If I have a chip on my shoulder, I apologize. But perhaps it takes two to tango? It is offensive for someone to imply that I'm not a Christian. You've since conceded that I am one, but your statement that my faith is a completely different religion conveyed that, in your view, I am not. I should not have a chip on my shoulder, but you might consider more carefully the words and phrases that you chose to use. In addition, you may be mistaking my earnestness and forthrightness for what you deem a "chip".

But on to the meat of our discussion. You just changed the issue from whether the Scriptures are self-authenticating to whether the identification of the canon is. Those are similar but not necessarily identical. I haven't given any thought to the difference so cannot expound on that point. They may be identical; I'm just not sure.

Before I get into why the Scriptures are clearly self-authenticating, I note that you have wholly failed to explain how and why the EO (or the RCC) is self-authenticating. Why should anyone take the EO's authority on anything, including what is or isn't the Word of God? To what authority do you appeal when you try to argue for the authority of the Church? So far, you've tended to appeal to Scripture. So how can Scripture be the authentication or authority for the EO, if the EO is the authority or authentication for Scripture? The EO (or the RCC) cannot be the ultimate authority if you are compelled to appeal to Scripture for its authority.

The Scriptures are self-authenticating since they are the Word of God, just as Christ himself was self-authenticating. In John 8:13, the Pharisees challenged Jesus for not being authenticated: "You are testifying about Yourself; Your testimony is not true." As we all know, Jesus's response was: ""Even if I am testifying about Myself, My testimony is true, because I know where I came from and where I am going . . . ." Just like Jesus, His word requires no external authentication. His Word is the Word of God itself which, by definition, is the ultimate authentication. How can one appeal to something of lower authority to authenticate something of ultimate authority?

The early Fathers, who you seem to find authoritative, agreed and said so explicitly . As Michael Kruger, a prominent evangelical scholar, has summarized:

Quote:

---

But, it is interesting to note that the early church fathers, while agreeing that apostolicity and church-reception are fundamentally important, also appealed to another factor that is often overlooked in modern studies. They appealed to the internal qualities of these books.

In other words, they argued that these books bore certain attributes that distinguished them as being from God. They argued that they could hear the voice of their Lord in these particular books. In modern theological language, they believed that canonical books are self-authenticating. As Jesus said in John 10:27: "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me."

Origen is quite clear that the divine qualities of books play a role in their authentication: "If anyone ponders over the prophetic sayings…it is certain that in the very act of reading and diligently studying them his mind and feelings will be touched by a divine breath and he will recognize the words he is reading are not utterances of man but the language of God."[url=https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating/#_ftn1][/url][1]

Elsewhere Origen says similar things. He defends the canonicity of the book of Jude because "it is filled with the healthful words of heavenly grace"[url=https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating/#_ftn2][/url][2] and defends the canonical gospels because of their "truly venerable and divine contents."[url=https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating/#_ftn3][/url][3] He even defends the canonicity of the book of Hebrews on the ground that "the ideas of the epistle are magnificent."[url=https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating/#_ftn4][/url][4]

Tatian is very clear about the role of the internal qualities of these books: "I was led to put faith in these [Scriptures] by the unpretending cast of the language, the inartificial character of the writers, the foreknowledge displayed of future events, the excellent quality of the precepts."[url=https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating/#_ftn5][/url][5]

Jerome defended the epistle of Philemon on the grounds that it is "a document which has in it so much of the beauty of the Gospel" which is the "mark of its inspiration."[url=https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating/#_ftn6][/url][6] Chrysostom declares that in the gospel of John there is "nothing counterfeit" because the gospel is "uttering a voice which is sweeter and more profitable than that of any harp or any music…something great and sublime."[url=https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating/#_ftn7][/url][7]

Right before citing Matt 4:17[url=libronixdls:keylink|ref=[en]bible:Matt4.17|res=LLS:ESV][/url] and Phil 4:5[url=libronixdls:keylink|ref=[en]bible:Phil4.5|res=LLS:ESV][/url], Clement of Alexandria says that you can distinguish the words of men from the words of Scripture because "No one will be so impressed by the exhortations of any of the saints, as he is by the words of the Lord Himself."[url=https://www.michaeljkruger.com/ten-basic-facts-about-the-nt-that-every-christian-should-memorize-early-christians-believed-that-canonical-books-were-self-authenticating/#_ftn8][/url][8]

These examples (and more could be added) are sufficient to show that the early church fathers believed that evidence for the canonicity of books can be found in the books themselves. In other words, canonical books are self-authenticating.

---

Let me ask you this. If you disagree with the foregoing, on what factors did the early Church councils decide canonicity? You have said in prior posts that it was use, the near-universal use of the books of the Canon by all of the early churches. On what did those early churches rely? They had to rely on something. They didn't suddenly magically conclude that these books, and only these books, are worthy of authority and Canonicity.

The witness of the Holy Spirit, as demonstrated in the corporate reception of the Scriptures, is further attestation of their authenticity. As you have noted, the Church from the earliest times throughout history has been united on the authority and canonicity of the Scriptures (aside from possibly the so-called Apocryphal books).

There's a lot more I could say on this topic, but that's enough for now.

I've never implied you weren't a Christian. You assumed. Forgive me.

Zobel said:

---

I've never implied you weren't a Christian. You assumed. Forgive me.

---

I will readily forgive you, but saying that I'm a member of a completely different religion was dramatic. And your rejection of my post that we should all be able to fellowship together sure didn't sound like one Christian welcoming another.

If that's not what you meant, you might reflect a moment and re-read your words before you hit "Post". And I need to do the same - I absolutely am living in a glass house.

It's dramatic intentionally, but I don't think it is hyperbolic. Orthodoxy and modern American Evangelicalism are different religions. I don't recall saying we can't fellowship together. We can't worship together. What you do in worship isn't the same as what we do.

That's kind of why I posted earlier that this should be a more focused discussion. There are so many differences it will spiral (more than it already has). I dont get upset if people don't agree with me about Orthodoxy. That's their right. But sometimes people get upset that I consider them outside the faith. They're heterodox. They believe different things. Sometimes so much that we can't even communicate about them without agreeing on terms first.

