Roman Catholic teachings denounced by Orthodox groups?

[concretecamper]

Of course they do, but then they would be in communion with one of the churches I listed (Lutheranism, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic).

they are not

. I looked up the churches you listed. They are all nondenominational, which means that they practice open communion.

ok, as if that means anything

They are Anabaptist, meaning they all practice believer's baptism, deny a real Eucharist presence and following the Stone-Cambell Restoration movement eschewing Confessions and Creeds.

you can keep saying they are ana baptists, but that doesnt make it fact. They are not!

You seem to be getting these out of the phone book with no real understanding of what these churches believe Scripture to teach or how they relate to each other

they are churches just like the Lutheran Church, Anglican Church, Presbyterian Church, amd all the others you listed. There are 10s of Thousands of them.

Sola Scriptura pertains to doctrine

it is an unbiblical practice.

If you don't understand what churches teach, you can't cite them as demonstrable of Sola Scriptura's fallacy.

they are stand alone Churches with every rights the mainline protestant churches have. Dont tell me you are a protestant snob.

 

[concretecamper]

Absolutely correct. Almost all Protestant churches adhere to the principle of Sola Scriptura.

which of the many definitions of SS posted on this forum do you mean?

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

NonCatholics were never homogeneous.
Lutheranism is a return to the Catholic Faith via Augustine. If Augustine was wrong (as Orthodoxy claims) then we are wrong. If he was Catholic, then so are we.
Regarding Christology, from a Lutheran perspective, the Reform are Nestorians. The Anabaptists are Sacramentarians. Both are Iconoclastic. The Catholics with whom Luther fought were Humanists/Semi-Pelagian in that they claimed that man can be regenerated under his own power. By imputing Sola Scriptura, you are inadvertently making a case for extraBiblical Tradition as a source of doctrine, rather than the interpretation of the Fathers (which we practice).

Lutherans can depart from their Tradition more than a Roman Catholic can, for Lutheranism was founded on a departure from tradition (Luther was a Roman Catholic who abandoned his tradition). Now there is a reason why Lutherans can depart from tradition more than Catholics; or why Calvinists and Lutherans differ in Christology; or why there are three soteriological camps in Protestantism. The reason is (essentially) Sola Scriptura. And it has clearly divided the Church. Even all of the divisions you note in this post are the result of Sola Scriptura.

The reason that Protestants are no longer doctrinally homogenous is because divisions occurred. Divisions occurred over and over, and they continue today. New divisions almost always occurred because someone or some group decided that their inherited tradition had misinterpreted Scripture, and that their new interpretation was the correct one.

 

[Albion]

Protestants were a single entity until divisions occurred...

Now...that's perceptive. There was unity until there was not.

But of course, the Protestants didn't do anything until many hundreds of years after the Roman, the Eastern Orthodox, the Oriental Orthodox, and some smaller Catholic churches "were a single entity until divisions occurred" among them. They remain divided still.

And that is supposed to show us the failings of the Protestant concept called Sola Scriptura??

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Since the motto is Lutheran (but hijacked), the Lutheran definition trumps others. Secondly, Luther gets blamed by your church for your citation of '10s of thousands' denominations (you still haven't provided me with a source). So his definition informs whether or not other churches or your church is interpreting him correctly.

which of the many definitions of SS posted on this forum do you mean?

 

[Albion]

which of the many definitions of SS posted on this forum do you mean?

There's only one definition of Sola Scriptura. If you don't know this yet, it's time to catch up.

 

[concretecamper]

There's only one definition of Sola Scriptura. If you don't know this yet, it's time to catch up.

I suggest you consult with other protestants on this forum. You may believe YOUR version is correct, but that is YOUR opinion.

 

[zippy2006]

Lutheranism is a return to the Catholic Faith via Augustine. If Augustine was wrong (as Orthodoxy claims) then we are wrong. If he was Catholic, then so are we.

This is an interesting claim, but the difficulty lies in the fact that Augustine submitted to Catholicism whereas Luther did not. Augustine offered explicit and implicit retractions of his positions which were contrary to the faith; Luther did not. Luther, rather than submitting Augustinianism to (Roman) Catholicism, submitted Catholicism to Augustinianism.

