Larry Lajitas said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Larry Lajitas said:

---

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.

---

Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.

I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.

The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .

The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."

---

This is probably where the convo ends. I don't know what else to say other than you can take arms up with Rome all you want. I get it but you still have to contend with the east and the first 1400 years that came with it.

---

But you're response is identical to Rome's. Sub out the Pope for "tradition" or "councils" or "the fathers" and you get to the same conclusion.

But to be clear, I don't have to "contend with the east." We both look to the same fathers, the same councils, the same traditions.

Nobody should be "contending with the east" or the west for that matter. We should be contending with the Scriptures and how the Fathers, Councils, etc understood them....not the other way.

Thanks for the discussion.

See you all tomorrow.

These are the mental gymnastics that Protestants have to gin up in order to maintain the illusion that they haven't severed themselves from the mystical body of Christ.

I believe the creeds are what should qualify us as objectively part of the mystical body of Christ.

Subjectively speaking, that is a different story of being justified by faith alone, but a faith that is not alone.

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Larry Lajitas said:

---

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.

---

Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.

I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.

The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .

The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."

---

The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.

---

Sorry to tell you, but it wasn't the Catholics. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at that time, it was a creation of the great schism.

---

Do tell! The guys who were the Bishops of Rome for the first thousand years after the death of Christ were not Roman Catholics until the split between east and west?

---

That's the fallacy...you try to equate the Bishop of Rome of the ancient church with the Pope of today. Just because they claim a similar title doesn't make them equal. The ancient church would not recognize with has become of the modern church and would almost certainly not recognize the Pope as it is today. That's just a modern invention of man.

AgLiving06 said:

---

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Larry Lajitas said:

---

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.

---

Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.

I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.

The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .

The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."

---

The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.

---

Sorry to tell you, but it wasn't the Catholics. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at that time, it was a creation of the great schism.

---

Do tell! The guys who were the Bishops of Rome for the first thousand years after the death of Christ were not Roman Catholics until the split between east and west?

---

That's the fallacy...you try to equate the Bishop of Rome of the ancient church with the Pope of today. Just because they claim a similar title doesn't make them equal. The ancient church would not recognize with has become of the modern church and would almost certainly not recognize the Pope as it is today. That's just a modern invention of man.

---

Ancient, Medieval, and Modern...
Here. I leave you an example.

AgLiving06 said:

---

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Larry Lajitas said:

---

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.

---

Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.

I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.

The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .

The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."

---

The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.

---

Sorry to tell you, but it wasn't the Catholics. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at that time, it was a creation of the great schism.

---

Do tell! The guys who were the Bishops of Rome for the first thousand years after the death of Christ were not Roman Catholics until the split between east and west?

---

That's the fallacy...you try to equate the Bishop of Rome of the ancient church with the Pope of today. Just because they claim a similar title doesn't make them equal. The ancient church would not recognize with has become of the modern church and would almost certainly not recognize the Pope as it is today. That's just a modern invention of man.

---

The Catholic mass resembles the one as described by Justin Martyr in 155. The liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom has been celebrated since the late 300's.

Please make a case, your statements that the ancient church wouldn't recognize apostolic succession don't ring true, since we see evidence of this from the very beginning of the Church, with Matthias.

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Larry Lajitas said:

---

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.

---

Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.

I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.

The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .

The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."

---

The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.

---

Sorry to tell you, but it wasn't the Catholics. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at that time, it was a creation of the great schism.

---

Do tell! The guys who were the Bishops of Rome for the first thousand years after the death of Christ were not Roman Catholics until the split between east and west?

---

That's the fallacy...you try to equate the Bishop of Rome of the ancient church with the Pope of today. Just because they claim a similar title doesn't make them equal. The ancient church would not recognize with has become of the modern church and would almost certainly not recognize the Pope as it is today. That's just a modern invention of man.

---

The Catholic mass resembles the one as described by Justin Martyr in 155. The liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom has been celebrated since the late 300's.

Please make a case, your statements that the ancient church wouldn't recognize apostolic succession don't ring true, since we see evidence of this from the very beginning of the Church, with Matthias.

---

Martin Luther on why he made such a fuss. Luther is writing about the bondage of the will in the "Bondage of the Will" book.

"I give you hearty praise and commendation on this further account - that you alone, in contrast with all others, have attacked the real thing, that is, the essential issue. You have not wearied me with those extraneous issues about the Papacy, purgatory, indulgences and such like - trifles, rather than issues - in respect of which almost all to date have sought my blood (though without success); you, and you alone, have seen _____THE HINGE ON WHICH ALL TURNS____, and aimed for the vital spot.[3]'


Extraneous issues....trifles rather than issues...

