Sup STC, long time no see.

It's difficult to argue against the value of orthodoxy when so much of the scripture is devoted to it. St Paul didn't say "man just love each other, and it's all good".

Even St John, who emphasizes love so heavily, also writes "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds."

St Jude says of those who hold heretical beliefs: "But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed...These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves." These people were within the Church!

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

Asking "what if the Church is wrong?" (note I am not Roman Catholic, so I have rephrased your question) is like asking "what if Jesus is not Lord?"

---

What a false analogy. The Bible teaches explicitly and repeatedly that Christ is Lord. It says nothing about the infallibility of the man-made organization entitled the RCC.

Some of you guys are using RCC teachings and doctrines to establish the importance and authority of the RCC teachings and doctrines. Can't you see the logical fallacy of that attempt?

Again I ask, what if the Church is wrong? The Church approved the sale of indulgences, which I understand it now concedes was a mistake. The Church condemned Galileo, which I understand it now concedes was an error.

---

I'm not Roman Catholic, so this is not a Roman catholic teaching. You're using the historical doctrines of the church, the scriptures selected from dogmatic fact to become dogma to try to undermine the authority by which they were determined. Can't you see the flaw in that? Christ did not write a book, He founded a Church - and He blessed His Apostles to build it.

You picked exactly one sentence out of my post and ignored the rest.

Holy Scripture teaches explicitly that the Church is the Body of Christ with Himself as the head. How can the Body of Christ be wrong? Christ Himself says that He will build His Church and the gates of hell will not conquer it. Scripture says plain face that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Please explain to me how the Church can err without invalidating that?

The simple answer to your question is that the Church did not do these things; the Roman church did. Again, you have the standard and that which is to be measured backwards. The Church is the Body of Christ.

JJMt said:

---

Quote:

---

Asking "what if the Church is wrong?" (note I am not Roman Catholic, so I have rephrased your question) is like asking "what if Jesus is not Lord?"

---

What a false analogy. The Bible teaches explicitly and repeatedly that Christ is Lord. It says nothing about the infallibility of the man-made organization entitled the RCC.

Some of you guys are using RCC teachings and doctrines to establish the importance and authority of the RCC teachings and doctrines. Can't you see the logical fallacy of that attempt?

Again I ask, what if the Church is wrong? The Church approved the sale of indulgences, which I understand it now concedes was a mistake. The Church condemned Galileo, which I understand it now concedes was an error.

---

But the scriptures were given to us by the Church! So to ask "what if the church is wrong" is to ask "what if Christ is not Lord."

As I understand it, indulgences were "sold" for donations essentially. And then unscrupulous individuals corrupted the practice. Maybe I'm wrong. But either way, this was a prudential judgment. Not a proclamation of faith or morals.

As for Galileo, I have to admit I'm no expert. But this also was not a proclamation of faith or morals. The Church is not protected from poor prudential or scientific decisions (of which the RCC has made plenty of both).

St Jude describes these people as rushing into the error of Balaam (Numbers 22-24). St Peter uses the same analogy about false teachers. "They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought thembringing swift destruction on themselves....They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Bezer."

St Jude later says "these are the ones who cause divisions, worldly-minded, devoid of the Spirit."

The people being described are within the church who have heretical teaching and are schismatics, for personal gain or pride.

This thread has gone so far off the rails of "what authority do we appeal to when interpreting scripture". I think I'm done in this thread unless anyone has something specific to that topic. I'll save whatever else for another thread.

Quote:

---

Sup STC, long time no see.

---

I've been busy. New job,been doing a lot of freelance work, closing on a home, baby, etc. I've also been conflicted about posting on Texags instead of doing my actual job, so I've made it a point to not post much. I've still been lurking though, because R&P can make for good reading when on the john!

Quote:

---

It's difficult to argue against the value of orthodoxy when so much of the scripture is devoted to it. St Paul didn't say "man just love each other, and it's all good".

