In some ways, the Roman church and Orthodox Church are very the close. Tradition is one of them.

You haven't really been open to evidence because you dismiss the writings of the fathers out of hand, saying you only stick to the canon. But then you won't offer what your own standard for acceptance of canon may or may not be. It's hard to move forward from there.

I've actually written to you about the exposition of the word Logos in John 1 before. Your tie of the Word = Scripture is not correct. Here is the quote from the last time we discussed this:

Quote:

---

When St John here speaks of the Word, what he is saying is that Christ is no mere man, no mere creation, but the very reason, wisdom, and expression of wisdom of the Father. He is saying that Christ is the agency by which the Father creates, and the manifestation of the promises of the OT which give light and life to men. This the identification of Christ with the second person of the Trinity. This is saying that God created through Christ. That Christ is the light and salvation and revelation and manifestation of God the Father, that He is God. This is not a reference to the Bible. The Bible is a reference to this.

---

Your entire belief structure as your are stating here is painfully anachronistic. No one, no one would have said this prior to around 400 years ago. I would really like you to consider this, and try to find an ancient view that matches yours. I've read nowhere near all of the fathers, but I've read enough to be confident that not a single one held the idea you had - namely, that the only thing that can truly be trusted is the bible. (Note many of the fathers said everything should / can be justified by scripture -- that's not the same thing).

You have nothing to base your beliefs on, because every time you fall back on scripture -- but you can't defend your scripture without historical records, all of which are either conciliar or or written by a father. You say I don't support my beliefs, but this is truth. I have inquired into the truth, and this is what I've found. If you can find compelling evidence to the contrary, I'd like to see it. But you can't even really outline what you think is the test for canonicity, which is just the first hurdle to a traditionless faith.

Christ did speak against tradition, but you need to be extremely careful when you presume to identify incorrect tradition of the pharisees vs traditions passed down by the Apostles. We can look at this a little more in depth. The word in question (tradition) is Strong's 3862, paradosis.

When Christ rebukes the Pharisees in Matthew 15 / Mark 7 He does so not because the tradition they were citing was wrong, but because "by this you invalidated the word of God for the sake of your tradition." Nothing the Orthodox church does violates or invalidates the Holy Scriptures. Yet Christ also speaks to His followers in Matthew 23, saying "The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the chair of Moses; therefore all that they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds; for they say things and do not do them." We have numerous scriptures ordering us not to seek our own way or mistrust authority, but instead to submit to our Christian authorities (Heb 13:17, 1 Corinthians 16:16, 1 Thessalonians 5:12). Here Christ tells people to submit and follow the authorized teachers of the Law, even though He outright says they are hypocritical!

St Paul uses the exact same word when he says to avoid traditions of men:

"See to it that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deception, according to the tradition of men, according to the elementary principles of the world, rather than according to Christ"

But also when he speaks of the tradition which we received from the Apostles:

"Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you keep away from every brother who leads an unruly life and not according to the tradition which you received from us."

"So then, brethren, stand firm and hold to the traditions which you were taught, whether by word of mouth or by letter from us."

"Now I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you."

Tradition is not an unmitigated evil. As I showed you in the quote from St Cyril and St Athanasius, tradition in the early church was a source of strength and a guard against heresy. For example, St Irenaus writes:

Quote:

---

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about.

...by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth.

---

I was raised Baptist. I am very, very familiar with the deep-seated mistrust of authority that many sects of Protestantism have. But power and authority aren't anywhere close to what I see in the ancient church's love for tradition. It is love of Christ which pushed these men to write -- many of them monks, life-long servants of the church, martyrs, and confessors of the faith. The vast majority of the fathers lived holy and pious lives in ways I will never approach. These aren't the specter of the medieval warrior-bishop lording his wealth over tenant farmers, or the king-priest that the medieval pope became.


If you really are open, I think you should start where I did - a genuine, honest inquiry into what the early church believed. The only way I know of to find this out is to read what they wrote. The Ante-nicene fathers can be read for free here. Start with the Apostolic fathers -- these are men whos lives overlapped with the Apostles (Clement of Rome, Mathetes, Polycarp, Ignatius, Barnabas, Papias, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus).

Ooh, let me play this game! Just because God divinely guided and protected some passages of scripture, doesn't mean he divinely guided and protected all writing of scripture. So some parts of some books are divinely inspired, but other parts we don't like, we can cut out like Jefferson did. This is fun!

