is 100 years before the Reformation.

1536​

In his translation of the Bible from Greek into German, Luther removed 4 N.T. books (Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation) and placed them in an appendix saying they were less than canonical.

1546​

At the Council of Trent, the Catholic Church reaffirmed once and for all the full list of 27 books. The council also confirmed the inclusion of the Deuterocanonical books which had been a part of the Bible canon since the early Church and was confirmed at the councils of 393 AD, 373, 787 and 1442 AD. At Trent Rome actually dogmatized the canon, making it more than a matter of canon law, which had been the case up to that point, closing it for good.


http://www.davidmacd.com/catholic/timeline_of_how_the_bible_where.htm


And this is one source that might be slanted but... to me it seemed about right...


5. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.
6. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?
7. If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?
8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?
9. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.



I understand your confussion since you start with the wrong premise... The Church did not "produce" the Bible... it jsut put together the canon of the Bible.. In other words they had councils and the Fathers reviewed the books and decided how many books to include. These men who "prayed" and guided by the Holy Spirit we believe that they gave us the best possible choices of books to include into the canon. The closest the Fathers were to the Apostolic tradition more united they were in their opinions... Thus for us EO we believe that St. Athanasius (Oldest canon) was the correct since the Fathers who participated in the councils were closer to the Apostolic Tradition and the church was as yet ONE BODY...
10. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?


It it somewhere in the Acts where Peter says something about Christ ...and then he says this is oral tradition and we do not find it in the Gospell I will get back to you on that... I got to ask someone else that I know he quoted it before... That fact is that Oral tradition played a role... especially today's epistle in our Church said that "if we could write all what Christ said and done we would run out of books...!!!" I think it is in Hebrews....


11. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?



And I will ask you this? How do you know what Christ meant when he spoke if you do not have any information about the Apostles and the history behind it?? The "organization" is not "teaching" it is rather than the "tradition of the Apostles" is teaching .... It is a fact that Christ established a Church... and the head is Christ... So then why doubt ?? The Church closer to the time of Christ would be the correct one... the one that claims to be more historically proven to be the first... IMO.
12. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

I am not an OT testament scholar but I think that the Jews were wondering for some time... kind of difficult for us to have a written excact doc... you think?

13. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?


They had prophets ... prophecy was given to Jews that was part of God's revelation ....
14. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other?
The Church is one... IMO but still men err... they would not be men if they did not... The church has prevailed for 2,000 years. The different traditions that were develpoed are complex and mainly they have to do with political sometimes geographical reasons. We might no be in communion but still we are considered each other sister churches with a common beginning...


b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?


This is a very hard question to be answered in one line sorry...
15. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?


Because they are not... The schism is still out there and the chasm is so big... We never claim to follow the apostolic traditions excaclty... if we both did we would not be divided... The Apostles were united in the bigger sense of Unity.
16. Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox? Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew? If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head? If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?
17. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2;

I will catch with you later on the rest....

 

[Macarius]

hey all,

I was wondering if one of you theologians in TAW could answer these questions that you supposedly "can't". Some of these questions are just absurd I know but I would like a kind of "official" response. It is a lot of information I know but I would humbly request a response. thanks

Barky - I'm not sure if your girlfriend will read this, but I'll type it up anyway. Hope it helps!!

As always, my answers are based in the Orthodox tradition, but as I am not a bishop, my answers are subject to correction and change at any point in time. I'm still a disciple of the Church - I am not ordained to teach on her behalf.

Questions for Catholics and Orthodox:

1. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible, being infallible, then why did Rome reject or question the inspiration of James and Hebrews , then later accept it? Conversely, Rome accepted as scripture books that were later rejected. If the Catholic church really is illuminated by the Holy Spirit so that men can trust her as "God's organization", why was she so wrong about something so simple? Should not the "Holy See" have known?

This isn't really relevant for the Orthodox, so I'll address the similar accusation below.

2. If the Orthodox church gave the world the Bible, being infallible...

First, the Orthodox Church is not, in and of itself, infallible. The Holy Spirit is infallible and we have faith that the Holy Spirit guides the Orthodox Church eschatologically - which is to say we trust the Holy Spirit to bring us home.

No individual Orthodox Christian, whether a bishop or a child, is infallible at any time (except, naturally, when speaking the Truth, as that would make one de-facto infallible). No council of bishops or lay people is EVER de-facto infallible. Once again, only when the council upholds and confirms the Truth is it infallible. Councils make errors. Bishops make errors. Presbyters make errors. I make (many) errors. It is never in fallen human beings nor a fallen human insititution that we place our faith, but in the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

In practice, this means that we trust the traditional way of understanding things, trusting the guiding hand of the Holy Spirit. We also have faith, according to Matthew 16, that the gates of hades will not overcome the Church. The Church founded on the Apostles (Ephesians) with Christ as its cornerstone will NOT die, but will remain the pillar and ground of the Truth (I Tim).

That means that, at ANY point in history, there must be at least a handful of people maintaining the true faith. We believe and profess that this has indeed happened, and that the truest successor to that apostolic faith is the Orthodox Church.

Now - that said - let's talk about the formation of scripture.

First things first - if you profess sola scriptura, then you have to have a scripture to use "sola." So I'll begin with a rhetorical question. How do you construct a list of new and old testament scriptures? Where is that contained in the Bible? It isn't. You have to abandon sola scriptura to even begin constructing a canon of scripture to 'sola.'

At the very minimum you'd have to profess that this process by which the New Testament was formed was guided and inspired by the Holy Spirit in the same way that the composition of the scriptural texts themselves were. That means that something outside of the scriptures was inspired by the Holy Spirit to reveal His truth (namely that this collection of books was specially inspired).

That process, historically speaking, happens to be an ecumenical council which took place in the late fourth century AD. If that bothers you, then take it up with the Holy Spirit. I didn't make that decision, I just accept that canon of the New Testament (and so do you, I'm guessing) and recognize that THIS was the moment at which the Holy Spirit chose to reveal that Truth to the Church.

The canon didn't come from no where, though. All of those books had been in use by the Church since an early period. Some, however, were in wider use than others, and as in all things, the Orthodox Church will tend to be traditional in its approach. If a text wasn't in wide use, or there were severe doubts as to its authorship (ie II Peter or Titus or Revelations) then the Church was a bit hesitent to declare those as scripture. Additionally, remember that COUNCILS CAN BE WRONG. So even after the council it took a while for the church in its entirety to accept that particular canon. As well it should. We shouldn't be so quick to systematize God that we jump on the latest theological bandwagon because it happens to fit our nice and neat patterns for how the Holy Spirit is supposed to move.

Just doesn't work that way. Those councils are called "infallible" in hindsight. They WERE accepted widely in their own day - so its not like the Church fell in to error - and those who rejected Revelations were WRONG. But at NO point in time did the entire church reject Revelations (so at no point in time did the Church die nor was the truth obscured) and NO council which is accepted by the Orthodox Church has EVER rejected revelations.

This means the following: an implicaiton that our struggle with Revelations is evidence of our fallibility is erroneous on two fronts:

1. Multiple significant parts of the Church DID accept Revelations immediately. Note: most of the Western Church and the Constantinoplitan Church (where the council was held).
2. The question implies a misunderstanding of how we talk about the Church as infallible.