Even St John, who emphasizes love so heavily, also writes "Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God; the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son. If anyone comes to you and does not bring this teaching, do not receive him into your house, and do not give him a greeting; for the one who gives him a greeting participates in his evil deeds."

St Jude says of those who hold heretical beliefs: "But these men revile the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed...These are the men who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves." These people were within the Church!

---

I was asking RamblinAg for clarification on his statement, which he then provided to someone else. I personally feel that RamblinAgs position is very radical.

You can write all you like about it, but there is simply no scriptural evidence for your position. I have offered scripture, and will offer more. What's more, the historical witness of the Church supports my position. In this regard, the onus is on you to disprove what has been held since the beginning.

Scripture is clear. These are all direct quotes of scripture.

• The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth.
• He is also head of the body, the church
• For even as the body is one and yet has many members, and all the members of the body, though they are many, are one body, so also is Christ.
• And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fullness of Him who fills all in all.
• Now I rejoice in my sufferings for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in regard to Christ's afflictions for the sake of His body, which is the church.
• "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it."

Can you show how the Church can be both wrong and the Body of Christ? What scripture can support this position?

I don't know why you think Satan has any power over the Church. St Paul tells St Titus the Christ purified us for Himself, for His own possession. St peter says we are "But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God's own possession, so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light". Those people, collectively, are the Church. There can be no victory of Satan over the Church.

The position of the infallibility of the Church is considerably more nuanced than you are willing to understand. Here is a good article about it (the first portion).

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

diehard03 said:

If you hold this view, then all people not unified with your church are hellbound. There is no other way you can look at it. This means that between Drums and K2aggie, one of you is going to hell.

---

Drum5343 said:
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

---

Kallistos Ware, a Greek Orthodox bishop, has expressed this doctrine as follows:

Quote:

---

Quote:
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.

---

---

It simply doesn't follow logic. If you say you are Christ's church and your way is God's chosen way, then it must follow that ones who are not unified (and you are the one claiming disunity) are heretics and damned for hell. Christ is not present in those congregations, and the Holy Spirit does not move there.

Quoting a bishop saying "it just is" is not really a proof either.

diehard03 said:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

+ 2 more quotes (click to expand)

---

diehard03 said:

If you hold this view, then all people not unified with your church are hellbound. There is no other way you can look at it. This means that between Drums and K2aggie, one of you is going to hell.

---

Drum5343 said:
Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus

---

Kallistos Ware, a Greek Orthodox bishop, has expressed this doctrine as follows:

Quote:

---

Quote:
"Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus. All the categorical strength and point of this aphorism lies in its tautology. Outside the Church there is no salvation, because salvation is the Church" (G. Florovsky, "Sobornost: the Catholicity of the Church", in The Church of God, p. 53). Does it therefore follow that anyone who is not visibly within the Church is necessarily damned? Of course not; still less does it follow that everyone who is visibly within the Church is necessarily saved. As Augustine wisely remarked: "How many sheep there are without, how many wolves within!" (Homilies on John, 45, 12) While there is no division between a "visible" and an "invisible Church", yet there may be members of the Church who are not visibly such, but whose membership is known to God alone. If anyone is saved, he must in some sense be a member of the Church; in what sense, we cannot always say.

---

---

It simply doesn't follow logic. If you say you are Christ's church and your way is God's chosen way, then it must follow that ones who are not unified (and you are the one claiming disunity) are heretics and damned for hell. Christ is not present in those congregations, and the Holy Spirit does not move there.

Quoting a bishop saying "it just is" is not really a proof either.

---

What if I quoted all the bishops? And they all said the exact same thing? Because, if they're faithful bishops, that's what they'll say.

What you're lacking is the concept of divine economy.

Christ provides the means for salvation, and these means are through the Church*.

Christ saves whom He will.

These two statements are in no ways at odds.

*Holy Baptism - "Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit"

and Holy Communion - "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."

What he said

You forgot to add "Only our baptisms and communion are valid and holy. Sucks to suck, broseph".