And yes, there were failed councils. Why? Because they didn't profess the truth. Acts 5:39 is clear.

The councils didn't just rule on canons. In fact, as far as I know not a single council or synod was called specifically for this, and the rulings they did make was for liturgical order and to safeguard the faithful from being read spurious or heretical texts. As you said, they didn't make those rules to say "here is the bible" but more to say "here is what is safe to read in church". That's abundantly clear.

The RCC and Orthodox church use the same canon liturgically. The ecumenical councils are held by both, although the Roman church recognizes councils she held on her own after the schism, while the Orthodox church does the same.

Furlock Bones said:

---

i'd say you have laid down no substantive posts on your positions and then seem to get mad and attack when k2aggie describes his with substantial backing.

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

Furlock Bones said:

---

The fathers, the early Church, and the Councils determined what was and was not scripture. You believe that God speaks to us directly through the scriptures. It was divinely inspired. So, then you must accept that the very people that determined what was scripture were themselves divinely guided.

---

I do.

Quote:

---

so to recap, you don't reject the fathers' teachings because you accept the scripture, but you do reject the fathers' teachings because you can interpret for yourself what God said in the scriptures that the early Church determined was scripture.

---

No, that isn't accurate.

Quote:

---

furthermore, nowhere in the Catholic faith (this is RCC and OCC united) does the Church say God does not speak to individuals directly. We both venerate Saints that received the word of God directly.

---

Good, but it sure does read that way.

---

please expound on the bold.

---

"It isn't a rejection of what the fathers taught us, it is the rejection that God can't speak to us other than what they taught us."

There seems to be this prevalent misconception that Protestants reject Catholicism and Orthodoxy in their entirety and started an entirely new Christianity. That isn't true at all. As I've stated in the past, Protestants agree with 99% of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. We didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater, we took a step back, kept what we could verify, and skeptically analyzed the rest, reserving the non-scriptural teaching for "we can't be certain of that."

A big reason for the revolt was the attitude of, "you can't read for yourself, you can't think for yourself." I firmly believe that isn't what God wants and the Church now seems to have aligned that way as well.

---

this is not actually historically vey accurate. it stems from the false argument that Rome would not translate the bible from Latin to English. in fact, priests had translated parts of the bible (mainly new Testament) to Old English centuries prior to the reformation.

---

It's very accurate, but there are those trying to rewrite history to make the Church seem more inclusive and compassionate.

---

no, it's really not. it's a false premise built on the sola scriptura belief.

it gets back to arguments of the Christ's Truth delivered to the Church. The fullness of the Truth includes but is not limited to the scriptural text. The fullness of the Truth includes the Sacraments, the Traditions, etc.

The RCC felt delivering Mass in one language every where would be unitive. The OCC always felt the Truth should be delivered in the local language. (Vatican 2 affirmed this is probably most correct).

---

I implore you to read a little more into the Protestant Reformation. The abuse of power by the Church was rampant (e.g. indulgences), and that abuse was the major factor for the Reformation.

"Parts" of the NT were translated into Old English? That is a reasonable counter argument to you...seriously?

Furthermore, while I agree much of the practices of modern evangelical churches are most definitely not in line with historical/original practice, 1) God can be worshipped in many ways, and 2) Catholics have added quite a bit themselves.

But the answer to the OP was a revolt against an abuse of power and an over controlling posture.

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that the differences in soteriology alone, to say nothing of sola fide and sola scriptura, makes a claim of "99% similarity" with RCC and OCC mathematically false.

---

We can agree to disagree, but a few doctrinal differences are extremely minuscule compared to the very vast majority of what we agree upon. The illusion of disagreement lies in that we mostly focus on the differences.

AgLiving06 said:

---

tehmackdaddy said:

---

k2aggie07 said:

---

The scriptures don't speak for themselves. They require interpretation.

---

Are you saying the Holy Spirit cannot speak to me through the Scriptures? That's what I mean by "reach".

---

If I use this logic, the Mormonism and Jehovah Witness can all be justified as "the Holy Spirit speaking to them through Scriptures" right?

Where's the line in your opinion?

---

Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses DO use that as justification, but it doesn't have anything to do with me.

tehmackdaddy said:

---

I implore you to read a little more into the Protestant Reformation. The abuse of power by the Church was rampant (e.g. indulgences), and that abuse was the major factor for the Reformation.