And yet the Bondage of the Will isn't being brought up by another Lutheran brother. Oh yeah...you are pretty much in agreement with 2nd Vatican council on the issue.

jrico2727 said:

---

"And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."

Either Christ is wrong or you are mistaken.

The Church has evolved, but is of the same substance that it was when it was started by Christ. Just as a infant becomes a adult. The Church is eternal not stationary.

---

A significant part of the church (ancient and present) have understood this to be about Peter declaring "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."

Because while Jesus made that statement in verse 18, in verse 23 he says: "But he turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man."
--------------------------

The funny thing about all this is that Catholic Apologists realize the argument isn't particularly strong and so they tend to try for a "bait and switch" approach. The most used example I've seen is to equate the Pope to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. This argument works fine if you want to claim Papal primacy or "first among equals," but that does not match with the modern claim of Papal supremacy. A quick google search shows that the catechism of the catholic church says: "the Pope enjoys, by divine institution, supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls."

AgLiving06 said:

---

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

FalconAg06 said:

---

AgLiving06 said:

---

Larry Lajitas said:

---

The Holy Spirit guides the Church, not publishing companies making numerous translations of the Bible that can end up contradicting each other.

---

Which is another way for you to say the scriptures are manmade.

I happened to be reading through a book on this very topic and this quote seems fitting.

The context was that the roman theologians were calling Scripture a norma "remissiva" -- i.e. it is perfect inasmuch as it calls upon the Church to supply the deficiencies .

The Lutheran response was this: "A norma remissiva is no norm at all, but the authority to which one is referred. According to this notion it would have been sufficient if Scripture had simply told us; Hear the Pope! But the Pope is not the man of whom Scripture says: Hear ye Him, (Matt 17:5)."

---

The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.

---

Sorry to tell you, but it wasn't the Catholics. Roman Catholicism didn't exist at that time, it was a creation of the great schism.

---

Do tell! The guys who were the Bishops of Rome for the first thousand years after the death of Christ were not Roman Catholics until the split between east and west?

---

That's the fallacy...you try to equate the Bishop of Rome of the ancient church with the Pope of today. Just because they claim a similar title doesn't make them equal. The ancient church would not recognize with has become of the modern church and would almost certainly not recognize the Pope as it is today. That's just a modern invention of man.

---

I agree that the Bishop of Rome is far different than the Pope. But when you say the ancient church would not recognize the modern church I don't understand. The ancient church is still well and alive...you can go to any of the Orthodox churches in Texas and attend liturgy. Outside of Rome since they are no longer in holy communion with the original church you can still see Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople. I attend an Antiochain parish outside Austin. Now the ancient church has spread over the globe so we have other autocephalous churches like Russia, Poland, Greece, Georgia, Romania, etc. but it's still the same. They all have equal patriarchs. I will say that a current Orthodox issue is having all of these different churches in America. There should just be one. Having different churches in one country gives Orthodoxy a slight Protestant flare but regardless we are all in communion.

Now if you are a Protestant you can argue all day about if Rome was justified in splitting with the Church but let's not try and ignore that the Orthodox Church is the ancient church that you speak of. If you want to ignore basic historical timelines then there's not a good reason to have this conservation because we can't go anywhere. Basically you will be admitting that nothing important with the Church happened between the apostles and the great schism.

Patriot101 said:

---

I believe the creeds are what should qualify us as objectively part of the mystical body of Christ.

Subjectively speaking, that is a different story of being justified by faith alone, but a faith that is not alone.

---

Well the original creed was developed by the Orthodox Church. Constantinople was and is still functioning lol. I mean can you guys really not see that? And if you really believe in the original Nicene Creed (not a Protestant revision) then what do you make of "And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?

Although this is well trod ground, I sincerely appreciate this forum and all posters here. Over 20 years and plenty of arguments, the drama is pretty low.

I'll emphasize again the "meta" issue:

It's historically indisputable the Apostolic Church included / excluded the canon over 3 centuries, in councils generally from Rome and Anatolia.

Protestants who elevate "the word" (and, again the Bible is holy and inspired) are in reaction - and, in the case of Luther, dramatic proposed cuts - to the Apostolic Church.

They assume its work and debates.

And its decisions.

Quote:

---

The scriptures are man-made. Is that in doubt? Who wrote them? Who compiled them? Who canonized them? Men, Catholic men, who all happened to descend from the Apostles.