JJMt said:

---

k2,

I am familiar with those verses. However, you take them in a specific literal sense, and apply them to the RCC. I and most modern Protestants (I believe) take them more in an aspirational sense (for lack of a better term). I'm struggling for the precise term to use, but by aspirational I mean that is God's ultimate role for the church. The church, like its individual members will fail in this world, but that is the ultimate literal role for the church after Christ's return.

Again, if you take them literally, how do you explain the multitude of errors which the church (however you define it) has made?

---

I know you're reading what I'm typing, but you're not reading it. I'm not Roman Catholic. I am not suggesting that the Roman church is the Church. I've said this repeatedly.

Protestants always like to talk about plain face reading of the texts. Then, when pressed, they fall back on "well, in this case that isn't what it means". The scriptures are clear, they are explicit, and for centuries they were interpreted this way.

Here are a few ancient examples:

St Ignatius (~110 AD)
Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic [Universal] Church. (link to whole text)

In like manner, let all reverence the deacons as an appointment of Jesus Christ, and the bishop as Jesus Christ, who is the Son of the Father, and the presbyters as the sanhedrim of God, and assembly of the apostles. Apart from these, there is no Church. (link)

St Irenaeus (~190 AD)
As I have already observed, the Church, having received this preaching and this faith, although scattered throughout the whole world, yet, as if occupying but one house, carefully preserves it. She also believes these points [of doctrine]just as if she had but one soul, and one and the same heart, and she proclaims them, and teaches them, and hands them down, with perfect harmony, as if she possessed only one mouth. (link)

Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case? Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches? (link)

St Cyprian (~250 AD)
Does he who does not hold this unity of the Church think that he holds the faith? Does he who strives against and resists the Church trust that he is in the Church, when moreover the blessed Apostle Paul teaches the same thing, and sets forth the sacrament of unity, saying, "There is one body and one spirit, one hope of your calling, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God?"

The spouse of Christ cannot be adulterous; she is uncorrupted and pure. She knows one home; she guards with chaste modesty the sanctity of one couch. She keeps us for God. She appoints the sons whom she has born for the kingdom. Whoever is separated from the Church and is joined to an adulteress, is separated from the promises of the Church; nor can he who forsakes the Church of Christ attain to the rewards of Christ. (link)

Peter speaks there, on whom the Church was to be built, teaching and showing in the name of the Church, that although a rebellious and arrogant multitude of those who will not hear and obey may depart, yet the Church does not depart from Christ; and they are the Church who are a people united to the priest, and the flock which adheres to its pastor. Whence you ought to know that the bishop is in the Church, and the Church in the bishop; and if any one be not with the bishop, that he is not in the Church, and that those flatter themselves in vain who creep in, not having peace with God's priests, and think that they communicate secretly with some; while the Church, which is Catholic and one, is not cut nor divided, but is indeed connected and bound together by the cement of priests who cohere with one another. (link)

Solo Tetherball Champ said:

---

You forgot to add "Only our baptisms and communion are valid and holy. Sucks to suck, broseph".

---

Well, I can't speak for whichever orthodoxy k2aggie subscribes to, because I don't know their "sacrament-ology". But I will (attempt) to speak for the RCC.

Quote:

---

The Catholic Church recognizes the validity of Baptism by other Christian ecclesial communities when the proper matter and form are used and when both the baptizing minister and the person being baptized have the proper intention (CIC 869 2). Water is poured or the one or be baptized is immersed in water (the matter) (CIC 854; GI 18, 22), and the minister says, "I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (the form) (CIC 850; GI 23). The minister's intention simply "to baptize" and the recipient's intention (or, if an infant or child, his or her parents' and godparents' intention in his or her name), simply "to be baptized" is sufficient to meet this test, even if none of the parties had a full theological understanding of the sacrament of Baptism.

---

As for communion...yeah sucks to not have the Eucharist.