"Parts" of the NT were translated into Old English? That is a reasonable counter argument to you...seriously?

Furthermore, while I agree much of the practices of modern evangelical churches are most definitely not in line with historical/original practice, 1) God can be worshipped in many ways, and 2) Catholics have added quite a bit themselves.

But the answer to the OP was a revolt against an abuse of power and an over controlling posture.

---

i know plenty about the reformation.

so, Reformers changed the entire worship service because of abuse of power and over controlling posture?

that does not really make any sense.

tehmackdaddy said:

---

XUSCR said:

---

It seems to me that the differences in soteriology alone, to say nothing of sola fide and sola scriptura, makes a claim of "99% similarity" with RCC and OCC mathematically false.

---

We can agree to disagree, but a few doctrinal differences are extremely minuscule compared to the very vast majority of what we agree upon. The illusion of disagreement lies in that we mostly focus on the differences.

---

I appreciate the civility and agree that there is much that is in accord. But there is a very fundamental disagreement on the nature of salvation, which is the very essence of being Christian.

Another related point of significant disagreement is the nature of the Sacraments. The RCC and OC are very similar in how they view sacraments. In the RCC the Eucharist is the very center of our spiritual life. We believe the bread and wine miraculously become the Real Presence of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ when consecrated by a Priest and that when we participate in the Eucharist we receive forgiveness and grace that is truly life changing. It's not symbolic or ceremonial. It's Jesus.

Any time you think there is a wide chasm between us, take a gander at Agie's posts and you'll find its not so wide.

I'd say the gulf between non-trinitarians is almost as wide as that between the far end of evangelicals and confessional Protestants.

Quote:

---

And yes, there were failed councils. Why? Because they didn't profess the truth.

---

When was the last successful council?

Note that Paula White isn't trinitarian eiter and she labels herself evangelical.

I dono who that is but that's kinda my point. At some point -- and we can debate about where that point is -- it stops being a gray area and becomes black or white. For me, the easiest starting point for that determination is the symbol of faith.

big televangelist prosperity gospel reductionist gal. She's leading prayer at Trump's inauguration of somethin.

Ecumenical? I consider the last council of ecumenical (i.e., all of the world) relevance or import to have been the Fifth Council of Constantinople in 1351, which covered the teachings of St Gregory Palamas against the monk Barlaam. This is because the doctrines accepted there were a clear and unambiguous clarification about the nature of how and what we may understand of God (rational vs suprarational, or credo ut intelligam "I believe so that I may understand" vs apophatic theology, vision of God as a vision of His created glory vs uncreated energies).

There have been pan-Orthodox councils since then (for example, in 1848 and last year), but they're not nearly as important. The ecumenical councils weren't held for funsies, or because of some requirement to meet every so often. All of them were in response to major theological issues, dealt with major heresies and the resultant schisms in the church.

Synods or local councils happen all the time for administrative and general meetings. Bishops send letters about things to their collective parishes. You really only need an ecumenical council to correct matters of faith that hit the whole world. These local councils are successful inasmuch as they profess the truth.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Any time you think there is a wide chasm between us, take a gander at Agie's posts and you'll find its not so wide.

---

Point taken.

k2aggie07 said:

---

Ecumenical? I consider the last council of ecumenical (i.e., all of the world) relevance or import to have been the Fifth Council of Constantinople in 1351, which covered the teachings of St Gregory Palamas against the monk Barlaam. This is because the doctrines accepted there were a clear and unambiguous clarification about the nature of how and what we may understand of God (rational vs suprarational, or credo ut intelligam "I believe so that I may understand" vs apophatic theology, vision of God as a vision of His created glory vs uncreated energies).

There have been pan-Orthodox councils since then (for example, in 1848 and last year), but they're not nearly as important. The ecumenical councils weren't held for funsies, or because of some requirement to meet every so often. All of them were in response to major theological issues, dealt with major heresies and the resultant schisms in the church.

Synods or local councils happen all the time for administrative and general meetings. Bishops send letters about things to their collective parishes. You really only need an ecumenical council to correct matters of faith that hit the whole world. These local councils are successful inasmuch as they profess the truth.

---

When is an ecumenical council considered successful? Who must attend? Was the Fifth Council of Constantinople attended by western bishops?