Instead of thinking system think 'organic.' The Holy Spirit is a person. All we do is recognize where He moves and try to faithfully follow. As humans, we often fail. As the Church, we trust God to guide us. Together, we become more than the sum of our parts by the grace of God. But in so much as we live in this world, we fall and get up, fall and get up, fall and get up.

In conclusion, to me, the formation of the canon is more problematic for the sola scriptura adherents than for the Orthodox - it actually rather perfectly fits our vision of the Church. The logical question would be "why should I place my faith in such an institution?"

The answer probably won't satisfy you: because you recognize it as God's institution and, in faith, disciple yourself to it.

I can't, and won't, try to apologetically 'argue' you into it, though I will always seek to defend the Church. It is a matter of faith. An experiential religion (like Eastern Orthodoxy) cannot be reduced to argument. It must be experienced with a heart open to the Holy Spirit. Follow that Spirit, and He will guide you. It may not even be into the Orthodox Church, but the Orthodox Church will not judge you. God alone will judge you. Our response must be, with as much integrity as our fallen hearts can muster, to God alone. For me, He guided me clearly into the Orthodox faith, and I firmly believe that this IS the Church.

Hope that helps!

3. If the Roman Catholic church gave the world the Bible in 397 AD, then why did many different versions of canons continue to circulate long afterwards?

Because we are human beings and because this is a human institution. Things take time. If God had wanted it to move faster, He would have made it so.

If, according to protestants, the early church believed that the scriptures are THE ground and pillar of doctrine from which all doctrines spring then WHY did they wait until 397 to officially form the canon?

The alternative might be that they recognized the importance of the Apostolic Writings in preserving the Apostolic Truth, but alternatively recognized that it was the TRUTH which was important (and which was preserved orally - from teacher to disciple) and not the container (though in the case of Scriptures what a holy container of Truth we have!!).

4. If the Roman Catholic church gave us the Bible, why were the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) African councils, and not initiatives of Rome?

Well, those are Latin Churches (under the patriarchate of Rome) according to Nicaea (325 AD). And Rome was in communion with them (and therefore one Church with them). You should also mention Constantinople I (the 2nd ecumenical council) as canonical issues were discussed there too.

Again, since we don't profess the absolute authority of Rome this isn't really problematic for us.

5. Since the synod Carthage in 393 AD stated, "But let Church beyond sea (Rome) be consulted about confirming this canon", does this not prove that Rome had no direct input or initiative in determining the canon.

Sure... sounds good to me. It does show, however, that Rome had a primacy in the West at this point in time, and that, like good bishops in communion with the Nicaean Church, this council was asking for the input of the Patriarch of their Patriarchate.

6. Since the two synods of Hippo (393 AD) and Carthage, (397 AD) were under the control of what would later become the "orthodox church", how can the Roman Catholic church claim they determined the Canon? Would not such a claim be more naturally due the Eastern Orthodox church?

Sounds good to me. But at the time, Rome WAS Orthodox. So even if the council had been held at Rome I would still call it an Orthodox Council, since the schism wouldn't occur until 1056 - 1204 AD - about 750 years later.

Again - since there wasn't division between Rome and the East it isn't relevant (although at this time there might have been, as there was a small schism around the time of John Chrysostom in the late 4th / early 5th century). We were Catholic. They were Orthodox. When the whole east fell into the heresy of Arianism (excepting Athanasius) and Rome stood staunchly refuting the heresy, I argue that the ORTHODOX Church continued in Rome, proving that the Church didn't die.

7. If the Catholic church, "by her own inherent God given power and authority" gave the world the Bible, why did she not get it right the first time? Why did the Roman Catholic church wait until 1546 AD in the Council of Trent, to officially add the Apocrypha to the Canon?

Because it hadn't been challenged (seriously challenged) before the Protestant Reformation. That's how most things like this go.

An example might help: if the doctrine of the Incarnation is central to the Church, why did the Church wait until Nicaea to fully and explicitly declare the Incarnation as dogma? Well... we waited until Arius tried to say otherwise...

A counter question to you: if the New Testament Church used the Septuagint (Greek) Old Testament (which it did - the prophecy of the Virgin birth occurs ONLY in the Greek Septuagint) then why do Protestants rely on the Hebrew exclusively? If the apostles and CHRIST HIMSELF used the Septuagint, then why do Protestants reject it yet claim to follow sola scriptura?

Also, if the Septuagint contains books (the deuterocanon or "apocrypha") why would a Protestant reject those books? If the Church will never die, and the ENTIRE church from the 1st century to the 16th used the the deuterocanon along with the whole Septuagint, what gives Protestants the ecclesiological authority to reject those books?

8. Both Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox church leaders make the identical claim that they gave the world the Bible. If both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches make the same claim they gave the world the Bible, why do they have different books in each of their Bibles? Whose "church authority" shall we believe? Whose tradition is the one we should follow?

I'm not aware of the differences, aside from perhaps III Maccabbees.

In any case, I'd say the Orthodox Church

9. Provide a single example of a doctrine that originates from an oral Apostolic Tradition that the Bible is silent about? Provide proof that this doctrinal tradition is apostolic in origin.

How about the list of books in the New Testament?

See above for a brief intro to this. If you'd like, I can show you the 1st and 2nd century extra-biblical evidence for these books, it's just a lot of work on my part and so I'd prefer to wait to see if you disagree with me.

Also, see the thread on II Timothy 3:16-17 in this same forum for a LONG discussion of this issue. I'm not certain what others would say, but my reply to this would be "The central Truths are contained in the Scriptures IF PROPERLY UNDERSTOOD."

The problem is that for some reason people want to ignore what other people, often personal aquaintenances of the Apostles, have said about these scriptures and about the doctrines of Christ. If I were a literary critic and reading Shakespeare, and I said "this line in Shakespeare means blankity-blank" and someone came back and said "well, that's a possible meaning if you just look at the text in and of itself, but we have first hand accounts of how it was performed in the 16th century, and they did it like blankity-blank-blank-bip not just blankity blank." Wouldn't that be a valid argument?? Isn't that a good method of literary interpretation?

Why shouldn't the same apply to the Bible? It's never just Sola Scriptura. It's always Scripture + Tradition. Either its my personal made up tradition of whatever I think the Bible says, or its the Papacy's interpretation, or the Baptists, or the Mennonites, or the Orthodox or whoever. No Text Exists In A Vacuum. It isn't possible. Words must be interpreted. As such, EVERY Truth truly inspired by God exists not only in the Scriptures (properly understood) but OUTSIDE the Scriptures in the hearts, minds, worship, prayer, and soul of those who follow the Truth.

We contend that is the Orthodox Church. You may disagree. That's fine. We can discuss that. But first you have to recognize that we essentially do the same thing. It's just that we come from different Traditions and so we see the scriptures through different lenses.

Only once we recognize that we USE a lense can we begin hoping to possibly evaluate whether it is the Apostolic lense / tradition.

I think I'm running a bit long, so I'll post this much and type more later.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Philothei]

thanks Makarius and please feel free to correct any inconsistencies you find with my post....

 

[Macarius]

10. Provide a single example of where inspired apostolic "oral revelation" (tradition) differed from "written" (scripture)?

I assume you mean "differed from protestant interpretations of written scripture." Because, according to the Orthodox claim, there is nothing in our Tradition which contradicts scripture. An example from the II Timothy 3:16-17 thread might suffice to illustrate...

Let's try the eucharist.

