Topic: Dark age of Church?

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Supermarket of Dogmas?

Please don't Bible Thump here, its not like in the Church we don't read the Bible, in fact, each Sunday we have an hour of prayer entirely devoted to the Word called the Liturgy of the Word

Besides of which, I can thump back.

And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:19-21

Further the Apostle Peter concludes:

speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:16

Let alone the Apostolic tirade on self-asserting preachers and pastors, be they priests or Protestants alike in 2 Peter 2:1-15
 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Happy Lutheran]

I do not understand the above.

The epistles quoted were addressed to local churches, not individuals.

If the point is that we are meant to have a personal relationship with God, then I am sure nobody here disagrees.

?? The Moderator, Mickal Kalina, said it was a supermarket of dogma when I stated I let the Holy Spirit guide me and it works in my life.

The Scriptures are and always will be meant for everybody, not specific churches they were sent to. God has foreknowledge of everything. He knew we would be literate, that scripture would be widely read around the world and in many cases (more than twice as much as Orthodox) from Protestants. You don't think he made sure he got what he wanted in there?

[Happy Lutheran]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Supermarket of Dogmas?

Please don't Bible Thump here, its not like in the Church we don't read the Bible, in fact, each Sunday we have an hour of prayer entirely devoted to the Word called the Liturgy of the Word

Besides of which, I can thump back.

And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:19-21

Further the Apostle Peter concludes:

speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:16

Let alone the Apostolic tirade on self-asserting preachers and pastors, be they priests or Protestants alike in 2 Peter 2:1-15
 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Of course the Scriptures were not the interpretation of the writter. They were written by the inspiration of God. I don't believe the words of Luke because I believe Luke's private interpretation. I believe it because I believe it was inspired by God.

About the Verse about Paul, people used his Scriptures to be sinful, they were twisting he scriptures for lawlessness. Do you consider mainsteam Protestantism sinful and lawless?

[Ashman618]

When Christ prayed in the Garden that we all may be one he certainly had foreknowledge that it would not be that way yet he prayed for it anyway.  So can we really say that this current state of Christianity we have has the approval of God because of His foreknowledge. I would say based on His foreknowledge, that prayer is a direct disapproval? Does this make sense to anyone else?

[age234]

I do not understand the above.

The epistles quoted were addressed to local churches, not individuals.

If the point is that we are meant to have a personal relationship with God, then I am sure nobody here disagrees.

?? The Moderator, Mickal Kalina, said it was a supermarket of dogma when I stated I let the Holy Spirit guide me and it works in my life.

The Scriptures are and always will be meant for everybody, not specific churches they were sent to. God has foreknowledge of everything. He knew we would be literate, that scripture would be widely read around the world and in many cases (more than twice as much as Orthodox) from Protestants. You don't think he made sure he got what he wanted in there?

God didn't write the epistles, the Apostles did. The Church collectively found these particular epistles had a uniquely wide-ranging applicability beyond the original churches and a certain inspired character (while there were undoubtedly hundreds of other epistles that did not).

To imply God was acting as a puppeteer so the Apostles would produce a self-sufficient manual to all things is simply not true. That is a misunderstanding of what the Bible is and its role in the Church. To imply the Bible is all-encompassing is also not true. The scriptures are useful guides to help lead us to truth, but they are not The Truth unto themselves. (The Truth is a person.)

St John Chrysostom said in one of his sermons that the scriptures are a condescension to human weakness, not an inherent necessity. The Church would exist even if the Bible did not. We do not trust the Holy Spirit, so we have been given the Bible as a way to cross-reference the Holy Spirit's work. But He is not defined by the Book, rather the opposite.

We have the Church to help us navigate the waters. We all receive the Holy Spirit, who guides us all, but it is eminently clear that the episcopacy and priesthood receive special graces in accordance with their special responsibility. We are not all bishops, and that is where Protestantism falls down IMO. Every man becomes his own pope, with his own ability to infallibly channel the Holy Spirit.

We do have a personal relationship with Christ. It is consummated every time we take His Body into our body among His Body, the Church. I would say we do not have a private relationship with Christ, however, because we are all members of Him.