By imputing Sola Scriptura, you are inadvertently making a case for extraBiblical Tradition as a source of doctrine, rather than the interpretation of the Fathers (which we practice).

Well, the Fathers are themselves extrabiblical, but in my estimation Sola Scriptura is an elevation of Scripture over the Magisterial Tradition (which interprets Scripture). The reason it results in disunity is because it ushers in a great deal of interpretive license, over texts that are not self-interpreting.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

they are not
ok, as if that means anything
you can keep saying they are ana baptists, but that doesnt make it fact. They are not![\quote]

All you have provided in this debate are assertions. You have yet to back up your claims. I gave you the reason why they are Anabaptist (the term means to 'rebaptize'), because their theological ancestors were rebaptized as adult, having rejected their infant baptism.
[Quote
they are churches just like the Lutheran Church, Anglican Church, Presbyterian Church, amd all the others you listed. There are 10s of Thousands of them.

You can claim that there are 10s of thousands of churches, but until you cite your source, it is just your opinion and is not a good debate tactic. Lutherans have apostolic succession. So no, they are not 'churches just like' ours.

it is an unbiblical practice.

Christ said to the Pharisees that they search the Scriptures hoping to find life, but the Scriptures testify of him. No amount of Biblicalism or extraBiblical tradition can add or distract from the Apostolic witness.

they are stand alone Churches with every rights the mainline protestant churches have. Dont tell me you are a protestant snob.

Lutheranism is not a mainline church. Are you a Roman Catholic snob because you make distinctions?

 

[Albion]

Well, the Fathers are themselves extrabiblical, but in my estimation Sola Scriptura is an elevation of Scripture over the Magisterial Tradition (which interprets Scripture).

In other words, with believers in Sola Scriptura, God's word is put "over" the opinions of the clergy (the so-called 'Magisterium').

How long should we take before deciding which is the right way there?

The reason it results in disunity is because it ushers in a great deal of interpretive license, over texts that are not self-interpreting.

And yet the Catholic churches, as noted before, are MORE disunited and have been so for many centuries longer than the Protestant churches.

There's obviously something wrong with your theory there.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Luther did not submit to the papacy because the papacy at the time took the side of Titzel in the indulgence controversy. Rome was selling grace. Simony.

This is an interesting claim, but the difficulty lies in the fact that Augustine submitted to Catholicism whereas Luther did not. Augustine offered explicit and implicit retractions of his positions which were contrary to the faith; Luther did not. Luther, rather than submitting Augustinianism to (Roman) Catholicism, submitted Catholicism to Augustinianism.

Well, the Fathers are themselves extrabiblical, but in my estimation Sola Scriptura is an elevation of Scripture over the Magisterial Tradition (which interprets Scripture). The reason it results in disunity is because it ushers in a great deal of interpretive license, over texts that are not self-interpreting.

The Fathers from a Lutheran perspective, are not a source of Divine Revelation in addition to Scripture. They are a witness to the proper interpretation of Scripture. We do not have a Magisterium. Our focus is heresy. Beyond that, Lutherans have a lot of leeway. Meaning, doctrine is not primarily a positive articulation of what we consider true, but the safeguarding of truth.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Why would I as a Catholic consult with nonCatholics? For argument's sake.

I suggest you consult with other protestants on this forum. You may believe YOUR version is correct, but that is YOUR opinion.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

I suggest you consult with other protestants on this forum. You may believe YOUR version is correct, but that is YOUR opinion.

Why do you need me as a Lutheran to be theologically relativistic- What do you as a Roman Catholic benefit? Roman Catholicism should be true for you even if there were no other churches around.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

Should be. 'Jesus Only' is not it.

There's only one definition of Sola Scriptura. If you don't know this yet, it's time to catch up.

 

[Landon Caeli]

It has always amazed me how Catholics will stand their ground.

As if the truth of Catholicism depends on the multiplicity of nonCatholic Churches. The more the better.