By this, I intend to illustrate that scripture without referance to the understanding of the early church can be used to justify multiple positions, whereas scripture with referance to tradition severly limits our theological options (in a good, safety net sort of way), and, further, that the LIVING tradition (that is, the one learned from the Church) gives us the Truth in a way that is consistent with scripture, and consistent with the traditional understanding of that scripture.

For referance, I'll post three significant passages.

Matt 26:26-28

"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, blessed and broke it, and gave it to the disciples saying: 'Take, eat, this is my body.' Then He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying: 'Drink from it, all of you. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins."

In a cursory analysis we note that there's no command to continue this sort of behavior. It could be viewed as implied (but that's what it would be - an implication; not a "clear" indication or direct statement by the text). So already, we have two camps of legitimate understanding of this text:

• A) Those who say there is no command to continue the Eucharist
• B) Those who DO see this passage as a command to continue the Eucharist.

Another tricky part of this passage is the word "is." From a literary standpoint, it can indicate two things. One: it could indicate a metaphorical relationship. For example, "is" implies a metaphorical relationship in the following sentence: "Sally is a fat cow." Or, at least, if we assume that Sally is in fact a human being, that would be metaphorical. If Sally were a cow, then it reveals the second usage of "is" - direct equivalence. "Sally is a human."

What is apparent in this passage is that bread does not "equal" flesh nor wine "blood." So we may be tempted to assume metaphor. However, we are talking about God here. And when Christ says "Before Abraham was, I AM" (there's that "is" verb again), we don't assume that to be metaphor just because man does not "equal" God. Instead, we view it in light of the incarnation - If God can become fully incarnate in man, being fully human and fully divine, then Christ - God - can become fully incarnate in bread and wine - fully bread and wine, fully flesh and blood, in the same sort of mystery present in the Incarnation.

Both interpretations, from a literary standpoint, are plausible. So now, we have four possible interpretations:

• 1) Those who think the bread and wine were flesh and blood, but do not consider this an ongoing commandment.
• 2) Those who think the bread and wine were not flesh and blood, but consider this to be metaphor, and do not think of this as an ongoing commandment.
• 3) Those who think of the bread and wine as metaphor, but do think of this as an ongoing commandment.
• 4) Those who think of the bread and wine as true flesh and true blood, and do think of this as an ongoing commandment.

All four of those are legitimate understandings of this text exegeting the text on its own. Let's see if the other two passages help narrow this down...

Second, John 6:33, 35, 47-51, 53-57, 66

"For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world... I am the bread of life, He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst... Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life. I AM the bread of life. Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the bread which comes down from heaven, that one may eat of it and not die. I AM the living bread which came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever; and the bread that I shall give is My flesh, which I shall give for the life of the world... Most assuredly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and My blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him..." From that time many of His disciples went back and walked with Him no more.

Let's start with the first line: "For the bread of God is He who comes down from heaven and gives life to the world." There's that dasterdly "is" verb again, but this time it ties DIRECTLY into the incarnation v. "bread" discussion above. This passage directly refers to the incarnation (Christ coming down from heaven, as He says elsewhere in the passage). But He specifically refers to bread - that could be seen as implying a connection to the Eucharist / communion. Now we have four possibilities here, that I can see:

• 1) He could mean literal bread, but not eucharistic bread.
• 2) He could mean figurative bread (in connecting this with the manna from heaven), but not be referring to communion.
• 3) He could mean literal bread, AND connect it with the manna from heaven (eucharist)
• 4) He could mean figurative bread, but still preserve the connection to the eucharist as symbolic.

Some of those mesh rather nicely with the four possibilities from the passage above, some mix and match, some are incompatible. Essentially, the number of legitimate "harmonizings" of these two passages is growing exponentially... One could mix passage one option four with passage two option three, or passage one option 1 with passage two option four or one or two... take your pick. Let's keep going...

"Most assuredly, I say to you, he who believes in Me has everlasting life."

Well, this could be taken a number of ways as well. I'll focus on its implications for the eucharistic possibilities of this passage, skipping the soteriological implications. I see two strong possibilities, I'm sure there are others:

• Some might take this as implying a purely symbolic reading for the passage, saying that this shows that by "eat and drink" Christ only meant "have faith." However, the passage doesn't directly state that implication. It's possible, but it's also possible that...
  • Incidently, this allows passage one, option two to continue pressing their case that communion was not an instituted command.
• Christ meant one must have faith to have life, and eat His flesh and drink His blood to have life. This has two sub-possibilities:
  • For the crowd that believe the communion is a commandment but is purely symbolic, they could agree that one must eat His flesh and drink His blood, but that, once again, these are just metaphors.
  • For the eucharist crowd, this fits fine as well. They see Eucharist as a command and as literal flesh and blood. Now they simply have to agree that one must also have faith.

Still haven't narrowed down the initial four, nor have we narrowed down the four options for understanding this passage as per its first line. We'll have to keep looking.

I could continue with every line, but I'll skip to the one most likely to be contentious:

"Most assuredly I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood you have no life in you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day. For my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed. He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in Me, and I in him."

Score one for the eucharistic crowd, right! I mean, this says it "clearly": "my flesh is food indeed, and my blood is drink indeed." The symbolist has recourse, though: perhaps this doesn't refer to bread and wine... it doesn't explicitly say "my flesh is real BREAD" does it? What if the "real food" isn't physical? It doesn't say "real, phsyical bread," does it? Furthermore, wouldn't "spiritual" bread that one recieved by faith still fit the "food" moniker in this metaphor? It would be "real food" for the soul, though. Additionally, there's the possibility that Christ is using hyperbole here.

So all four initial possibilities remain. The eucharist-is-a-command-and-is-really-Christ crowd might be "ahead" here, thanks to that last line - we haven't narrowed anything down. Furthermore, we've multiplied the possibilities, since many of the initial four options from the Matthew passage are combinable with multiple of the different possibilities for each line of this passage. I haven't done the math, but we could be up to as much as 16 possible understandings of how to harmonize these two passages without referance to any outside material or pre-concieved theological or practical assumptions. Let's see if Paul has anything to say about that...

Third, 1 Cor 11:20-32

Therefore, when you come together in one place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper. For in eating, each one takes his own supper ahead of others; and one is hungry and another is drunk. What! Do you not have houses to eat and drink in? Or do you despise the Church of God and shame those who have nothing? What shall I say to you? Shall I praise you in this? I do not praise you. For I recieved from the Lord that which I also delivered to you: that the Lord Jesus on the same night in which He was betrayed took bread; and when He had given thanks, He broke it and said, "Take, eat; this is My body which is broken for you; do this in remembrance of Me." In the same manner He also took the cup after supper, saying, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood. This do, as often as you drink it, in remembrance of Me." For as often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death till He comes. Therefore, whoever eats this bread or drinks this cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this reason many are weak and sick among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged, But when we are judged we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world.

Here we go! What John 6 was for the Eucharist crowd, this certainly is for the "symbolic" crowd - no matter what wrinkle of that group one finds oneself in after the first 2 passages. St. Paul "clearly" says "do this in remembrance" right? That means metaphor, and since he's quoting Christ, he's quoting the first Eucharist - he's quoting a similar saying to the one found in Matthew, but with additional detail - remembrance. That means metaphor, right? And since Paul indicates that churches are doing their own version of this last supper together, we have evidence that the apostles believed this to be an ongoing command. Option three from the Matthew passage wins. It's clear. It's obvious. Wahoo!