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

I believe that today, Paul would likely add that there is neither RCC, Orthodox, nor protestant to this list.

---

Completely disagree. St. Paul was very clear about who was in the church, about what we are to do with those who do not keep the commandments or teach a different gospel or who are disobedient to the traditions and way of life he passed on, in multiple places.

I sincerely think minimizing real differences in favor of general commonalities can result in confessing that no church has the fullness of truth. This is a very bad teaching.

---

I wasn't attempting to minimize real difference in favor of commonalities. I quoted scripture of Paul's teaching to the Galatians.
And in terms of Church membership, I am a member of THE Church - the one Christ established and Paul mentions in the passage I quoted. That's my greater point. To one you made earlier, there never should have been a schism at all among believers in Christ.

Among us Christians on this board, who is not obeying the commandments, or is teaching a different gospel? And, to what traditions or way of life passed on by Christ are we disobedient?

You stated earlier that the Orthodox is the one true church, but that's precisely what the RCC claims. Are both true? Is it your opinion then, that all Christian's out side of Orthodox or RCC or both, are just people whom Christ may save because of their belief in Him and the gospel, but are not part of His church? These are real questions and I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you in anyway.

Jabin said:

---

Many posters on here seem to make the RCC itself something to worship and to bow down to. For example, the idea that any organization of men can be infallible is a non-starter for me.

---

It is interesting that you say this. Years ago I had a discussion with my then future MIL, a life long Catholic (RCC). It revolved around sin. Eventually the discussion lead to me asking her, "Against whom are we sinning, God or the Catholic Church? Her answer was, "the Catholic Church". I left the conversation confounded thinking I was able to find some common ground as it relates to God and sin with a fellow Christian believer. It had never before occurred to me that some "Christians" may actually have more reverence for the Church, than they do for God. I have, over the years, found this to be more and more supported. Examples include such people having zero respect for the scriptures, particularly the Old Testament, and whom will turn to the CCC and literally laugh at someone for reading the Bible. I do believe that for some (not talking about anyone on this forum), worship of the Church is much more accurately what is happening. I think this is a form of idolatry.

When I say the scriptures don't self authenticate I mean there is no way to derive authority from them, to find whether or not they are true only from themselves. I wasn't saying they aren't internally consistent, or true, or reliable.

The first question that has to be considered is what books are scripture so that we can inquire of their truth. When you say "the scriptures are the word of God" you need to first say what is and isn't scripture. Is the book of Mormon scripture? The Gospel of Thomas? The Book of Jubilees? I Maccabees? The Revelation of John? The epistle to the Hebrews? How do you know?

The Word of God is a person, not a book. He became flesh, not words. He gave words, but the scriptures are not dictated word for word by the Word, or the Spirit. And there are books which purport to be "His word" which are not considered reliable or canonical. So we still have the same issue. Absent the Lord telling us which books are which, you don't know what is and isn't a reliable witness to Him, or what He said, did, or taught.

Frankly I disagree with the form of the argument here being presented by Kruger. He's saying that when you approach these books there are some qualities which are discernable that make them reliable in and of themselves. But books don't do anything. They're just buckets of information. This is not an appeal to the book, but the referent by which you compare. That referent is either other scriptures, the teaching of the Apostles, or the author's own idea about truth or beauty. It also is dependent on the reader's ability to accurately discern the relationship between the text and the referent. For example St Jerome is judging Philemon not by itself but by the Gospel, which itself is a very broad appeal to the entire faith. If St Jerome was a heretic using the same argument about a spurious gnostic text, we'd reject it out of hand (rightly). It's a circular argument, because all you're doing is placing the idea of canonicity from a communal level (i.e., the Church determines what is and isn't reliable) to an individual (i.e., this book seems divine or beautiful to me). It's unfalsifiable, and based in the end on personal judgment. It's a quintessentially protestant argument, and I don't think any of the fathers he cited would agree with it.

Quote:

---

Let me ask you this. If you disagree with the foregoing, on what factors did the early Church councils decide canonicity? You have said in prior posts that it was use, the near-universal use of the books of the Canon by all of the early churches. On what did those early churches rely? They had to rely on something. They didn't suddenly magically conclude that these books, and only these books, are worthy of authority and Canonicity.

---

The whole idea of canonicity is a late development. It isn't scriptural for one, and the definition of "canonical" is a moving target in history. So first we need to know what you mean by canon. What I mean is that the book is a reliable witness to apostolic teaching.

The first churches received the Gospel from the apostles directly. This was entrusted to teachers who continued to proclaim the gospel, the faith passed down once for all to the saints, which was not only specific claims about God, Christ Jesus, life, death, and sin, but also a way of life to orient the person toward righteousness - what St Paul refers to as a "walk." In the beginning of the Church the scriptures that were used were that of the Old Testament. These books are what are called scriptures - literally "things written down" - by the authors of the NT. They are true and reliable because they speak of Christ, and the apostles received them as such. St Paul also draws on oral tradition in several places in his writings, and doesn't make a distinction about "well this is oral so it's less reliable." (e.g., the rock followed them in the wilderness was Christ in 1 Cor 10:4).

These churches encountered writings over time. They judged these as they encountered them by if they aligned with what they had received in person, just as St Paul instructs them. The scriptures we adopted over time, in a very organic way. What became "canon" was what was read aloud in Church. This is why the vast, vast majority of our scriptural manuscripts come from lectionaries. That was the historical form of the scriptures. As an aside, that's why we have "the long ending of Mark" or the pericope of the woman caught in adultery. Neither of these "belong" to the books they ended up in - both wound up there because of the lectionary tradition.

This is the historical formula - things read in church. Other categories included things where were beneficial but not to be read in Church, and things which should not be read. It wasn't homogenous for a while. "Accepted" books were those who were read by all Christian churches. "Disputed" books were those read by some churches (like Revelation, or Hebrews). "Rejected" books were read by other groups that were not Christian. So the lines of orthodoxy and heterodoxy initially informed the canon, not the other way around.