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

About the Verse about Paul, people used his Scriptures to be sinful, they were twisting he scriptures for lawlessness. Do you consider mainsteam Protestantism sinful and lawless?

By definition, Protestantism rejects both the Old Testament Law and also protests the Laws of the New Covenant found in the Tradition of the Church, to which the Bible is a facet, so yes, I would say that it is accurate assessment to call Protestantism lawless.  Is it sinful? Potentially, but that is not my place to say on an individual basis, but as an ideology, yes.

Of course the Scriptures were not the interpretation of the writter. They were written by the inspiration of God. I don't believe the words of Luke because I believe Luke's private interpretation. I believe it because I believe it was inspired by God.

You missed the point.  Apostle Peter is talking about folks who read the Scriptures on an individual way, interpreting the meanings for themselves but not in the context of either the Scriptures themselves or the Holy Tradition.  If they are guided away from the Church where the Scriptures come from, then Apostle Peter is arguing that they aren't following the Scriptures at all, because again, "no prophecy of the Scriptures is of any private interpretation."  If you are going to quote Scripture telling us it supports your views against the Tradition, we are naturally not going to be able to agree with you, or even really understand you.  Again, from our approach the Scriptures support the Tradition and the Tradition explains the Scriptures.  We don't try to interpret them on our own, we try to understand them in the context of themselves and of the Tradition to which they are a part of.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Αριστοκλής]

Looks as if the so-called Dark Confused Age resides in Protestantism.

[jmbejdl]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsHSbBxjAOk&feature=related

1.How do Orthodox Christian understand the Dark age of Church?

2. Protestant Christian like to say that after Constantine the Great make Catholic Church as the country's religion in 3 rd century, the Christians live with peace and start to fall. They start to make the idols and workship them. They start to play the power struggle,alienate the Church from the truth. THus,THe Church experience the Dark Age in 4th century - 15 th century.Until 16 th Century, Martin Luther separate from Fallen Catholic Church and return the Church  to the right path. God use Martin Lurther and Protestant Christian to lead the Church away from Dark Age which had been over 1100-1200 years. Do Orthodox Christian agree with it?

The Dark Age didn't come to us until 1453.

The Dark Age didn't come to Orthodox Church until 1453?

Do you mean that there was a dark age in Orthodox Church around 1453? What has Orthodox Church happened in this period?

That's the year that Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks. It wasn't the Dark Ages as such (not that there really was any such thing even in western Europe). However, it certainly was a dark age for Orthodoxy as it pretty much left Moldova as the only free Orthodox state and that was pretty much in anarchy until Stefan cel Mare acceded to the throne 4 years later.

James

The Church of Russia was doing fine, even under the Tatar yoke.

But Russia wasn't free and the Tartars did create martyrs (see the icon I use as my avatar for an example of one, if from a slightly earlier period). For a while it looked like all of the Orthodox world would be under the rule of foreigners with foreign religions. During Stefan cel Mare's reign Moldova was pretty much the only free Orthodox state (Wallachia on and off arguably) and he was certainly the major patron at the time of the Church and especially Mt. Athos. There's no doubt that it was a bleak time for Orthodoxy all round. Of course, not much later Russia threw off the Tartars and Moldova became a vassal state of the Ottomans so the situation reversed.

James

[mike]

He knew we would be literate, that scripture would be widely read around the world and in many cases (more than twice as much as Orthodox) from Protestants.

Most people in the Empire were literate back then.

Ephesians 3:16-17
New International Version (NIV)
16 I pray that out of his glorious riches he may strengthen you with power through his Spirit in your inner being, 17 so that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. And I pray that you, being rooted and established in love,

Colossians 1:27
King James Version (KJV)
27 To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory:


Phillippians 2 13
13 for it is God who works in you to will and to act in order to fulfill his good purpose.

John 14:15-17
King James Version (KJV)
15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.
16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;
17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

1 Corinthians 3:16
King James Version (KJV)
16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?

2 Corinthians 13:5
King James Version (KJV)
5 Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith; prove your own selves. Know ye not your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be reprobates?