But wait just a minute. The eucharist crowd isn't done yet. Remembrance carries with it, in particular with regards to Paul's statement that this act "proclaims the Lord's death till He comes," an implication of funeral remembrance. We're commemorating a death. Bodies are often present at funeral commemorations, aren't they? Nothing stops it from being remembrance just because it happens to actually have the body really truly present. We don't go to a funeral that someone calls a "remembrance" service, see the body, and baulk because we assumed it was "metaphorical" when they said that our departed friend was going to be there just because they called it a "remembrance." The passage doesn't explicitly say "metaphorical remembrance." It doesn't say that the elements are 'just symbols.'

Furthermore, it specificly DOES say that those who eat and drink of this service in an unworthy manner are guilty of the body and blood of the Lord - hard to be guilty of violating something that isn't even present, isn't it? And how can I "fail to discern the body" (as per the end of the passage) if the body isn't present?

The symbolist will fire back that each of those things can be seen metaphorically, and that the passage is more about spiritual states of being when coming together as a church - not about eucharist and elements of bread and wine / body and blood.

Furthermore, since the passage doesn't specifically command this to continue until Christ's second coming (but just says "as often as you do this" - which could imply choice), we could still assert the first options of the Matthew passage which say that the eucharist was not an ongoing commandment. We can CHOOSE to imitate it, but it wasn't a command nor was it central to the gospel in any way.

Goodness me! We've gotten no where. Some passages seem to line up perfectly for one group, some for another, all are compatible, and we've no real progress made. What will determine which camp one falls into? That depends on the individual. Some who are inclined towards self-criticism and free thinking will make up their own mind based on "what makes sense to them" and then go find a church that believes that. Some will allow a preacher or teacher to tell them the "answer" and then follow them zealously. Some will wallow in indecision, doing nothing and believing nothing. Some will pick arbitrarilly, assuming their first instinct is correct. Some will be any of the above at different times and in different places.

It seems entirely subjective, doesn't it? Can we possibly gain some insight into what the early church did from her writings? I will attempt to do so in my next post, which I'll begin typing immediately. In it, I will examine the eucharistic discussions of the early church, I'll offer a few lines from the liturgy, commentaries on the Matthew passage by two Orthodox Church fathers, and explain what I've been taught by the contemporary Church. By this, I hope to show a consistent, single line of succession teaching ONE of the above four options (that the eucharist is a command of God and IS Christ's body and blood, in an incarnational sense).

Post two coming up... hopefully this helps clarify.

 

[Macarius]

So, to recap, we have four "basic" understandings that we could take from those three passages:

1. Eucharist is a command and the real flesh and blood of Christ.
2. Communion is a command, but is metaphorical.
3. Communion is not a command, but is real flesh and blood.
4. Communion is not a command, and was just symbolic.

Number three seems the least likely to be forwarded, but remains plausible from a strictly textual standpoint.

I have a few passages from various early church fathers to post here, and I'll explain them as I go...

Clement, bishop of Rome in the later half of the first century AD, wrote a letter to Corinth around 97 AD. Second century commentators believed this Clement to be the same one found in Phil 4:3, a companion of Paul's. This seems plausible (he may have followed Paul to Rome, where he was appointed overseer of the Church there), but there are no other sources to confirm nor deny it.

Regardless, Clement writes from a community that was formed and taught by TWO significant Apostles: Peter and Paul. He writes the following in Section 40 - 41 of his letter:

"It follows, then, that there ought to be strict order and method in our performance of such acts as the Master has prescribed for certain times and seasons... In the same way [as the Temple services], my brothers, when we offer our Eucharist to God, each one of us should keep to his own degree. His conscience must be clear, he must not infringe the rules prescribed for his ministering, and he is to bear himself with reverance."

You can hear the echoes of Paul's commands surrounding the communion of 1 Corinthians. Most significantly - this eliminates options 3 and 4. The eucharist was viewed by the immediate decendants of the Apostles as a command to be carried out "at certain times and seasons." A divine command, no less. Fortunately, that view is entirely compatible with scripture, as seen in options one and two.

Another source: Ignatius of Antioch - appointed bishop there in the later half of the 1st century as successor to Peter and Paul in Antioch. He was appointed quite young, and lived until around 107 AD, when he was martyred in Rome. He left us a number of letters, of which I will quote 3:

Letter to the Ephesians:

"... how much more fortunate must I count you, who are as inseparably one with [your bishop] as the Church is with Jesus Christ, and Jesus Christ with the Father; so constituting one single harmonious unity throughout. Let no one be under any illusion; a man who excludes himself from the sanctuary is depriving himself of the bread of God, for if the prayer of one or two individuals has such efficacy, how much more powerful is that of the bishop together with his whole church. Anyone who absents himself from the congregation convicts himself at once of arrogance and becomes self-excommunicate... the Lord reveals to me that you are all, man by man and name by name, attending your meetings in a state of grace, united in faith and in Jesus Christ (who is the seed of David according to the flesh, and is the Son of Man and the Son of God), and are ready now to obey your bishop and clergy with undivided minds and to share in the one common breaking of the bread - the medicine of immortality, and the sovereign remedy by which we escape death and live in Jesus Christ for evermore."

Once again, we see that eucharist was viewed as a command, and while this passage doesn't comment on the "is it really flesh" issue (it focuses on bread), it does discuss two aspects that are relevant to our discussion:

1. It is unitive (the meetings, prayers and bread unite the Church - this could be seen symbolically, but seems to have a literal sense here. It's not conclusive, though).
2. It is salvific (the medicine of immortality). This last bit is particularly relevant, since now we have an early church father commenting on the Eucharist as life-giving - this confirms the understanding of John 6 (the bread of life) as a referance to eucharist (the bread of communion), and seems to confirm that when Christ said "real flesh" and "real drink" in referance to His body and blood and their giving "everlasting life" He WAS referring to the Eucharist. That was a "possible" understanding of the John 6 text; Ignatius confirms the link. Keep in mind that Ignatius and the Apostle John were writing within 13 years of one another. The link in language is contextually strengthened.

Ignatius also wrote a letter to the Roman Church:

"Earthly longings have been crucified; in me there is left no spark of desire for mundane things, but only a murmer of living water that whispers within me, 'Come to the Father.' There is no pleasure for me in any meats that perish, or in the delights of this life; I am fain for the bread of God, even the flesh of Jesus Christ, who is the seed of David; and for my drink I crave that blood of His, which is love imperishable."

The bread is flesh, the blood isn't directly related to wine, though (only to love). One could see this as a poetic implication (completing the eucharistic referance), but I don't desire to force this on the text. Chock one up for the pro-eucharist crowd and let's look at another quote from Ignatius in his letter to Philadelphia:

"Make certain, therefore, that you all observe one common Eucharist; for there is but one Body of our Lord Jesus christ, and but one cup of union with His blood, and one single altar of sacrifice - even as there is also but one bishop, with his clergy and my own fellow servitors the deacons. This will ensure that all your doings are in full accord with the will of God."

The eucharist here is called body and blood, without any referance at all to bread and wine (except in so far as it mentions a cup). This is the best statement yet - chock another one up for eucharist being the body and blood (at least in the view of Ignatius - who knew Peter and Paul personally).

One more... I promise! This one was written to Smyrna:

"They [the heretics] even absent themselves from the Eucharist and the public prayers, because they will not admit that the Eucharist is the self-same body of our Saviour Jesus Christ which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His goodness afterwards raised up again. Consequently, since they reject God's good gifts, they are doomed in their disputatiousness."