Quote:

---

The witness of the Holy Spirit, as demonstrated in the corporate reception of the Scriptures, is further attestation of their authenticity. As you have noted, the Church from the earliest times throughout history has been united on the authority and canonicity of the Scriptures (aside from possibly the so-called Apocryphal books).

---

The Holy Spirit guides and leads the Church and absolutely played a role in the scriptures, but not in a unique way. The Spirit played a role in the church councils, in the daily life of the church, in hymnography, in writings, in icons, in homilies. Protestants tend to emphasize the Spirit's role in the scriptures and ignore the Spirit's role in literally everything else about the faith.

The truth is, though, the scriptures were not near-universal for centuries. Revelation, for example, is not read in Orthodox churches to this day (except I think on Patmos, for St John). It isn't in our lectionary. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Hebrews were all disputed. The presence of disputed books is proof positive against the claim of a universal or united stance about canonicity and a homogenous canon. A lot of what you're claiming is based on the very, very anachronistic way people interact with the scriptures today - bound up in a single volume, with an index, and a cover that says "Holy Bible". How dare you question what's in it, right? It says so right there what it is. But the vast majority of Christians never had this experience at all.

What was homogenous was the teaching of the apostles deposited to the church, as St Irenaeus says, like a valuable thing deposited into a bank. That's why we see such an amazing commonality of teaching across the known world in such a short amount of time - because the teaching was public, entrusted to many witnesses. Hence the formula from St Vincent of Lerins, what we can hold to is what is held "everywhere, always, by all."

St Paul was speaking to the unity of the people of God across cultural and ethnic lines. The unity is of being one people, and the way we became one people was the very same way different people from different tribes and nations (a mixed multitude) became one people to form Israel - through a covenant, ratified by baptism (circumcision) and the Eucharist (Passover). People who did not keep the Torah were cut off from the people of God. People who were not sacrificed did not eat the Passover and were not part of the people of God. He was not speaking to them of the unity of the people of God across religious lines. We should be very careful not to read that into what he's saying.

Quote:

---

Among us Christians on this board, who is not obeying the commandments, or is teaching a different gospel? And, to what traditions or way of life passed on by Christ are we disobedient?

---

Listing errors of other faiths isn't irenic or generally productive. But in general I think the religion of the Apostles is very different than the religion of modern evangelicals. They don't have the same form or mode of worship; they believe radically different things about baptism and the Eucharist; they have a different structure of the Church (ecclesiology); they have different praxis - different prayers, little or no fasting; they believe different things about salvation (soteriology); and in some cases confess different theology proper, that is, beliefs about God. Even the way Evangelicals speak of the Gospel is different than the meaning that the Orthodox ascribe to it.

I'm not saying this to say oh well if you don't do x y or z you aren't saved or you're a terrible person or whatever. Or the flip side - if you do x y or z you are saved and you're a better person than anyone outside the Church. Not at all. But these differences are real, and they have historical roots, and there is a huge benefit in examining and identifying why they exist at all....because they should not. And our separation from each other is a wound that we should all strive to heal.

Quote:

---

You stated earlier that the Orthodox is the one true church, but that's precisely what the RCC claims. Are both true? Is it your opinion then, that all Christian's out side of Orthodox or RCC or both, are just people whom Christ may save because of their belief in Him and the gospel, but are not part of His church? These are real questions and I'm not trying to be disrespectful to you in anyway.

---

I understand the spirit of the question, no worries. So no - two contradictory claims can't be true. I believe that over time East and West drifted apart, and are no longer the same church. The chief and perhaps only issue dividing us from the RCC is the confession of the filioque as a theological divide. The "parent" issue to that, which has probably surpassed the theological gap to an ecclesial and practical one is papal infallibility. Rome has explicitly excommunicated us over that claim over and above the earlier schism.

The Lord gave us great promises. I can only speak to where these promises are. The Church is a guarantee of grace, the place where the mysteries are found, the Ark which helps us in salvation, it is the Body of Christ by which Christ Himself works in the world. We know for sure how to be a part of the Church based on the scriptures. I know the Spirit is in the Church, and that it has the fullness of truth. I can tell you where the Spirit is - I can't tell you where He isnt. I've met people I believe to be saints who were formally outside the Church.

At the end of the day I don't think the question really matters. The bottom line is we shouldn't be separate. We should work to build up the body of Christ until we grow to the unity of the faith and the knowledge of God to the fullness of the stature of Christ. That's where the focus always should be.

Gosh, where to begin? I'll try to give it a shot.

Quote:

---

When I say the scriptures don't self authenticate I mean there is no way to derive authority from them, to find whether or not they are true only from themselves.

---

And I'm saying that they are. Just as Christ was self-authenticating and God is self-authenticating, their Word as written by the Biblical authors is also.

Quote:

---

the scriptures are not dictated word for word by the Word, or the Spirit.

---

I probably agree with you, but we just don't know how inspiration worked. Although I doubt it, the Spirit may have dictated the Scriptures word by word. But no matter how inspiration worked, the result is God's word, or do you disagree with that?

Quote:

---

Frankly I disagree with the form of the argument here being presented by Kruger. He's saying that when you approach these books there are some qualities which are discernable that make them reliable in and of themselves.

---

Then you disagree with the early church fathers he quotes to make that point? They were making exactly the same argument.

Quote:

---

But books don't do anything. They're just buckets of information.

---

That's completely wrong, and I hope that you'll agree that it's a misstatement when you think about it. The Bible is much, much more than a Boy Scout manual or an engineering manual. It is the Spirit speaking to us directly. Many of the Church fathers, as well as Christians throughout history, have written about that fact. How God can speak to us as we read the Scriptures. There is a mystical component of the Scriptures that is much more than a mere "bucket of information".

Quote:

---

[Your summary of the process by which the books of the Bible, or whatever you want to call it, were accepted by the Churches.]

---

Methinks you do not know your early Church history well enough, and may be taking the teachings of the EO as accurate without investigation for yourself. The acceptance of the books of the Bible was not all that controversial, which is one major evidence to their self-authenticity. However, there was some debate, which led to the correspondence by the early Church fathers as to which books were acceptable, or canonical, or whatever you want to call it. If there was no debate, then why did they write so much about it?