---

While it is correct to say Paul (man) wrote Romans it's also equally correct to say God wrote Romans.

The letters had to be compiled because they were written from different locations.

God canonized them the moment ink touched paper as they were His words.

It's one thing to recognize what is scripture and another to choose what is scripture.

Quote:

---

Why is the apocrypha not added as well since Paul quotes from it in Romans 9 with the vessels of honor and dishonor thing? Why not the pseudepigrapha as well, since Paul likely borrowed from "tongues of men and of angels" likely meaning eloquent speech?

---

This goes back to the point I made in a previous statement. Writers in the NT quote from scripture but they also quote from books and other writers that they do not recognize as scripture. Acts 17:28

28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His descendants.'

Why the apocrypha isn't in the bible.

double post

Larry Lajitas said:

---

And if you really believe in the original Nicene Creed (not a Protestant revision) then what do you make of "And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?

---

As this was before the Reformation, catholic doesn't refer to what we know today as the Catholic Church, but is an adjective, describing the "all encompassing" church of the Apostles.

bigcat22 said:

---

Larry Lajitas said:

---

And if you really believe in the original Nicene Creed (not a Protestant revision) then what do you make of "And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?

---

As this was before the Reformation, catholic doesn't refer to what we know today as the Catholic Church, but is an adjective, describing the "all encompassing" church of the Apostles.

---

Yes I'm Orthodox I understand this very well lol. I don't think you understand Orthodoxy but this is common. Ive talked to various Protestant pastors and graduate students who actually know nothing about the east which is embarrassing if you have received a degree in this subject. Now the difference between me and you would come down to the "all encompassing" church. I would assume you think that extends to all Christian churches.

Larry Lajitas said:

---

bigcat22 said:

---

Larry Lajitas said:

---

And if you really believe in the original Nicene Creed (not a Protestant revision) then what do you make of "And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?

---

As this was before the Reformation, catholic doesn't refer to what we know today as the Catholic Church, but is an adjective, describing the "all encompassing" church of the Apostles.

---

Yes I'm Orthodox I understand this very well lol. I don't think you understand Orthodoxy but this is common. Ive talked to various Protestant pastors and graduate students who actually know nothing about the east which is embarrassing if you have received a degree in this subject. Now the difference between me and you would come down to the "all encompassing" church. I would assume you think that extends to all Christian churches.

---

Thats kind of a cop out. Yes the universality of the Church is where it's Catholicity comes from but let's not act like the ancient universal Church and the modern Catholic Church are different entities entirely.

I believe the Church is Christ's mystical body, and it is comprised of the Apostles and their successors. I consider the Orthodox the same church whether or not they return the favor. I believe we have been more stubborn and dug ourselves in where we need not have done so, but this need not have lead to the mutual excommunications which lead to this mess, especially given the extremely politically charged nature of the environment.

Larry Lajitas said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

I believe the creeds are what should qualify us as objectively part of the mystical body of Christ.

Subjectively speaking, that is a different story of being justified by faith alone, but a faith that is not alone.

---

Well the original creed was developed by the Orthodox Church. Constantinople was and is still functioning lol. I mean can you guys really not see that? And if you really believe in the original Nicene Creed (not a Protestant revision) then what do you make of "And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?

---

The word catholic basically means universal. And yes, I believe in Apostolic authority.
You take it to mean the councils and the West is kind of a mix between counsels and the papacy.

The differences between Catholic and Orthodox are real and important. This includes theology, and I recommend getting David Bentley Hart's (amazing) New Testament translation for details on that.

However, especially in the context of the Council of Florence, it is reasonable to use the umbrella term Apostolic Church.

For such a discussion as this, and given the Sacramental understanding of life and worship, the differences are minimal.

Fair enough...I don't see y'all as "out" because of the creeds.

Redstone said:

---

The differences between Catholic and Orthodox are real and important. This includes theology, and I recommend getting David Bentley Hart's (amazing) New Testament translation for details on that.

However, especially in the context of the Council of Florence, it is reasonable to use the umbrella term Apostolic Church.

For such a discussion as this, and given the Sacramental understanding of life and worship, the differences are minimal.

---

Thats the point I'm getting at. The differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches are real and important, yet we share Communion.

I do not view these differences as theological, but philosophically different which has caused divergent praxis although originally the void was not as large, this can be healed and should not continue as an obstacle

Being tongue in cheek here. This is like being on a thread with OU and tu people.

I appreciate that this is your opinion on the subject as you've said several times.

My response will continue to be, that in my read of the Scriptures, as well as the church fathers, I don't come to the same conclusion as you.