That confirms the above. I could see someone arguing against it (as always, texts are subjectively interpreted), but it seems fairly conclusive that Ignatius taught that the Eucharist was the body of Christ, and that this was a command to continue it. Given the fact that this was a possible interpretation of scripture as we presented in the previous post, it's NOT a contradiction of scripture, but where scripture isn't entirely clear or is open to multiple interpretations, tradition (as indicated by Clement and Ignatius) can be useful in indicating which understanding we ought to accept and which one we ought to reject.

Yet, did this tradition continue? Does it pass the second test for Holy Tradition (the first being antiquity of belief) and show itself to have survived the centuries of the Church in a continuous line (in other words, was it genuinely a tradition, passed from one generation to the next)?

I could show you quotes from second century authors like Justin Martyr, Irenaeus of Lyons, or third century authors like Cyprian of Carthage or Hippolytus of Rome, but I'll assume you'll take me at my word that it's present there. Let me know if you'd like me to post those and I will oblige.

The fourth century saw our liturgy begin to take shape - what follows is a quote from the current liturgy that may date as far back as the fourth century (it is difficult to tell, but this is present in a number of early liturgies, including the Liturgy of St. James):

Priest: "Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here offered, and make this bread the body of Thy Christ."
People: "Amen."
Priest: "And this make this cup the blood of Thy Christ."
People: "Amen."
Priest: "Making the change by Thy Holy Spirit."
People: "Amen, Amen, Amen." (At which all people and celebrants bow prostrate to the floor)

The prostration indicates that at this moment, in a special way, the King of the Universe is present, incarnate, in the gifts. We bow to Him.

Let's jump forward again - to the 11th century, and Blessed Theophylact, who sought to summarize the patristict (early church father's) understanding of the Gospels. Again, ask and I'll find linking quotes from the 4th to 11th centuries - I'm assuming you'll take me at my word that the Orthodox Church of that time believed in the real presence of Christ in the eucharist...

Theopylact comments on Matt 26:

"By saying 'This is My body,' He shows that the bread which is sanctified on the altar is the Lord's Body Itself, and not a symbolic type. For He did not say, 'This is a type,' but, 'This is My Body.' By ineffable action it is changed, though it may appear to us as bread."

Skip on up to today. When I go to church, I am taught that this understanding (option 1 in the beginning of this post) is the correct understanding of the Gospel passage, John 6, and 1 Corinthians when they discuss the communion. I read this in theological books, I hear it from living sources - my priest, my Orthodox friends, the monastery I visit, my bishop. I read it in the gospels, for having been discipled to this tradition, I see that despite the fact that there are many possible understandings of the text in isolation (due to the natural ambiguity of written words, my own subjectivity and finitude, and many other factors already mentioned) there is only one true traditional way of understanding that passage. The eucharist has, since the infancy of the Church, been believed to be the body and blood of Christ in truth. This is Holy Tradition. It does not stand IN CONTRAST to scripture or ABOVE scripture, but INFORMS the way we understand scripture and guides us to the correct understanding so that, at last, it becomes "useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work." If I were to depart from this traditional understanding of the eucharist and the eucharistic passages of scripture, I would be setting up false teachers for myself, departing from the faith, self-excommunicating myself.

I would be the person St. Peter spoke of when he said, "... in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of Scripture." To avoid that, I must be taught. I must be taught. TAUGHT. That implies a living teaching. This is tradition.

Hopefully, this clarifies what we mean. We don't mean "tradition" as an excuse to pass of any doctrine we see fit to select. It is, rather, the safeguard by which we correctly interpret and understand the scriptures, keeping us close to the apostolic teaching and the salvation that comes by that Truth, which Christ handed to the apostles, and the apostles to the Church, of which we are members.

Hope that clarifies, and hope it helps. THANK YOU for reading this much. I know I type long posts, but it is out of respect for you that I do so.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[zhilan]

Which came First: The Church or the New Testament? by Father A. James Bernstein
http://www.protomartyr.org/first.html

A lot of the questions you posted are formed from the position of a false premise in many cases. In other words, they were formulated based off of a straw-man idea of what we believe.

Woah....I know Fr. James!

Crazy.

 

[Macarius]

11. If you are not permitted to engage in private interpretation of the Bible, how do you know which "apostolic tradition" is correct between the Roman Catholic, the Orthodox and the Watchtower churches, for all three teach the organization alone can interpret scripture correctly, to the exclusion of individual?

Two different perspectives must be assumed to properly answer this question. First: from the perspective of an inquirer (one who is not Orthodox but is asking questions / exploring - you, for example, are an inquirer).

To me, an inquirer almost HAS to use private interpretations of scripture. One can get remarkably close to the Apostolic Truth by doing so (though one can also go off the deep end of heresy by doing so). Inquirers are, typically, not in a discipleship relationship with someone. Some are, and then you have to ask questions about that individuals tradition and where they are getting / learned their theology (to whom were they discipled? To themselves? To a seminary? If a seminary, what tradition does the seminary come from? Who founded it? To whom were they discipled? Etc).

And so, you do the best that you are able. Once again, though, it would be a mistake to assume this is about making arguments from Scripture. It is not. Ultimately, the best place that an inquirer can reach is to let go of the need to be able to argue and proof text everything. To realize the ultimate futility of the human mind and its egotistical rationalism. I fear I play the hypocrite on this, and I sincerly ask you forgiveness. I am still a child in Orthodoxy and the ability to truly let go of my need to explain and prove and demonstrate evades me. At least it seems to serve a purpose here.

Once someone has the humility to recognize their spiritual ineptitude, then they are ready for Spiritual discipleship, and we trust the Holy Spirit to guide them. I believe the Orthodox Church to be the fullness of the Church on earth, but I also believe that God knows the heart of each, and knows exactly where they need to be and to whom they need to be discipled in order to best communicate His love to them and save them. In other words, the Orthodox Church has NO monopoly on grace. God saves whom He wills. We must approach our relationship with Him with an open and humble heart, and allow Him to guide us.

That's how a decision can be reached.

If one insists on being more analytical (like me ) then I suggest looking to history. If you like, I can make a case for the Orthodox Church. Again, we see our teachings as demonstratable from the Scriptures, the early Church fathers and mothers, the liturgies, icons, and councils of the Church. In other words, we assert that we contain and preserve the Truth (the Holy Tradition). If you have a particular issue I can attempt to address it, in so much as I am equipped to do so. Obviously, I am no authority on these things, so take my words with a healthy grain of salt.

As for the second perspective, this is of one who is already Orthodox - either a catechumen or a fully communing member. To us, our private interpretations certainly continue, for we are human and finite and this is unavoidable (indeed, it is preferable, for the whole point of this is to bring the individual to union with God/Christ; we do so through community, but never do we forget the unique and special image of God present in each).

Those private interpretations are, however, submitted to the Tradition. Holy Tradition gives us boundaries - like a safety net or a fence - to protect us from going too far or taking things in a spiritually dangerous direction. The creed is a perfect example of this.

However, within that tradition there are many ways of understanding things. There are many deep and wonderful ways to meditate on and view the Scriptures - to pray through them and let them sink into the stuff of our souls - and thus Orthodox Tradition functions for us more like an umbrella under which many can find shelter. We are safe, but we also allow for diversity within our unity (so long as certain key lines - like the Incarnation - are not crossed).