Quote:

---

What became "canon" was what was read aloud in Church.

---

You've said that in multiple posts. Do you have any historical evidence to support that? From my readings, it was much more than that. Again, the Church fathers wrote extensively about the topic making the issue seem much more than an unintentional coincidence of books that merely happened to be read in various churches. And we know that some churches were reading books that everyone now excludes. So your test doesn't seem to match up to the reality of the history of the Church.

And the Church councils did establish a Canon - not to create it from whole cloth, but primarily to exclude the heretical writings that were emerging and were being pushed as authoritative by some. The term "Canon" is just a term used to describe the books of the Bible that are accepted by the church as inspired and authoritative. Just because the EO disagrees with a few books which should be included does not destroy the entire concept of a Canon.

Quote:

---

Protestants tend to emphasize the Spirit's role in the scriptures and ignore the Spirit's role in literally everything else about the faith.

---

Sometimes true, but very often not true. Pentecostals for example. You should have met my mom - she relied on the Spirit for just about every facet of her faith as do many, many other Protestants. It seems that you have a tendency to generalize based on your apparent limited experience in only one Southern Baptist Church.

Quote:

---

The truth is, though, the scriptures were not near-universal for centuries. Revelation, for example, is not read in Orthodox churches to this day (except I think on Patmos, for St John). It isn't in our lectionary. James, Jude, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, and Hebrews were all disputed. The presence of disputed books is proof positive against the claim of a universal or united stance about canonicity and a homogenous canon.

---

You point to some exceptions to try to disprove the general rule. The early church did accept Revelation, but with reservations because they weren't sure that its author was John. Once that was established to most people's satisfaction, any reservations disappeared. I have no idea why the EO still persists in rejecting it - perhaps that is a failure of the EO in contrast to the rest of Christendom? And it's my understanding that the dispute as to the other books wasn't that strong, but I'll have to admit that I do not know much about the nature or specifics of the dispute. But just because everyone didn't agree doesn't make the general point invalid. We see lots of disagreement about other things we know to be truth.

Finally, you haven't made clear at all by what authority you think that the Scriptures are authenticated if they are not self-authenticated. Are you saying that it was sort of an existential historical accident - that what we have as the scriptures are simply an accident of history? I'll ask you the same question you posed, by what standard do you reject the Book of Morman or the writings of Mohammed as divine?

You also have ignored my questions about how the EO's own authority is authenticated.

I hate the fact that filioque is what lead to the division that tore apart the Church. I know that we caused that, I know why and it was to bring souls to salvation, but I know it caused great harm. I also believe that it brought out the fact that the west no longer spoke Greek and the Greeks read into the Latin what's not there. Basically we stopped speaking the same language,or to each other. The verb to proceed as I understand it implies origin in Greek, where that implication isn't present in Latin. I can understand how the filioque has a different meaning to Greek ears.

Not that I would have any authority, but speaking for myself if it legitimately got y'all back to the table, it should be removed.

Quote:

---

And I'm saying that they are. Just as Christ was self-authenticating and God is self-authenticating, their Word as written by the Biblical authors is also.

---

This is kind of an unknowable thing. At what point does it become God's word? We know of other letters St Paul wrote. Were those the word of God? 2 Corinthians is comprised of at least two letters smooshed together. Which is God's word? Both? When did they become God's word? When St Paul dictated to his amanuensis (pop quiz, who wrote Romans? Tertius) or when it arrived in the final form we have it today? Was the original letter or letters to Corinth the word of God though they were in a dramatically different form than we have them today?

Even if you arrive some cobbled together rules about what is God's word and when... how do you recognize it? And who recognizes it? There are texts which claim to be inspired that we reject. On what basis do we reject them? You haven't read those and made that decision yourself, so you are on the receiving end of that textual tradition. How do you know the Bible is right?

Quote:

---

Then you disagree with the early church fathers he quotes to make that point? They were making exactly the same argument.

---

I don't have any issue disagreeing with church fathers. They're holy fathers, not Holy Spirits. But I don't disagree with what they wrote. I'm saying that doesn't support his premise, and I don't think you can take those sentences and from there say, for example, that St Jerome thinks the scriptures are self-ratifying or authenticating. That's a huge stretch to take a single sentence of his writing and say that because he saw the Gospel (a very general claim) in Philemon, that scripture is self ratifying. That is abuse of those quotes.

Quote:

---

That's completely wrong, and I hope that you'll agree that it's a misstatement when you think about it. The Bible is much, much more than a Boy Scout manual or an engineering manual. It is the Spirit speaking to us directly. Many of the Church fathers, as well as Christians throughout history, have written about that fact. How God can speak to us as we read the Scriptures. There is a mystical component of the Scriptures that is much more than a mere "bucket of information".

---

You're making an appeal to the contents and the Spirit. I am not denigrating the inspiration of the scriptures. But you can't appeal to the contents without first validating that the contents are true, correct, valid. Some writings claim to be divinely inspired witnesses to Christ and are not. How do you know?

Quote:

---

The acceptance of the books of the Bible was not all that controversial, which is one major evidence to their self-authenticity. However, there was some debate, which led to the correspondence by the early Church fathers as to which books were acceptable, or canonical, or whatever you want to call it. If there was no debate, then why did they write so much about it?

---

I didn't appeal to controversy, and controversy or lack thereof isn't a necessary part of the process I described. Christian groups encountered writings and either began using them or didn't based on whether they comported with the extant belief and practice of their group.

They didn't really write that much about it. We have some 20 or 25 canonical lists between letters, councils, and random scraps or fragments of documents spanning some 500+ years. But it seems like you argued in a circle. If the scriptures are self-ratifying, why would there be any debate at all? What grounds would you debate on?

Quote:

---

You've said that in multiple posts. Do you have any historical evidence to support that? From my readings, it was much more than that. Again, the Church fathers wrote extensively about the topic....

---

Of course.

Muratorian canon (170 AD)
Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the [episcopal] chair of the church of the city of Rome. And therefore it ought indeed to be read; but it cannot be read publicly to the people in church either among the Prophets, whose number is complete, or among the Apostles, for it is after [their] time.