Has there not been a major heresy or schism since 1351?

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

http://bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article24

Quote:

---

Falsely are our churches accused of abolishing the Mass; for the Mass is retained among 2] us, and celebrated with the highest reverence. Nearly all the usual ceremonies are also preserved, save that the parts sung in Latin are interspersed here and there with German hymns, which have been added 3] to teach the people. For ceremonies are needed to this end alone that the unlearned 4] be taught [what they need to know of Christ]. And not only has Paul commanded to use in the church a language understood by the people 1 Cor. 14:2-9, but it has also been so ordained by man's law. 5] The people are accustomed to partake of the Sacrament together, if any be fit for it, and this also increases the reverence and devotion of public 6] worship. For none are admitted 7] except they be first examined. The people are also advised concerning the dignity and use of the Sacrament, how great consolation it brings anxious consciences, that they may learn to believe God, and to expect and ask of Him all that is good. 8] [In this connection they are also instructed regarding other and false teachings on the Sacrament.] This worship pleases God; such use of the Sacrament nourishes true devotion 9] toward God. It does not, therefore, appear that the Mass is more devoutly celebrated among our adversaries than among us.

---

---

https://www.catholic.com/qa/how-valid-is-the-consecration-of-the-bread-and-wine-in-a-lutheran-or-episcopal-holy-eucharist

Quote:

---

Therefore, as the ancient examples of the Church and the Fathers teach us, we ourselves will and ought to ordain suitable persons to this office; and, even according to their own laws, they have not the right to forbid or prevent us. For their laws say that those ordained even by heretics should be declared [truly] ordained and stay ordained [and that such ordination must not be changed], as St. Jerome writes of the Church at Alexandria, that at first it was governed in common by priests and preachers, without bishops.

---

From the Smalcald Articles
http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#ordination



We actually talked about this last night! My associate pastor. who has come in contact with Lutherans that claim/have apostolic succession because the Bishop of Finland went Lutheran and therefore many many churches went with him as well, and they continue the practice...,offered to ordain my pastor with the laying of hands.

The Lutheran church believes in one eccliastical order...every pastor has the same spiritual authority as any other...offices of bishop/president/district leaders/etc are administrative and earthly superiority. Not different in spiritual authority. My associate pastor actually related his ordination, where there had been a terrible snowstorm and the district president, Pr. Scaer, a wonderful man, was trapped and could not attend. The circuit leader, was trapped by snow and also could not attend. One of my pastor's classmates who had been ordained on 6 months before made it to the church, read the sermon that Pr. Scaer had writted and ordained Pastor Pacey himself during Divine service.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Quote:

---

Therefore, as the ancient examples of the Church and the Fathers teach us, we ourselves will and ought to ordain suitable persons to this office; and, even according to their own laws, they have not the right to forbid or prevent us. For their laws say that those ordained even by heretics should be declared [truly] ordained and stay ordained [and that such ordination must not be changed], as St. Jerome writes of the Church at Alexandria, that at first it was governed in common by priests and preachers, without bishops.

---

From the Smalcald Articles
http://bookofconcord.org/smalcald.php#ordination



We actually talked about this last night! My associate pastor. who has come in contact with Lutherans that claim/have apostolic succession because the Bishop of Finland went Lutheran and therefore many many churches went with him as well, and they continue the practice...,offered to ordain my pastor with the laying of hands.

The Lutheran church believes in one eccliastical order...every pastor has the same spiritual authority as any other...offices of bishop/president/district leaders/etc are administrative and earthly superiority. Not different in spiritual authority. My associate pastor actually related his ordination, where there had been a terrible snowstorm and the district president, Pr. Scaer, a wonderful man, was trapped and could not attend. The circuit leader, was trapped by snow and also could not attend. One of my pastor's classmates who had been ordained on 6 months before made it to the church, read the sermon that Pr. Scaer had writted and ordained Pastor Pacey himself during Divine service.

---

Lutheran ministers do not have apostolic succession or else they would be Catholic.

Those priests that have broken away from the Church that are since then Lutheran, Episcopal, etc. did originally get ordained in the Catholic & apostolic Church, but no longer remain valid ministers of the Sacraments, except for Baptism as long as it is ministered in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Your own link basically waffled on the validity of our communion. Their best answer was "eh, kinda"

Scripture gives the recipe for right distribution of the sacraments. We adhere to that prescription.