I think your question was more about the inquirer (the seeker trying to evaluate between Orthodoxy and JW's or RCC's or CoC's etc). Hopefully I clarified.

12. Why did God fail to provide an inspired and infallible list of Old Testament books to Israel? Why would God suddenly provide such a list only after Israel was destroyed in 70 AD?

Seems like a question for the Jews. They didn't finalize their list until the 90's AD. This is when the textual tradition which Protestants use to establish their OT begins (this is the ancestor of the Masoretic text used by Luther and Protestants for the reduced OT).

So here's a counter question - if the early church used an expanded OT consistent with the Septuagint, why would Protestants favor a set of texts determined by a council of Jews held 60 years after the resurrection and 20+ years after Christians were ejected from the synagogues / temple as non-Jews? What relevance does the opinion of a different religion have on our canon of scripture?

13. How could the Jews know that books of Kings or Isaiah were Scripture?

I'd ask a Jew. So far as I know, there were disgreements between the Pharisees and Sadducees during Christ's day on this very issue. I'm not sure what the relevance of this is to Orthodoxy though. We have always used the Septuagint. I see no good reason to change.

14. If the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches both believes that the scripture: "the church is the pillar and foundation of truth" means the church is protected from error then: a. Why do they teach doctrine so different that they are not even in communion with each other?

Because one, logically speaking, fell into error. I would assert that this was the RCC, as I do not find a papal institution like the one present at the 11th century schism (and which was the principle cause of that schism) present anywhere in the earliest accounts of the Church. Rather, it seems, from a historical perspective (and contemporary scholarship would agree with me on this) to have grown gradually from the late fourth century onwards, as the fall of Western Rome required the Popes to assert a greater degree of control in order to maintain political stability. Most scholars don't even believe that there was a single, head bishop in Rome prior to the late 2nd century - long after Peter and Paul had died. Again, this seems like material for a different discussion, but suffice it to say, we have NO problem asserting that someone else simply got it wrong (nor are we terribly offended if they do the same back - or at least we ought not to be; please forgive us if we fail).

b. How do you account for the vast number of documented theological errors made by the pope and the church in general?

Typical human error. The Church is protected from dying in the present and guaranteed of eschatological perfection. Think of it like the Ark, with the floods racing around it. So long as we don't jump ship, we'll get to harbor (that's eschatological hope); and though we may spring leaks and even lose a mast or half the ship, we trust God's power to protect us and make good on His promises.

Counter question: Why does it seem so improbable to you that God would preserve His truth so that His scriptures can be properly understood? Why does it seem so improbable to you that the apostolic community survives to this day? Is not God capable of such a thing, even if we as humans are not?

15. If the both the Orthodox and Catholic churches follow apostolic oral tradition exactly, how come they teach doctrine so different, that they are not even in communion with each other?

First, because we don't believe the Catholics follow it exactly. My appologies to the RCC folks who may read this since I'm not going to warrant that claim. But the fact that we disagree with the RCC hardly seems problematic to me.

Second, you might focus, instead of on the differences, on the similarities. They are quite remarkable.

1. We both preach the Incarnation and the Trinity.
2. We both believe in the mysteries of the faith: baptism, chrismation / confirmation, eucharist, confession, ordination, marriage. Some add the monastic tonsure and funeral services to this list.
3. We both practice liturgical / formal styles of worship.
4. We both have the tri-fold ministry of bishops priests and deacons all believed to be successors to the Apostles and therefore of Christ. We both preach Apostolic Succession.
5. We both preach the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
6. We both preach the real salvific effect of baptism - though the Orthodox Church places a greater emphasis on full immersion.
7. We both deny Pelagianism and universalism and double-predestination. In other words, we have similar views on the role of human free will in salvation.
8. We both preach salvation by the cross and resurrection of Christ.
9. We both believe that human cooperation with divine grace is necessary for salvation, and that this salvation must involve good works performed by the grace of God, and that these works save us (and that we are judged for them).
10. We both use identical (or nearly identical) scriptures.
11. We both practice ascetical fasting, prayer (both formal and informal) and alms giving.
12. We both allow for monasticism and marriage as salvific communities given to us by Christ for our salvation and to teach us love.

I could go on. The agreements are far more remarkable to me than the disagreements. I, in case you can't tell, lean more on the ecumenical side and would like to see more dialogue and pushing for communion, but the whole "papal infallibility" issue is a deal breaker for us. We will NEVER declare a single individual infallible under any circumstances.

16. Both Tertullian and Jerome gave a list of oral traditions that were not found in the Bible. (Tertullian, The crown or De Corona, ch 3-4), (Jerome, Dialogue Against the Luciferians, 8) Tertullian said of these practices that "without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone". These include, baptizing by immersion three times, giving the one baptized a "drink of milk and honey" then forbidding the person from taking a bath for a week, kneeling in Sunday mass was forbidden, and the sign of the cross was to be made on the forehead. Jerome, echoing Tertullian, said that these "observances of the Churches, which are due to tradition, have acquired the authority of the written law". Why does the Catholic church not immerse thrice and allow kneeling? Why do both the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches not keep any of these traditions, with the exception of thrice immersion by the Orthodox?

Um... we practice triple immersion for all candidates for baptism as per the instructions witnessed to by the didache (1st century)... We also forbid kneeling on Sundays as kneeling is a sign of repentance/penance and Sunday is the day of resurrection - a day for rejoicing. There is time for penance throughout the week, but we don't kneel on Sundays out of respect for the joy of Christ's resurection. We also still make the sign of the cross - both on the forehead (with oil at Matins), and a fuller body cross typically seen in churches.

You must be careful not to demand pharisaism from us though. Some of these (the exact form of the sign of the cross, for example) are "little t" traditions. Regardless of the opinion of Jerome or Tertullian (the later was a heretic and the former is not really paid attention to by the East as we sharply disagree with much of his theology - in particular surrounding marriage)...

Why do Roman Catholic churches today have knelling rails in front of every pew?

Well, they do have services on days other than Sunday... perhaps for those services??

If the "apostolic tradition" was to make the sign of the cross on the forehead, why do both Orthodox and Catholic churches change this to the current practice of the sign on the chest and head?

Because

No seriously - this is getting a bit pharisaical. Do you honestly think it theologically significant if we make the sign of the cross on our forehead alone (like we DO on certain occasions) or with our hand over our chest? Really? That's a theologically significant change?

I mean, the apostles didn't wear tennis shoes. Should I stop doing that? They didn't play pianos, should we ban those from the church?

Cultural traditions change. That's fine. This hardly compromises the assertion that we have the same theology as the ancient / apostolic church.

Counter Question: if the early Christians felt that it was permissable to pray with one's body using the sign of the cross, why do so many protestants reject it? My tongue is part of my body, and with it I sing blessings and praise songs - is my hand somehow less worthy than my tongue, that it ought not be allowed to worship the cross of Christ and ask for His blessing?

If extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed, then why don't the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches practice all of these things?

Because we aren't legalistic pharises. I still don't see how this is problematic.

Show me how we changed some central point of doctrine or an essential practice of the church (ie baptism, prayer, fasting, etc) and then we'll have a problem.

17. Why do Roman Catholics always use 2 Timothy 2:2; 3:14 as Bible proof that extra-biblical oral tradition is to be followed through apostolic succession, when tradition says Timothy became the bishop of Ephesians, which through succession, is now part of the Greek Orthodox church headed out of Constantinople?