St Cyril of Alexandria
Study earnestly these only which we read openly in the Church. Far wiser and more pious than thyself were the Apostles, and the bishops of old time, the presidents of the Church who handed down these books. Being therefore a child of the Church, trench thou not upon its statutes...And whatever books are not read in Churches, these read not even by thyself, as thou hast heard me say.

Council of Laodicea
Let no private psalms nor any uncanonical books be read in church, but only the canonical ones of the New and Old Testament.

Council of Carthage 393
It was also determined that besides the Canonical Scriptures nothing be read in the Church under the title of divine Scriptures. The Canonical Scriptures are these...we have received from our fathers that those books must be read in the Church.

Council of Carthage 419 (after a list of books)
Let this be sent to our brother and fellow-bishop, Boniface [of Rome], and to the other bishops of those parts, that they may confirm this canon, for these are the things that we have received from our fathers to be read in church.

Eusebius in Church History (AD 324) speaking about Hermas. He makes a similar comment about 1 Clement.
But as the same apostle, in the salutations at the end of the Epistle to the Romans, has made mention among others of Hermas, to whom the book called The Shepherd is ascribed, it should be observed that this too has been disputed by some, and on their account cannot be placed among the acknowledged books; while by others it is considered quite indispensable, especially to those who need instruction in the elements of the faith. Hence, as we know, it has been publicly read in churches, and I have found that some of the most ancient writers used it.

I don't think Church fathers "wrote extensively" on the topic because the canon wasn't generally controversial aside from the disputed books (i.e., books read in some churches and not others). More can be learned from what they quote as scripture, which is very interesting. You should read what they said though, because you'll find that when they talk about the scriptures they describe what I'm telling you.

St Athanasius in his famous list of 367 says the canon was "handed down and confirmed as divine" by the fathers, and other books not in the cannon were appointed as reading outside of the church.

St Irenaeus in Adv. Har. writes "We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith...the Apostles, like a rich man in a bank, deposited with her most copiously everything which pertains to the Truth, and everyone whosoever wishes draws from her the drink of life. For she is the entrance to life, while all the rest are thieves and robbers. That is why it is surely necessary to avoid [the heretics], while cherishing with the utmost diligence the things pertaining to the Church, and to lay hold of the Traditions of Truth....If there should be a dispute over some kind of question, ought we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches in which the Apostles were familiar, and draw from them what is clear and certain in regard to that question? What if the Apostles had not in fact left writings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of Tradition, which was handed down to those whom they entrusted the Churches?"

St Basil says "Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us 'in a mystery' by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay; -- no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more."

St John Chrysostom writes " 'Therefore brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you have been taught, whether by word or by our letter' From this it is clear that they did not hand down everything by letter, but there was much also that was not written. Like that which was written, the unwritten too is worthy of belief. Let us regard the Tradition of the Church also as worthy of belief. Is it Tradition? Seek no further."

Quote:

---

...making the issue seem much more than an unintentional coincidence of books that merely happened to be read in various churches. And we know that some churches were reading books that everyone now excludes. So your test doesn't seem to match up to the reality of the history of the Church

---

You seem to be badly misinterpreting what I'm saying though. This is organic process was not a coincidence, it wasn't random or unintentional. It was absolutely intentional. There were books other groups used who were not Christians, and it is precisely by the use of these texts that they could be distinguished as such. It is no different whatever than the Mormons being distinguished by their use of the book of Mormon, and you by your rejection of it. This isn't happenstance. You have doctrinal reasons to reject the book. So did early Christians with texts that did not match with their tradition.

What churches were reading books that "everyone" now excludes? Can you be specific?

Quote:

---

And the Church councils did establish a Canon - not to create it from whole cloth, but primarily to exclude the heretical writings that were emerging and were being pushed as authoritative by some. The term "Canon" is just a term used to describe the books of the Bible that are accepted by the church as inspired and authoritative. Just because the EO disagrees with a few books which should be included does not destroy the entire concept of a Canon.

---

Note that isn't what canon means. It means cane, which in this case means a measuring rod, or a standard. There were canons for many things. The canon of scripture means the standard scripture. The RCC didn't issue formally close the canon until the council of Trent. There were canonical lists developed by various people, and various local councils. In one kind of quirk of history the Quinisext council in 692 affirmed the canonical lists of the Apostolic Canons, the Synod of Laodicea, the Synod of Carthage, and St Athanasius' list...but these lists themselves don't match!

Quote:

---

You point to some exceptions to try to disprove the general rule. The early church did accept Revelation, but with reservations because they weren't sure that its author was John. Once that was established to most people's satisfaction, any reservations disappeared. I have no idea why the EO still persists in rejecting it - perhaps that is a failure of the EO in contrast to the rest of Christendom? And it's my understanding that the dispute as to the other books wasn't that strong, but I'll have to admit that I do not know much about the nature or specifics of the dispute. But just because everyone didn't agree doesn't make the general point invalid. We see lots of disagreement about other things we know to be truth.

---

I'll leave you to your own authority Michael Kruger to improve your understanding. He says "Few today would contest the claim that the book of Revelation stands as one of the most controversial, complicated, and esoteric books in the New Testament canon. Perhaps it should come as no surprise, then, that its reception by the early church was equally complicated and controversial."

The EO does not reject it. But it is not part of our tradition to read it. It has never been part of our lectionary tradition to read it in Church, and we hold fast to what we received from the fathers to be read in Church. You're bringing anachronistic ideas about canonicity and scripture to bear which simply don't work. My church predates these concepts, so when you're met with a square hole your round peg doesn't fit. Many church fathers quote from Revelation but do not cite it as canonical. Calling this a "failure" would be insulting if it wasn't funny.

Quote:

---

Finally, you haven't made clear at all by what authority you think that the Scriptures are authenticated if they are not self-authenticated. Are you saying that it was sort of an existential historical accident - that what we have as the scriptures are simply an accident of history? I'll ask you the same question you posed, by what standard do you reject the Book of Morman or the writings of Mohammed as divine?

You also have ignored my questions about how the EO's own authority is authenticated.

---

sorry, missed this.