I never stand my ground.

But no, seriously, I neither defend the Church, nor offer apologetics.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

You're awesome!

I never stand my ground.

But no, seriously, I neither defend the Church, nor offer apologetics.

 

[Thatgirloncfforums]

concretecamper: they are not

They are not what?

ok, as if that means anything

It means that the differences that they have with others, they do not consider church dividing. Good for them. But if we follow your logic, then, the Dominicans and Franciscans are two different churches because they, historically haven't agreed (e g., the Immaculate Conception), yet are in communion with one another. Tradition doesn't save us from disagreements any more than Scripture does.

 

[dzheremi]

Lutheranism is not a mainline church

Unless there's a difference between Lutheranism and Evangelical Lutheranism (and if there is, I'm sorry; I was not aware of this, so you can feel free to ignore this post), it seems that Lutheranism is classified as a mainline church. See this link via JSTOR to a book put out by NYU Press on Mainline Christianity (under the section titled "The Mainline's Slippery Slope An Introduction").

 

[dzheremi]

Tradition doesn't save us from disagreements any more than Scripture does.

Is the point of either really to save us from disagreements? Heck, in the Bible itself, in the portion of Acts that deals with the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, we are told that St. Paul withstood St. Peter to his face, because he was in the wrong. So there's disagreement between the apostles themselves in the Bible. Almost like Sts. Peter and Paul couldn't just open up the NT and see what it said...

I've never asked anyone in my own Church about this, but the way I look at tradition when it comes to things like the subject of this thread is that one of the good things it does is it provides for us an understanding of both what we're doing and why we're doing it that way and not some other way. So, for instance with baptism, if someone were to ask "Why are we required to renounce former beliefs in order to join the Church?", we can point to the same section of Acts (which, yes, it is right to call both tradition and scripture; I don't put up big barriers between the two, as St. Paul commands us to hold to what is taught whether by word or by the epistle) to make the point that our holy fathers since the beginning of the faith have stood against those who wanted to bring the errors of their previous belief system into the Church, whether on account of appearing to be in agreement with the powerful (as was the case then; St. Peter was temporarily accepting of the Judaizing faction from Jerusalem), or not wanting to give up a beloved pet-belief even though it is anathema, or for any other reason.

At least that's the point of view I've sort of absorbed via osmosis in my own communion. These things are for us so that we may be better fed, not to spite others for not being one of us.

 

[Yeshua HaDerekh]

starting at 32:10 and going up to 1:29:20 we see a long list of things that apparently must be "renounced" publically as in "I renounce this teaching" -- to join certain Orthodox churches. (Which suprised me somewhat). And a lot of those things are specifically stated to be Roman Catholic - that the these Orthodox groups say must be renounced as heresy.

Now normally I would say "fine we expect some differences like that since they are different denominations" (Though I find it very unusual to have "I renounce this-or-that" in the actual liturgy of a christening or baptism or profession-of-faith vote into membership - for other denominations).

The reason I bring this up is that now and then in the General Theology forum we see complaints about "sola scriptura generates all those Protestant Denominations" as if there is no denominational difference in doctrine between Catholic groups and Orthodox groups - while claiming the "sola scriptura" doctrine is what creates differences and so Catholics supposedly have no such difference with the Orthodox groups as one might find between certain Protestant or Evangelical groups.

But this video appears to "shed more light" on that detail than one normally hears about in the General Theology forum.

From the video evidence here it appears their differences are as significant as any other difference between lets say Baptist and Presbyterian etc. In fact the Orthodox/vs/Roman Catholic list of "I renounce" may be much larger than one would find between Presbyterian and Baptist.

I didn't watch the video but Orthodox means right belief. Orthodoxy throughout its almost 2000 year old history has had to deal with and defeat many heresies. There is also a "Sunday of Orthodoxy" that the entire congregation attest to anthemas against heresies and heterodoxy. Also, even in Judaism, within the liturgy (the weekday Amidah) there is the "Birkhat ha Minim"...benediction concerning the heretics. It could be looked at as a doctrinal protection of the faith...