I don't know. Perhaps because they would say that, at the time, Timothy was Catholic and therefore part of the RCC? Sounds like the same thing we say when asked about Rome's maintaining Orthodoxy while the east went bonkers during iconoclasm or arianism. Again, we weren't two churches at the time.

If 2 Timothy 2:2 proves succession, doesn't this prove the Roman Catholic church is not part of that succession?

I suppose it could, but I doubt an RCC member would see it that way. I'm honestly fine with either interpretation.

More to come later...

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Barky]

incredible replies Macarius, I'm almost apologetic because of how much time this is costing you.

 

[Macarius]

No worries! This may sound really wierd, but it's actually relaxing for me... I couldn't even begin to explain why... something about helping the thoughts in my head force themselves into a sensical statement on "paper" clears my mind and gives me focus.

 

[heart of peace]

subbing as I would like to read through the replies at another time.

 

[Philothei]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Macarius again.


Yeah but your mood icon says tired... .you must be exhausted after all this...

I will get to this later too... I always enjoy reading your postings...

 

[Macarius]

18. When you see the word tradition, why do you always assume it to be oral tradition rather than scripture tradition

I don't think we do. We see the tradition of scripture as the peak and pinnacle of Holy Tradition, which is a complete package of any and all available means of passing on the Apostolic Truth. Scripture is the finest and highest of these means, and in addition is a verbal icon of Christ, inspired by God for the salvation of His people.

We just don't think 'tradition' means exclusively scripture, and I might ask another counter quesiton. Why do you assume that tradition in II Thess 2:15 is referring exclusively to scripture when this text was written before the bulk of the New Testament?

when the Bible calls scripture tradition in 2 Thess 2:15, and Athanasius call scripture tradition: "the Apostolic tradition teaches in the words of blessed Peter, 'Forasmuch then as Christ suffered for us in the Flesh" Athanasius then quotes: 1 Peter 4:1; Titus 2:13; Heb 2:1 (Athanasius, To Adelphius, Letter 60, 6)?

I must admit that I'm not fully aware of this particular work of Athanasius. Would you be willing to quote the passage more in full (with some of the surrounding context)? If so, I'd be happy to offer an Orthodox perspective on it.

Off the top of my head, I think what I said above still applies. We're fine with using scripture to defend and explain doctrine, to teach morals, to act as a prayer for the people, to teach the Aposotlic Truth. These are all things Scripture was intended for (as per II Tim 3:15-16). We just don't preach it exclusively. We don't limit the revelation of God to scripture alone. We recognize and celebrate God's saving act of inspiration WHEREVER He chooses to reveal His Truth. In so much as a priest or pastor (Orthodox or Protestant) speaks a WORD of Truth, that one has been inspired by God to do so. This is not exclusive to the scriptures.

This is why we recognize that the words of our worship, many of which are as ancient as they come (the anaphora was being used in the early to mid 2nd century) are as inspired. They contain and speak the Truth. It so happens that our worship is something like 80% scripture or slight paraphrases of scripture (to adjust the grammar to a different usage). It does, however, interpret that scripture by how it is used in the liturgy. We consider that interpretation to be inspired as it is a container of Apostolic Truth. Notice how I used the liturgy in my defense of the Eucharist being the full body and blood of Christ. It's part of the living tradition.

Icons as well are called the "gospel for the illiterate." We use icons as a means of teaching visually what the Gospels teach in words. Both images and words can be used to teach, and if you truly understand an icon (just as one must truly understand a passage of scripture) it can open up the Holy Truth to you as readily as any text. Just like correct understandings of scripture, though, this must be taught. Few could look at an icon and deduce the truth from it in a vacuum. We could never practice 'sola liturgicum' or 'sola imago.'

The Creed also holds the revelations of Christ for us. It is, also, mostly scripture (the only exception being the use of the term 'one essence' to describe the relationship of the Son to the Father; this was specifically included to avoid arianism). If you'd like to take issue with the creed, go ahead. Otherwise, recognize the revelation of God in it (for if it is Truth, THEN it is GOD'S Truth) and honor it as such.

If you think the creed superfluous or unnecessary because "it's already contained in scripture," then remember that Arians, Gnostics, Docetists, Ebionites, Monothelites, JW's, Mormons, Muslims, and every other variety of schism, heresy, and branch-off religion has USED the SCRIPTURES to defend themselves. The Creed is exactly that type of 'umbrella' or 'safety net' which I was talking about earlier. So long as we stay inside the creed, we are safe. If our "interpretations" of scripture take us outside of it, then we are in danger of our soul. The creed may seem unnecessary to you if you already agree with it, but it has been a force for unity in the Church, and the Holy Spirit has used to to successfully preserve His Truth in the Church despite the fallen nature of the members of that Church.

If we don't venerate and honor that (within the worship of God, who alone we worship) then we would be in danger of blaspheming the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox cannot in good conscience reject the liturgy, the icons, nor the creed as they all three so obviously contain and teach and preserve God's Truth and are therefore inspired by God to do so (since no human effort could ever achieve such a thing).

Hope that helps!

19. If the earliest, universal oral tradition clearly states that Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, why does the Roman Catholic church question this tradition to this day? (The Orthodox, are at least consistent in accepting this tradition, not that they are correct.)

To clarify, the earliest traditions of the 2nd century say that Paul wrote it but someone else translated it into Greek. That is, to my knowledge, the Orthodox perspective. Thanks for the kudos, though.

Incidently, how do you KNOW we aren't correct?

Also incidently, why does this matter? Is the authorship of a book of scripture a pre-requisite for that book being scripture? I mean the Church has continued to call II Peter an epistle of Peter's for a long time despite long suspecting it of not really being his epistle. That doesn't change the fact that...

1. The book contains Holy Truth and is therefore Holy and inspired.
2. The book has always been in use by the Church during her liturgy and was upheld by multiple councils as being scripture. It is tradition.

Those are the critical parts. The authorship is nice from a historical perspective, but it isn't key doctrinal truth, and so it doesn't qualify as Holy Tradition (as least, in my humble opinion).

20. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Orthodox church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Roman Catholic church.)

By the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Many new Christians enter the Orthodox Church directly - as they become "new Christians" when they are made catechumens after coming out of atheism, Islam, Judaism, or any number of other faith traditions.

Are you asking for arguments?

I suppose I'd look at the antiquity of the church's beliefs, it's stability of doctrine, practice and spirituality; the strong charismatic presence of the Holy Spirit in her saints... her preservation of the Apostolic model of government (bishops, priests, and deacons; conciliar model of conflict resolution)... Perhaps this is what cannot apply to the Catholic Church.

Do you really want me to list off apologetic arguments? That's just so futile. It also distracts from the main point, which is that our false egos and demand for rationally "logical" arguments gets in the way of our ability to sit in the presence of a God who is, ultimately, transcendent (though Incarnate in Christ) unknowable (though known intimately through the Eucharist) and a mystery (though revealed through the Holy Spirit).

These things are revealed and taught. They aren't argued like some academic discipline. Theology is NOT the purview of a PhD or a philosopher. It belongs to the MYSTICS. It is, ultimately, the impossible attempt to describe the experience of the indescribable. To put into words the path and means of achieving unity with God. It has been said that the only true tragedy in life is not being a saint. I think that is valid.

21. Name one sure way or method, that a new believer in Christ, can know that the Roman Catholic church is the one true church. (The challenge: make sure this method cannot apply also to the Orthodox church.)