The scriptures are part of the tradition of the Church. They were written by those within the Church to those in the Church for use in the Church. We know that some things that were written by the same people did not end up in the canon (St Paul's letter to the Laodicaeans, or his 2nd letter to Corinth).

That this happened by an observable historical process doesn't deny the agency of the Spirit. I believe all Christians had and have the scriptures they needed for their salvation....even when there was no New Testament at all, because it hadn't been written yet, or when that same NT was in various stages of development over the centuries. Churches which had partial NT canons lacked for nothing. Churches which had full canons but a different understanding of canonicity were not diminished. We are not saved by the scriptures but by Christ. Earlier in this conversation I noted that Orthodoxy is more fundamentally christocentric faith. Here is one example. Absent the New Testament scriptures as we know them we have a saving faith and a church rooted in Christ and His victory over all enemies - an experience many, many Christians lived through.

I reject the book of Mormon and the Quran because they do not comport with the Apostolic faith passed down once for all to the saints. This is the same reason I reject gnostic books or other spurious writings.

The authority of the Orthodox Church is rooted in the adherence to the faith, continuously and unbroken since the time of the Apostles. Nothing more, nothing less. I abridged St Basil's quote earlier - here is some more of it:

Quote:

---

For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is thence who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of tim invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.

Moreover we bless the water of baptism and the oil of the chrism, and besides this the catechumen who is being baptized. On what written authority do we do this? Is not our authority silent and mystical tradition? Nay, by what written word is the anointing of oil itself taught? And whence comes the custom of baptizing thrice? And as to the other customs of baptism from what Scripture do we derive the renunciation of Satan and his angels? Does not this come from that unpublished and secret teaching which oar fathers guarded in a silence out of the reach of curious meddling and inquisitive investigation? Well had they learnt the lesson that the awful dignity of the mysteries is best preserved by silence. What the uninitiated are not even allowed: to look at was hardly likely to be publicly paraded about in written documents. What was the meaning of the mighty Moses in not making all the parts of the tabernacle open to every one? The profane he stationed without the sacred barriers; the first courts he conceded to the purer; the Levites alone he judged worthy of being servants of the Deity; sacrifices and burnt offerings and the rest of the priestly functions he allotted to the priests; one chosen out of all he admitted to the shrine, and even this one not always but on only one day in the year, and of this one day a time was fixed for his entry so that he might gaze on the Holy of Holies amazed at the strangeness and novelty of the sight. Moses was wise enough to know that contempt stretches to the trite and to the obvious, while a keen interest is naturally associated with the unusual and the unfamiliar. In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all. This is the reason for our tradition of unwritten precepts and practices, that the knowledge of our dogmas may not become neglected and contemned by the multitude through familiarity. "Dogma" and "Kerugma" are two distinct things; the former is observed in silence; the latter is proclaimed to all the world. One form of this silence is the obscurity employed in Scripture, which makes the meaning of "dogmas" difficult to be understood for the very advantage of the reader: Thus we all look to the East at our prayers, but few of us know that we are seeking our own old country, Paradise, which God planted in Eden in the East. We pray standing, on the first day of the week, but we do not all know the reason. On the day of the resurrection (or "standing again" Grk. anastasis ) we remind ourselves of the grace given to us by standing at prayer, not only because we rose with Christ, and are bound to "seek those things which are above," but because the day seems to us to be in some sense an image of the age which we expect, wherefore, though it is the beginning of days, it is not called by Moses first, but one. For he says "There was evening, and there was morning, one day," as though the same day often recurred. Now "one and "eighth" are the same, in itself distinctly indicating that really "one" and "eighth" of which the Psalmist makes mention in certain titles of the Psalms, the state which follows after this present time, the day which knows no waning or eventide, and no successor, that age which endeth not or groweth old. Of necessity, then, the church teaches her own foster children to offer their prayers on that day standing, to the end that through continual reminder of the endless life we may not neglect to make provision for our removal thither. Moreover all Pentecost is a reminder of the resurrection expected in the age to come. For that one and first day, if seven times multiplied by seven, completes the seven weeks of the holy Pentecost; for, beginning at the first, Pentecost ends with the same, making fifty revolutions through the like intervening days. And so it is a likeness of eternity, beginning as it does and ending, as in a circling course, at the same point. On this day the rules of the church have educated us to prefer the upright attitude of prayer, for by their plain reminder they, as It were, make our mind to dwell no longer in the present but in the future. Moreover every time we fall upon our knees and rise from off them we shew by the very deed that by our sin we fell down to earth, and by the loving kindness of our Creator were called hack to heaven.

Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptized, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on "the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;--which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;--a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery?

---

I quote this to ask.

Do you make the sign of the cross?
Do you turn to the east in prayer?
Do you use the same words he did at the invocation?
Do you bless the waters of baptism and the oil of chrism?
Do you anoint with oil?
Do you baptize three times?
Do you renounce Satan and his angels at baptism?
Do you stand at prayers on Sundays?
Do you celebrate Pentecost, and do you do the kneeling prayers he mentions here?

You probably use the (extrascriptural) forumlation he here defends - that of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And you probably append the (extrascriptural) doxology onto the end of the Lord's prayer - "for thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory" etc. (this may be in your bible - it is not part of the original text).

But I can tell you yes to all of those questions. Word for word in many cases. We still use St Basil's liturgy ten times per year. Every Orthodox person does all of those things, because we practice an unbroken tradition we received from our fathers, the same way St Basil did, all the way back to the apostles.

These things he found to be self-evidently important. He used their existence as a clear proof in an argument, he takes for granted that they are practiced by the detractors he is arguing against. Do you wonder why things he says are part of the very vitals of the gospel are completely foreign to you to the point you may not even know what he's talking about?

jrico2727 said:

---

I hate the fact that filioque is what lead to the division that tore apart the Church. I know that we caused that, I know why and it was to bring souls to salvation, but I know it caused great harm. I also believe that it brought out the fact that the west no longer spoke Greek and the Greeks read into the Latin what's not there. Basically we stopped speaking the same language,or to each other. The verb to proceed as I understand it implies origin in Greek, where that implication isn't present in Latin. I can understand how the filioque has a different meaning to Greek ears.