Ephesians 1:13
King James Version (KJV)
13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,

All of these are plural. Nothing here about the personal making of doctrines.

[Fabio Leite]

He knew we would be literate, that scripture would be widely read around the world and in many cases (more than twice as much as Orthodox) from Protestants. You don't think he made sure he got what he wanted in there?

Orthodox have been reading the Scriptures for 2000 years. Protestants for just 500 hundred years. This means Orthodox have read it at least four times more than Protestant in time.

If you consider that while Protestants have to struggle with translations that necessarily demand interpretation, and that at least the Greeks, who are Orthodox, actually read the originals of the New Testament, and if they follow a stricter discipline, they read it every day, let's just double that number to account for the quality of reading. Then, considerin they have been reading it on an uninterrupted transmission and not from some rupture let's just double it again.

So in an index that measures quality and quantity of reading of the Bible the Church is at least 16 times better off then protestants.

Now let's consider that it was actually this same Church that created the canon of what was to be in the Bible and it was Luther who notoriously picked only the books that did not contradict his doctrines - thus putting his self-judgment above the inspiration of the Holy Spirit confirmed by 15 centuries of guidance to millions and millions of personal relationships with with God. One who actually creates a selection of books surely must know what he/she means by making those choices. So et's double it again for the Orthodox are readingthe books we have chosen to put together after all. So 32 times better at least.

[Happy Lutheran]

I always get a kick out of Orthodox and Romans when you use scripture as an argument and let the scripture speak for itself they chime in what it really means and how it relates to the church and all other kinds of things the text isn't saying. Then they accuse you of self interpretation!  

All Baptised Christians date back 2,000 years. I was baptised by someone who was baptised etc all the way back (One Baptism etc).

Anyway, my participation in this thread has run its course, thanks for the friendly discussion from most of you.

[Fabio Leite]

I always get a kick out of Orthodox and Romans when you use scripture as an argument and let the scripture speak for itself they chime in what it really means and how it relates to the church and all other kinds of things the text isn't saying. Then they accuse you of self interpretation!  

All Baptised Christians date back 2,000 years. I was baptised by someone who was baptised etc all the way back (One Baptism etc).

Anyway, my participation in this thread has run its course, thanks for the friendly discussion from most of you.

So you do not believe the keys were given to the Apostles or in Acts 10:47-48?

[walter1234]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Supermarket of Dogmas?

Please don't Bible Thump here, its not like in the Church we don't read the Bible, in fact, each Sunday we have an hour of prayer entirely devoted to the Word called the Liturgy of the Word

Besides of which, I can thump back.

And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:19-21

Further the Apostle Peter concludes:

speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:16

Let alone the Apostolic tirade on self-asserting preachers and pastors, be they priests or Protestants alike in 2 Peter 2:1-15
 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Of course the Scriptures were not the interpretation of the writter. They were written by the inspiration of God. I don't believe the words of Luke because I believe Luke's private interpretation. I believe it because I believe it was inspired by God.

About the Verse about Paul, people used his Scriptures to be sinful, they were twisting he scriptures for lawlessness. Do you consider mainsteam Protestantism sinful and lawless?

Again ,it is all depend all our interpretation. It's all depend on  how we interpret 2 Peter 1:19-21.

Protestant interpretation of 2 peter 1:19-21:
This verse means that the Scriptures were never come from the will of the writters. They were written by the inspiration of God. These are the word of God and so a Christian should not interpret them privately. Instead,a Christian should read and interpret the Scriptures with Holy Spirit together. We have to always pray and ask for the help and presence of Holy Spirit when we read the Scriptures. So, this scripture do not against Sola Scriptura.


Orhtoodox interpretation of 2 peter 1:19-21:
This verse means that the Scriptures were never come from the will of the writters. They were written by the inspiration of God. These are the word of God. Men are fallen ,Men's wisdom are very limited and would easily misunderstand the meaning of the Scripture verses. So, man should  not interpret them alone and privately. Instead, the whole church, include the past and current church should interpret the bible together under the help of Holy Spirit. The bible should be interpreted with the works of Apostles, Saints, Church Fathers, Life Litugy, etc.