Well, I don't think it is (though I won't say with definite certainty that it isn't - the Orthodox are agnostic towards those who are not in communion with her; God alone can judge another).

Ultimately, though, I would still appeal to the Holy Spirit.

22. If the personal illumination of the Holy Spirit upon each believer to understand the Bible is not a valid method of determining truth because of the many denominations that use this approach,

That's one possible argument. I think I showed some more drastic internal inconsistencies above.

then does it not follow that apostolic succession and oral church traditions are likewise invalid because the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches are two denominations that use this method yet are divided on doctrine?

First, from a strictly philosophical perspective, that's a tu quoque falacy. It's like if I said "You lie!!" and you reply "Well, you lie too!! Therefore I don't lie." It doesn't follow... perhaps both are invalid, if we accept your argument on face. So, even if we accept your argument, your conclusion of...

Does this not prove both methods are wrong and a third method, one which we and the apostolic church practiced must be the correct method?

Doesn't follow from the preceding. It's a to quoque. We may both be hypocrites, but if we accept your argument then we are both wrong.

I do not, however, accept your argument because you are assuming we are establishing a philosophical premise something like the following:
"If two or more groups use a given method and disagree on doctrine then the method is invalid."

That's not what we're saying. We're saying "If a given method produces comparatively more schisms than another method, then it follows that this method is a more ecclesiologically dangerous method." You may take issue with that, but first, please understand the distinction.

One is a logical absolute. The other is a comparative suggestion.

Additionally, even if I accept the first statement, then we have to ask whether you have correctly identified what it was that caused the great schism of east and west. We would say it was NOT apostolic succession and Holy Tradition but precisely the West's FAILURE to follow that method (instead prefering to add the magesterium of the Pope to it) which caused the schism.

Thus we would conclude that both sola scriptura and the magesterium are divisive theological principles and ought to be rejected. Given the immense division in the West and the relative unity (even where there isn't communion - the monophysite and nestorian churches are remarkably similar to the orthodox churches) of the east STANDS OUT in marked contrast. If the West wishes to reunify, I recommend she look to the East for her methodology and approach, as we have a much better track record of unity.

23. If sola Scriptura cannot be the correct method of determining truth because of the religious division among churches that claim to use sola Scriptura, then does this not also disqualify the Roman Catholic and Orthodox churches method of using tradition, since they are divided against themselves?

The Orthodox Church is no where divided against itself. Always, any schism from her has been a failure to follow Holy Tradition. I don't see this as disqualifying tradition, but rather confirming it. See above.

Well - that concludes my initial answers to your unanswerable questions. I hope to have clarified our views a bit. Pray always that the Holy Spirit would guide us both into the unity of the Truth and that God would have mercy on us.

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Hoankan]

Macarius always a good read. Thank you for taking the time.

 

[Philothei]

Once you are into questions Makarius I wanted to ask you (since I cannot find the answer anywhere) how is it with the Deurocanonical books? Do they represent some truth? I think they are also accepted as sources as the canon but the fact they are called deurocanonical it puts them in second place, right? I mean there is not necessarily something wrong with them? or they are not valid..... Your opinion?

Thanks

Philothei

 

[Historynut]

Once you are into questions Makarius I wanted to ask you (since I cannot find the answer anywhere) how is it with the Deurocanonical books? Do they represent some truth? I think they are also accepted as sources as the canon but the fact they are called deurocanonical it puts them in second place, right? I mean there is not necessarily something wrong with them? or they are not valid..... Your opinion?

Thanks

Philothei

I think this is mentioned in the Orthodox Study bible but I left mine at work. If I remember right it says something to the effect that the Deutero-Cannonical books are considered fully cannonical, and should really be mentioned along with the rest of scripture not placed in an also cannonical sub category. I will check this out and update my post tomorrow unless someone else responds first.

 

[Macarius]

Once you are into questions Makarius I wanted to ask you (since I cannot find the answer anywhere) how is it with the Deurocanonical books? Do they represent some truth? I think they are also accepted as sources as the canon but the fact they are called deurocanonical it puts them in second place, right? I mean there is not necessarily something wrong with them? or they are not valid..... Your opinion?

Thanks

Philothei

I'm not certain one way nor the other on the deuterocanon. That it is scripture, of this I have no doubt. That each word of it represents and offers Christ to us, of this I have no doubt.

I'm not really sure how one can have a "second class" scripture, though. How do we categorize them? I suppose the fact that we don't read from them during liturgies (they aren't part of the lectionary) might tip us off... but then there are vast swathes of the OT that we don't read from (though we do use a lot of it in prayers within the liturgy, even if we don't have a lot of readings from those books)....

Revelations we also don't use heavily, but we certainly borrow from Revelations for our style of worship...

Perhaps that's just it - we don't read lectionary from the deuterocanon, and so it is "secondary" while still being fully scripture in its essence...

If you've ever gone to a Matins service, though, you'll have heard the LONG canons that normally get plain-chanted right after gospel reading.

In old Byzantium (St. Romanos time-era; I think 6th century), those weren't there. Instead, there were long "Kontakions" of which the present Kontakions are mere fragments (that get at the "essence" of the longer Kontakions). These were often "imagined conversations" between things like Satan and the Cross (or Death and the Cross) meant to serve as hymn-meditations on important Christian truths.

However, the monks grew frustrated that this was getting too far away from the scriptural basis of worship - that is to say, it was taking away from Orthodox worship's long tradition of praying from the scriptures.

So instead, they proposed to use the 9 Biblical Odes - great songs of scripture (like Moses's song after the parting of the Red Sea) instead of the Kontakions. This is, incidently, when the Magnificat was first introduced into the Matins service of the Orthodox Church. It is the Ninth Biblical Ode (sometimes Zaccharius's song was included).

The seventh and eight biblical odes, however, were drawn from the DEUTEROCANON. There was a section in the Book of Daniel which is NOT included in Protestant Bibles called the 'Song of the Three Holy Youths' and this song, split into two parts, formed two of the great Biblical Odes.

What started to happen was the parishes would have little hymns in between the Odes, and then, in the 8th century, these little hymns grew into the canon (possibly with the Great Canon of St. Andrew - with its long meditations on the Old Testament - being the first). Eventually, the canon squeezed the 9 odes out, all except the Magnificat, and there you go - that's how we do Matins today (except during Lent when the odes make a reappearance).

That's why, if you listen to the Canon, it ALWAYS talks about the three holy youths in the furnace.

So we DO pray the Deuterocanon (or at least this one part of it).

If you haven't, I recommend reading Tobit - it is such a wonderful typological prophecy of Christ that I cannot help but believe it is scripture. The Maccabees, like Judges, leave us wanting a good King, and remind us (since we know that they fell) that the Messiah is NOT a political leader. If it were, then the Maccabees would have been it. It also connects the history of the OT right up to the 1st century BC - just before Christ arrives.

The wisdom books are marvelous - I can find no fault in them.

I seriously struggle to imagine why one wouldn't use these books as scripture.

So, that's my opinion... If you haven't - go and read the Song of the Three Holy Youths in Daniel. It is AMAZINGLY beautiful. I challenge any protestant to argue to me why I should toss that from my scripture. How is that prayer NOT inspired by God?

In Christ,
Macarius

 

[Philothei]

I know about the three youths.. I love that chant ... on Holy Sat. morning...
Like you said I was wondering how whould the Protestants would feel about the deurocanon that is what I wanted to know, thanks Makarie.

Philothei