JJMt said:

---

And I'm hesitant to view the early "church fathers" as authoritative. They're certainly not apostles and wouldn't seem to have any more authority than would, say, a seminary professor today. Additionally, many of them were in leadership positions, so a lot of their statements were self-serving, particularly when it comes to authority.

---

This is entire jist of this thread. Apostolic Succession is why Catholic and Orthodox believe that the fathers were, indeed, Apostles of Christ.

JJMt said:

---

You guys just differ on which ones were apostles, and what the standards for apostleship were, correct?

When did the Orthodox and RCC churches start calling folks apostles, other than the original 12? I apologize if that question sounds argumentative; it's not that way, I truly do not know.

And by calling them apostles, do you mean that they were divinely inspired, in the same sense as the authors of the Bible were, thus giving their writings the same weight as the Bible? If not, what do you mean and how much weight do you give their writings? What do you do with differences and disagreements between them?

---

No, the writings of the church fathers are not divinely inspired in the same sense as the authors of the NT were inspired. Their writing has weight in collegiality, just as the bishops' writings of today do. In my experience, we study the fathers to mostly know how the early church was organized, worshiped, what they believed etc.

And maybe calling the Fathers apostles isn't quite right. Especially Apostles with a capital A. They were, however, just as the bishops of today are, the successors of the Apostles. And not just in a linear, earthly authority way. They handed on their spiritual authority by the Sacrament of Holy Orders.

And if you think about it, the Apostles probably wrote things that we didn't consider to be divinely inspired. So we didn't include those writings in the canon of scripture.

Here are the criteria for who is a Church father (at least for the RCC).

Quote:

---

What qualified someone to be recognized as a "father of the church"? There are four key characteristics. First, their antiquity. The first church father is Clement of Rome, who wrote his letter around the year 96 AD. The early fathers lived and breathed the scriptures and the teachings of the apostles. They were the disciples ofand the disciples of the disciples ofthe apostles. They demonstrate how Christ is present in all the Scriptures, from Genesis through Revelations. [See quotes from the Early Fathers in the box below.]
A second characteristic of the church fathers is their holiness of life. They studied, meditated, and lived as faithful witnesses of the gospel. And they exhibited a tremendous zeal for God and the Scriptures. They have much to teach us about reverence for God's word and for study and meditation upon it.
A third characteristic is their orthodox doctrine. Their teaching is recognized as sound within the bounds of Scripture and church tradition. They affirm the central truths of the faith, such as belief in the triune God, that Christ was fully divine and fully human, the redemptive efficacy of Christ's death on the cross, the absolute authority and infallibility of Scripture, the fallen condition of humanity, the significance of baptism, the vital importance of prayer and of the disciplined spiritual life. They were not just theologians, but pastors of the church. Most of the early fathers were bishops. As shepherds of the church they spoke to the hearts and needs of those in their care.
The fourth characteristic is ecclesiastical approval. They were affirmed as such by the church itself. Within the broader classification of "Church Fathers" eight are designated as "Doctors of the Church": Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine and Gregory the Great in the West; Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, Athanasius and John Chrysostom in the East. They are eminent among the fathers for the depth of their learning.

---

JJMt said:

---

I think that's a point of separation from the RCC and Orthodox churches. From the quick reading I've just done, the Orthodox churches apparently do view the early church fathers, at least their early church fathers, as apostolic with a capital A.

---

You might be right. I don't know.

JJMt said:

---

k2, I get that you're not a RC, but I'm not sure what "church" you are referring to then. What is the definition of church that you are using in your statements?

Also, what church or even collection of believers is infallible? Since you're not a RCC, I assume that you don't agree with all of the RCC's dogma or doctrines, correct? So which church should a believer view as authoritative?

And I'm hesitant to view the early "church fathers" as authoritative. They're certainly not apostles and wouldn't seem to have any more authority than would, say, a seminary professor today. Additionally, many of them were in leadership positions, so a lot of their statements were self-serving, particularly when it comes to authority.