Whether this verse againsts Sola Scriptura,it all depends on how you interpret the above verse. It depends on how you "play" with these word.

I can find that no matter the teachings of Calvinism , Arminianism, Universalism,Lutheran, Charismatic,Wesylan,Jehovah's Witnesses,Seventh-day Adventist,etc, they are all supported by bible verse. Because it all depends on how you interpret the bible. Everybody has good interpretation skill on bible can form a theology easily.

[jmbejdl]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Supermarket of Dogmas?

Please don't Bible Thump here, its not like in the Church we don't read the Bible, in fact, each Sunday we have an hour of prayer entirely devoted to the Word called the Liturgy of the Word

Besides of which, I can thump back.

And we heard this voice which came from heaven when we were with Him on the holy mountain.

19 And so we have the prophetic word confirmed,[a] which you do well to heed as a light that shines in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts; 20 knowing this first, that no prophecy of Scripture is of any private interpretation,21 for prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God[c] spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit.

2 Peter 1:19-21

Further the Apostle Peter concludes:

speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.

2 Peter 3:16

Let alone the Apostolic tirade on self-asserting preachers and pastors, be they priests or Protestants alike in 2 Peter 2:1-15
 

stay blessed,
habte selassie

Of course the Scriptures were not the interpretation of the writter. They were written by the inspiration of God. I don't believe the words of Luke because I believe Luke's private interpretation. I believe it because I believe it was inspired by God.

About the Verse about Paul, people used his Scriptures to be sinful, they were twisting he scriptures for lawlessness. Do you consider mainsteam Protestantism sinful and lawless?

Again ,it is all depend all you interpret the bible. It's all depend on the way how you interpret 2 Peter 1:19-21.

Protestant interpretation of 2 peter 1:19-21:
This verse means that the Scriptures were never come from the will of the writters. They were written by the inspiration of God. These are the word of God and so a Christian should not interpret them privately. Instead,a Christian should read and interpret the Scripture with Holy Spirit. So, this scripture do not against Sola Scripture.


Orhtoodox interpretation of 2 peter 1:19-21:
This verse means that the Scriptures were never come from the will of the writters. They were written by the inspiration of God. These are the word of God. Men are fallen ,Men's wisdom are limited and would easily misunderstand them. So, man should  not interpret them alone and privately. Instead, the whole church, include the past and current church should interpret the bible together under the help of Holy Spirit. The bible should be interpret under the works of Apostles, Saints, Church Fathers, Life Litugy, etc.

Whether this verse againsts Sola Scripture,it all depends on how you interpret the above verse. It depends on how you "play" with these word.

I can find that no matter the teachings of Calvinism , Arminianism, Universalism,Lutheran, Charismatic,Wesylan,Jehovah's Witnesses,Seventh-day Adventist,etc, they are all supported by bible verse. Because its all depend on how you interpret the bible. Everybody has good interpretation skill on bible can form a theology easily.

Now you seem to have hit on the crux of the problem. It's not whether you rely on a tradition to interpret Scripture but which tradition you rely on. That's why sola scriptura is a nonsense. It is absolutely impossible for any text, Scripture or otherwise, to interpret itself. Now you can choose to use one of the more modern Protestant traditions, such as you mention above, or alternatively you can choose the 2000 year old Holy Tradition of the Church. Those of us who are ex-Protestant converts have recognised that Holy Tradition trumps anything that the reformers or their descendants have come up with to replace it.

James

[Iconodule]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KsHSbBxjAOk&feature=related

1.How do Orthodox Christian understand the Dark age of Church?

2. Protestant Christian like to say that after Constantine the Great make Catholic Church as the country's religion in 3 rd century, the Christians live with peace and start to fall. They start to make the idols and workship them. They start to play the power struggle,alienate the Church from the truth. THus,THe Church experience the Dark Age in 4th century - 15 th century.Until 16 th Century, Martin Luther separate from Fallen Catholic Church and return the Church  to the right path. God use Martin Lurther and Protestant Christian to lead the Church away from Dark Age which had been over 1100-1200 years. Do Orthodox Christian agree with it?

The Dark Age didn't come to us until 1453.