Not that I would have any authority, but speaking for myself if it legitimately got y'all back to the table, it should be removed.

---

Long discussion here on the nitty gritty details of the language.
https://texags.com/forums/15/topics/2818901

If it were removed, I think union would be a real possibility. Lord have mercy!

Catag94 said:

---

PabloSerna said:

---

I don't think belief in Christ as you and I understand it - is required. Infant baptism has been part of the church for some time. Grace is the gift from God.

On another note, thank you for the work you do for the youth in your parish. I too have seen kids that go through the motions, but I have come to a different understanding, that constant exposure to God's love either through his servants or through the word of God - can have an effect in the end. Speaking for myself, it took some time to get serious about God. I am thankful for a strong religious example set by my mother and grandmother.

---

Thank you.

So, I have a question for you.
If you are Catholic then I presume your were baptized as an infant and went through confirmation as a teen most likely.
By your own admission, "it took some time for you to get serious about God".I'll presume this was later as an adult. That said, as you really connected with Christ and became seriously a follower by your own choosing, would you think confirmation and maybe even baptism should come more in line with your own true change of heart and serious devotion than what appears to happen in the Catholic Church?
After all, no one comes to to Christ unless the Father calls him. (John 6:44)
So, I sometimes wonder if the good intentions driven work of the RCC doesn't lead to a false sense of "salvation" in some because they have been through the process and checked all the boxes.
I just wonder what you think.

---

In a word - no.

Main reason being that "confirmation" is not really confirming anything. In the RCC, confirmation is the 3rd "gift" of the sacraments of initiation (Baptism, Eucharist, Confirmation).

So as a "gift" nothing is required on the person receiving this gift. Whereas the sacrament of marriage is performed by the groom and bride, witnessed by the church - for instance.

It was explained to me by a priest when I my daughter was telling me that she was not 100% ok with "confirming" in the RCC - who is ever ready 100%? We all have our doubts. She did go through with her confirmation class and was confirmed. She made some good friends during that time. Similarly my 17 yr. old son had the same reservations, but is understanding that this is 3-part gift. He will be confirmed in Easter.

Like many, I have my issues with the Church. That said, I remain obedient and am grateful to continue my faith formation with people here on this forum and with my brothers and sisters in St. Dominic. You should never stop growing - but I think you already know that. I would tell you to go receive communion, because you can't break God - but you can damage your soul if you receive the most holy sacrament in a state of sin or without the proper sacraments. I am hopeful that one day we will all be in heaven having a good laugh over all of this - I believe in a merciful God above all!

It's that these groups don't believe remotely the same thing. RCC and orthodox mostly agree. Protestants are basically as different from catholics as catholics are from jews and muslims. The closer sects like to pretend they aren't very different and casual believers as most are don't care much about it. Judaism and Islam are monotheistic and protestantism and catholicism are polytheistic though they will scream forever that they aren't. The trinity is a hilarious marketing scheme. There are infinite foundational differences between these faiths that make them all entirely incompatible with each other though they all share some of the same heritage. It's just all differing versions of heresy fighting with each other. It's all quite fascinating and silly once you are outside the bubble.

Glad I could help. Sometimes we all need an outside perspective.

From St. Basil:

"In the same manner the Apostles and Fathers who laid down laws for the Church from the beginning thus guarded the awful dignity of the mysteries in secrecy and silence, for what is bruited abroad random among the common folk is no mystery at all."

I'd be curious to know which mysteries were guarded by the Apostles and Fathers in "secrecy and silence"? (Seriously)

Less seriously: are we still hiding things from the "common folk"?

I think the difference he describes is public vs private in the sense of within and without the Church, not some secret teaching withheld from the laity.

Some of this is still present in our pre-communion prayers from St John Chrysostom for example when he says "I will not speak of thy mysteries to thine enemies" or the warning to dismiss everyone but the faithful and secure the doors before we recite the symbol of faith that remains in the liturgy.

He gives examples of unwritten practices - looking to the east, praying standing, the sign of the cross, etc. Nothing quite so sexy as you were hoping for I suppose.

ifeelold said:

---

It's that these groups don't believe remotely the same thing. RCC and orthodox mostly agree. Protestants are basically as different from catholics as catholics are from jews and muslims. The closer sects like to pretend they aren't very different and casual believers as most are don't care much about it. Judaism and Islam are monotheistic and protestantism and catholicism are polytheistic though they will scream forever that they aren't. The trinity is a hilarious marketing scheme. There are infinite foundational differences between these faiths that make them all entirely incompatible with each other though they all share some of the same heritage. It's just all differing versions of heresy fighting with each other. It's all quite fascinating and silly once you are outside the bubble.

---

Nice try…Fortunately, like arguing with loved ones, we can bicker til we're blue, but we all still believe/seek salvation thru Christ. Our differences aren't what unites us, and to the person, all Christians here keep the faith and hope for things not yet seen. Sometimes it is like the blind men arguing about the elephant

What information should convince me that the RCC or EO is the one true church and has the "fullness of the faith"? Where would I get that information?

I think this is kinda the wrong question. I mean on some level we're talking about faith....that there is the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church is part of our confession of faith. Which is a bit unfair, because it's more or less exactly the question I asked when I started. But I don't think you can get all the way there at purely an intellectual level.

But operating at the purely intellectual level, or historical, I think there are a couple of claims that can be investigated in an unbiased way. For example, there is ample historical evidence that the Orthodox church has an unbroken tradition of faith and practice. The writings of the fathers, the historical records of the liturgy, the ancient pedigree of our hymns, and in some cases how we use certain scriptures all point to very, very old roots. In some cases traditional memory outlives actual memory, if that follows.

You can read the fathers, but that's kind of like swallowing the ocean. I personally started with the Ante-Nicene fathers - I'd recommend Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Ignatius. They're very early witnesses to the faith, and I found them fascinating. Sprinkled throughout you'll find all kinds of things that look a lot like Orthodoxy and not a lot like modern Christianity.