Also, not that I particularly worry about the apostolic succession question, but if EO apostolic succession remains valid outside the RCC, then the Finnish guy's does too. The important thing, is to adhere to apostolic doctrine and teaching according to the word of God.

Also, what you are saying is a Donatist heresy.

I'm rearranging your questions so the answers make a little more sense.

Who must attend for it to be an ecumenical council?
No one. Ecumene means inhabited land, "the whole world". We potentially can look at it two ways: attendance or applicability. Attendance doesn't actually hold up, because council attendance and representation wasn't always from "the whole world". Even the first, at Nicaea, had some 300 of 1800 bishops invited. The Second Council of Constantinople (considered the 5th ecumenical council) was not widely attended (and more or less excommunicated Pope Vigilius, interestingly enough, who would not attend). Even though Vigilius and his successor Pelagius accepted it, it took a long time for the entirety of the church in the West to accept it.

When is an ecumenical council considered successful?
When it rightly divides the word of God's truth to defend and preserve the faith of the Apostles.

Was the Fifth Council of Constantinople attended by western bishops?
Nope.

Has there not been a major heresy or schism since 1351?
I don't think so, to be honest. Not a novel one, anyway. All of the modern heresies I've ever come across are either combinations or versions of ancient ones. The ancient heresies were quite...imaginative.

What Barlaam was pushing was perhaps not really a heresy, but the reason I think the council regarding the judgment between Barlaam and St Gregory Palamas could be considered ecumenical is because of the widespread need for this teaching in the light of dialectic / scholaticism / intellectualism and firm clarifications on the very nature of God (energies and essences) and how man interacts with them. I think here its the level of importance to the faith that makes it applicable. At the same time, I wouldn't argue the point if someone objected to it being ecumenical. The faith is what matters.

You can see this attitude by the way the Fathers of the 5th ecumenical council spoke about the authority of the four preceding ecumenical councils. Namely, that they preserved a common faith.

Quote:

---

We confessed that we believe, protect and preach to the holy churches that confession of faith which was set out at greater length by the 318 holy fathers who met in council at Nicaea and handed down the holy doctrine or creed. The 150 who met in council at Constantinople also set out the same faith and made a confession of it and explained it. The 200 holy fathers who met in the first council of Ephesus agreed to the same faith. We follow also the definitions of the 630 who met in council at Chalcedon, regarding the same faith which they both followed and preached...

---Now that we have given the details of what our council has achieved, we repeat our formal confession that we accept the four holy synods, that is, of Nicaea, of Constantinople, the first of Ephesus, and of Chalcedon. Our teaching is and has been all that they have defined concerning the one faith. We consider those who do not respect these things as foreign to the catholic church.

---

This is distinct from the Roman version which simply says a council is ecumenical if the Pope signs off on it as such. So, in essence, the Pope is the standard or arbiter, and what the synods say is just a suggestion. I find this position a bit difficult.

swimmerbabe11 said:

---

Your own link basically waffled on the validity of our communion. Their best answer was "eh, kinda"

Scripture gives the recipe for right distribution of the sacraments. We adhere to that prescription.

Also, not that I particularly worry about the apostolic succession question, but if EO apostolic succession remains valid outside the RCC, then the Finnish guy's does too. The important thing, is to adhere to apostolic doctrine and teaching according to the word of God.

Also, what you are saying is a Donatist heresy.

---

The Holy Mysteries of God aren't chemical formulas that we cause by proper recipes or prescriptions. They also are not magic incantations that God responds to based on correct invocation. The Holy Scriptures are not handbooks to performing proper liturgical services.

Your Pastor's story is really nice, but the protestant innovation of denying the hierarchical order of the church not only glosses over scriptural distinctions (bishop vs presbyter) but centuries of Holy Tradition supporting such.

Y'all confess Nicaea right? Nicaea Canon Four:

Quote:

---

It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should meet together, and the suffrages of the absent [bishops] also being given and communicated in writing, then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the Metropolitan.

---

Canon Two makes a clear distinction between the episcopate and the priesthood. Eighteen from Nicaea clearly presumes the ancient hierarchical structure of bishop, presbyter, and deacon, and notes that deacons (like priests) serve the bishop, but at an inferior position than priests.