And I do try to take the Bible literally. However, we know that many Biblical statements have multiple meanings, as evidenced by OT prophecies. I'm just not sure that your reading of the passages you quoted is the only permissible reading.

---

I'm an Orthodox Christian. My Church shares a millennium of communion with Rome, but now we are approaching 1000 years out of communion. Most of the charges you (and most Protestants) levy against Rome do not apply to us (sale of indulgences, warrior-king Popes etc).

I'm glad you've gone from "there is no criterion for truth" to "I'm not sure that there is a criterion for truth". It is an important step, because without the Church we are lost.

Christ tells his Apostles in John 15 that they know and will know everything He has received from the Father, through the Spirit - "all the truth". We must take Him at His word. So, at some point -- day zero, usually defined as Pentecost -- the Church and all churches were one and the same. The Apostles were all on the same page, the entire Church was there, it was perfect and spotless and blameless. And, Christ presents the Church to Himself "in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless." So, at some point in the future the Church is perfect, spotless, blameless.

Many protestants hold to an ellipsis view. The early church was great ... some stuff happened ... the reformation happened ... my brand of Christianity fixed it. Or, perhaps, the early church was great, and then it fell apart because men are fallible, and now no one has all the truth. The problem is, both of these are completely not scriptural.

Other protestants see the problem here, and hence invented the idea of the invisible Church. Why, all of these promises are true, but no church can lay claim to them - each church can be right, or have part of the truth. Not only is this completely ahistorical, it's also fraught with logical problems. More or less, if no church is flawless, there is no Church.

You say the Fathers are "certainly not Apostles". What are they, then? My church recognizes some twenty saints with the title of "equal to the Apostles". This recognizes their great evangelization such as St Patrick who enlightened Ireland. If the gifts to the apostles were not available to all Christians, then our faith is a lie. The Apostles were holy and set apart, but again, the Lord's prayer in John 17:20-26 extends these blessings to all believers. All of us are the royal priesthood. All bishops are the successors to the Apostles. (This does not mean that all will attain to the level of holiness that the Apostles did).

The Church Fathers are not authoritative by themselves. No man is infallible. They are, however, authoritative when they speak in unison. We call this the consensus of the Fathers. Again, there is doctrinal fact - the faith delivered from Christ to the saints through the Apostles. This continual faith is lived out, and the lives of the saints -- and the writings of the Fathers -- bear witness to it.

There are many levels of scriptural interpretation as I said (I listed four in my first post), but these levels do not contradict each other, they illumine different truths. And the scriptures are also self-supporting. If an interpretation violates another portion, the interpretation is incorrect. You can't take any of this piecemeal, the whole thing is a beautiful perfect unity, it's holistic. To your point, which is the point of the thread... who decides what reading is permissible?

Quote:

---

But I agree with what I assume is your basic point - it's not the author that makes a writing inspired, but it's the act of inspiration itself.

---

Right.

We have no idea how many letters St Paul may have written. Or St Peter. We have no writings from the vast majority of the Twelve, never mind the Seventy. It doesn't really matter, because the preservation of the writings wasn't done in a haphazard way. Writings which confirmed and expressed the Faith correctly were preserved. Others were not.

Similarly, the Orthodox church views the fathers as authoritative when they speak from within the Church. It is no different than the use of scripture. During the debates leading up to the council of Blachernae in 1285 Patriarch Gregory II wrote that there are three ground rules for the use of patristic texts. One, the text had to be genuine and not spurious; it had to be accompanied by a consistent and accurate interpretation; and it had to be reinforced or confirmed by additional evidence from other Fathers. This is generally the approach used in the church.

The Church Fathers from 33-1054 are common between the Orthodox church and the Catholic Church. As are those recognized as saints.

k2aggie07 said:

---

The Church Fathers from 33-1054 are common between the Orthodox church and the Catholic Church. As are those recognized as saints.

---

I'd love to talk to you about how/why the Great Schism occurred. I'm really quite ignorant. Another thread, another day.

Pretty much all I know is something something filioque something something