The classic "intro" book is The Orthodox Church by Metropolitan Kallistos Ware which sort of touches on all aspects of the faith, historical, theological, etc. There's a really good book called The Religion of the Apostles that goes over some of the theological views and can put a whole new lens over the scriptures. I only read that this year, though, so it was well after.

But for me, it began intellectually and became spiritual very quickly. I encountered Christ in the Church, in people, in the experiences I had, in the teaching of the fathers. There is a book by the late Archbishop Chrysotomos called Themes In Orthodox Patristic Psychology: Humility, Obedience, Repentance, and Love. In this book I encountered Orthodoxy in a real way for the first time. And then attending divine services I experienced it, and it grew from there. We often have a post communion hymn from Psalm 34 - "Taste and see that the Lord is Good." This is the reality. If you have every complete assurance that Orthodoxy is it based on every test you can think of with archaeology, history, theology, tightness of philosophical argument...but you don't encounter Christ in the Church, in the people who are His Body... you are not in the right place. The internet is never going to do that for anyone. That's why I said it's the wrong question, because I can't give you information to convince you. That happens only by tasting and seeing.

At the 30 min mark of this Bible study the priest has a great little discussion about scripture and authority -really timely and a good listen. GQ he also touches on the "I'm going to decide if this is true" mindset at the 54 min mark.

https://open.spotify.com/episode/5nqZsTg4e7yglUuGETHsr2?si=5VSswWaRRq-ZV-jflPxl2Q&context=spotify%3Ashow%3A4VFbXDdfvimLr8LGh1inZt

Pet Sounds said:

---

I really think you have to acknowledge Christ founded a physical church that He gave special authority to in order to make unity a doable goal. Christ gave the Church the necessary "equipment" to settle disputes which only the Catholic Church has with the magisterium, the pope serving as the universal head. We affirm Christ established a Church that He founded on Peter (Matthew 16:18) giving him a unique primacy.

---

We just gonna avoid talking about anything before 1054 and ignore an orthodox claim to apostolic succession?

LOL, let alone accepting that Paul would have also thought much of the present doctrine of papal infallibility, etc. His disagreements with Peter seemed...quite real.

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, let alone accepting that Paul would have also thought much of the present doctrine of papal infallibility, etc. His disagreements with Peter seemed...quite real.

---

One of the interesting things that is often overlooked in our modem reading of Scripture is that we read Peter as just another everyday common name. We forget that every time you read "Peter" it also signifies his office and his role in the early church, the chief (first) of the Apostles and therefore the Church.

This is why Paul makes it a point the he had to confront or oppose Peter "to his face" because Peter was not abiding by his previous teachings with regard ti the Gentiles. The reason Paul had to confront Peter was precisely because of Peter's position in the Church as it's chief shepherd.

Papal Infallibility is not about the Pope (or Peter) being perfect and never being wrong. Papal Infallibility is a special protection of the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth and that the Pope will not bind the Church and Her faithful to any false or heretical teachings. It is the same special protection that the Holy Spirit offered to the Scriptural writers and the Church to those who collected and recognized what was and was not to be held as Holy Scripture.

Lastly, as a Catholic I have no issue or hesitation in recognizing the authenticity and Apostolic nature of the Orthodox faith. I see us as one in the same family and recognize our common heritage.

Catholics do not contest the eastern or oriental orthodox churches claims to apostolic succession nor the validity of their sacraments.

In regards to Paul rebuking Peter, that does not diminish his role...its precisely Peter's authority and influence in the Church that made it necessary for Paul to correct him in public. Paul's answer would never have been schism. Peter's conduct implied what he had already denied at the Jerusalem Council and authoritatively formulated as a doctrinal judgment in Acts 15:11.

Faithful Ag said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

LOL, let alone accepting that Paul would have also thought much of the present doctrine of papal infallibility, etc. His disagreements with Peter seemed...quite real.

---

One of the interesting things that is often overlooked in our modem reading of Scripture is that we read Peter as just another everyday common name. We forget that every time you read "Peter" it also signifies his office and his role in the early church, the chief (first) of the Apostles and therefore the Church.

This is why Paul makes it a point the he had to confront or oppose Peter "to his face" because Peter was not abiding by his previous teachings with regard ti the Gentiles. The reason Paul had to confront Peter was precisely because of Peter's position in the Church as it's chief shepherd.

Papal Infallibility is not about the Pope (or Peter) being perfect and never being wrong. Papal Infallibility is a special protection of the Holy Spirit guiding the church into all truth and that the Pope will not bind the Church and Her faithful to any false or heretical teachings. It is the same special protection that the Holy Spirit offered to the Scriptural writers and the Church to those who collected and recognized what was and was not to be held as Holy Scripture.

Lastly, as a Catholic I have no issue or hesitation in recognizing the authenticity and Apostolic nature of the Orthodox faith. I see us as one in the same family and recognize our common heritage.

---

Indeed. Hopefully one day we will all be one again.

Pet Sounds said:

---

Catholics do not contest the eastern or oriental orthodox churches claims to apostolic succession nor the validity of their sacraments.

In regards to Paul rebuking Peter, that does not diminish his role...its precisely Peter's authority and influence in the Church that made it necessary for Paul to correct him in public. Paul's answer would never have been schism. Peter's conduct implied what he had already denied at the Jerusalem Council and authoritatively formulated as a doctrinal judgment in Acts 15:11.

---

Is that really true? I sure have heard Roman Catholics who felt the only true communion could be provided in RCC churches/by their priests.

Not trying to get into a whole transubstantiation debate etc, just curious what is the case doctrinally/formally. I am casually of the opinion that the general Orthodox views are more in line with my own, and are quite different from the RCC perspectives.

Street actually runs the other way. RCC will say Orthodox have valid communion, but not the other way around.

Interesting, thx.

I should correct myself. Valid communion is a loaded statement and I didn't mean to imply what people will read.

I make no comment on the validity of what the RCC does, as if to say their Eucharist lacks grace. Above my paygrade.

What I should have said is we are not in communion with them and cannot commune with them. They don't see it that way and will say RCC people can commune in good conscience in Orthodox parishes. There may be different opinions on this in Orthodoxy and in the RCC, but I think this is a true general statement.