FalconAg06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The differences between Catholic and Orthodox are real and important. This includes theology, and I recommend getting David Bentley Hart's (amazing) New Testament translation for details on that.

However, especially in the context of the Council of Florence, it is reasonable to use the umbrella term Apostolic Church.

For such a discussion as this, and given the Sacramental understanding of life and worship, the differences are minimal.

---

Thats the point I'm getting at. The differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches are real and important, yet we share Communion.

I do not view these differences as theological, but philosophically different which has caused divergent praxis although originally the void was not as large, this can be healed and should not continue as an obstacle

---

You do realize when people say Orthodox, they are not talking about Eastern Catholics.

The Orthodox are not in communion with Rome.

DirtDiver said:

---

Quote:

---

Why is the apocrypha not added as well since Paul quotes from it in Romans 9 with the vessels of honor and dishonor thing? Why not the pseudepigrapha as well, since Paul likely borrowed from "tongues of men and of angels" likely meaning eloquent speech?

---

This goes back to the point I made in a previous statement. Writers in the NT quote from scripture but they also quote from books and other writers that they do not recognize as scripture. Acts 17:28

28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, 'For we also are His descendants.'

Why the apocrypha isn't in the bible.

---

Yep. They were the authors of the 66 books of the Bible and we are not.

That's not to say that all truth isn't God's truth.

We are so close, but yet so far away on this.

FalconAg06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The differences between Catholic and Orthodox are real and important. This includes theology, and I recommend getting David Bentley Hart's (amazing) New Testament translation for details on that.

However, especially in the context of the Council of Florence, it is reasonable to use the umbrella term Apostolic Church.

For such a discussion as this, and given the Sacramental understanding of life and worship, the differences are minimal.

---

Thats the point I'm getting at. The differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches are real and important, yet we share Communion.

I do not view these differences as theological, but philosophically different which has caused divergent praxis although originally the void was not as large, this can be healed and should not continue as an obstacle

---

I mean ya that would be nice but will the Pope give up his current authority? I highly doubt it.

Patriot101 said:

---

Larry Lajitas said:

---

Patriot101 said:

---

I believe the creeds are what should qualify us as objectively part of the mystical body of Christ.

Subjectively speaking, that is a different story of being justified by faith alone, but a faith that is not alone.

---

Well the original creed was developed by the Orthodox Church. Constantinople was and is still functioning lol. I mean can you guys really not see that? And if you really believe in the original Nicene Creed (not a Protestant revision) then what do you make of "And I believe in One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church"?

---

The word catholic basically means universal. And yes, I believe in Apostolic authority.
You take it to mean the councils and the West is kind of a mix between counsels and the papacy.

---

I see more individualism in Protestant churches which has bred a different kind of faith. I think it's just a natural side effect of sola scriptura and removing authority from a church hierarchy to the individual. Rome is papacy. None of this is easy...I do believe there's a purpose to our Protestant churches. I just don't know what it's going to look like with advancing secularism.

AgLiving06 said:

---

I appreciate that this is your opinion on the subject as you've said several times.

My response will continue to be, that in my read of the Scriptures, as well as the church fathers, I don't come to the same conclusion as you.

---

What is your conclusion?

FalconAg06 said:

---

Redstone said:

---

The differences between Catholic and Orthodox are real and important. This includes theology, and I recommend getting David Bentley Hart's (amazing) New Testament translation for details on that.

However, especially in the context of the Council of Florence, it is reasonable to use the umbrella term Apostolic Church.

For such a discussion as this, and given the Sacramental understanding of life and worship, the differences are minimal.

---

Thats the point I'm getting at. The differences between the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic Churches are real and important, yet we share Communion.

I do not view these differences as theological, but philosophically different which has caused divergent praxis although originally the void was not as large, this can be healed and should not continue as an obstacle

---

Eastern Orthodox churches are not in communion with the Roman Catholic Church. Rome stands alone compared to the other ancient churches.

Redstone said:

---

The differences between Catholic and Orthodox are real and important. This includes theology, and I recommend getting David Bentley Hart's (amazing) New Testament translation for details on that.

However, especially in the context of the Council of Florence, it is reasonable to use the umbrella term Apostolic Church.

For such a discussion as this, and given the Sacramental understanding of life and worship, the differences are minimal.

---

Well the east views Saint Mark of
Ephesus's reaction of not signing the treaty as proof of the continuing tradition of the Apostolic Church within Orthodoxy. As far as I know that is the view of the Orthodox Church.