The Dark Age didn't come to Orthodox Church until 1453?

Do you mean that there was a dark age in Orthodox Church around 1453? What has Orthodox Church happened in this period?

That's the year that Constantinople fell to the Ottoman Turks. It wasn't the Dark Ages as such (not that there really was any such thing even in western Europe). However, it certainly was a dark age for Orthodoxy as it pretty much left Moldova as the only free Orthodox state and that was pretty much in anarchy until Stefan cel Mare acceded to the throne 4 years later.

James

The Church of Russia was doing fine, even under the Tatar yoke.

But Russia wasn't free and the Tartars did create martyrs (see the icon I use as my avatar for an example of one, if from a slightly earlier period).

Political freedom and religious freedom are quite different in this case. The Mongols were generally hands-off on religious matters and allowed the Church to operate unimpeded. In fact, the Orthodox Church was less free under the Tsars than under the Mongols.

[Føroyingar]

Looks as if the so-called Dark Confused Age resides in Protestantism.

I actually don't believe there ever was a Dark "Age". Wasn't there multiple Renaissances during this time?

[Benjamin the Red]

Now you seem to have hit on the crux of the problem. It's not whether you rely on a tradition to interpret Scripture but which tradition you rely on. That's why sola scriptura is a nonsense. It is absolutely impossible for any text, Scripture or otherwise, to interpret itself. Now you can choose to use one of the more modern Protestant traditions, such as you mention above, or alternatively you can choose the 2000 year old Holy Tradition of the Church. Those of us who are ex-Protestant converts have recognised that Holy Tradition trumps anything that the reformers or their descendants have come up with to replace it.

James

Exactly. For me, it was a simple study in history. I grew up hearing about Luther (though it was through Protestants that would take serious offense to his teachings, had they actually known what those were) and the Reformation, and how Constantine "institutionalized" Christianity, made them have priests, serve liturgies, etc. in order to "fit in" to a pagan world and that the Church was completely lost on Earth from the time of Constantine until 1517. So, was everything lost, and Luther revived it...or did the historical account of the Church, before the Reformation, before the Great Schism, actually jive with the Scriptures?

I found the answer to be yes. Nothing in the writings of the Church Fathers contradicts the dogmatics Scripture, and many of the things which people argue were innovations from Constantine were, in fact, already in place centuries before, which is clearly seen by reading St. Ignatius, St. Polycarp, St. Justin Martyr, St. Irenaeus and other early Fathers who speak about Liturgy, Apostolic succession, the clerical orders, saints...it's all there. They also never make claim of any invisible church. Either you were baptized into the Church by an Orthodox clergyman (or perhaps received baptism from a heretic who has changed the faith, and your baptism is accepted when you become Orthodox through economy) or you aren't. There's none of this "praying the sinner's prayer" or "accepting Jesus into your heart." It's important to pray with contrition. It's important to know that the Kingdom is within you. However, the first is a perpetual mode of Christian living, and the second is done by dying and raising with Christ in baptism, and receiving the Holy Spirit through chrismation.

From the time of Christ forward, no one spoke at all like the Reformers did until the Reformers. They were new and different. They changed the faith. It is unfortunate for them that they had endured 500 years of life under the schismatic Roman Church, and it is probably because of the Protestant inheritance of legal terminology and understanding that kept groups like the Tübingen Lutherans from becoming Orthodox, even as they wrote letter back-and-forth with Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople. They were too mired in Roman thinking, and through out the wrong practices...and, in my opinion, that is still one of the biggest problems between Protestants and the Orthodox to this day.

[Happy Lutheran]

Now you seem to have hit on the crux of the problem. It's not whether you rely on a tradition to interpret Scripture but which tradition you rely on. That's why sola Scripture is a nonsense. It is absolutely impossible for any text, Scripture or otherwise, to interpret itself.

Who interprets Holy Tradition? The problem with your argument here is that we have all 4,200 pages of pre-nicea writtings that all of us can access and read. You'll see the fathers contradict each other, on theology, scripture interpretation, etc. If they always had the fullness of truth wouldn't there have been universal opinion then?


"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."

Saint Irenaeus

Anyway, I hope this is my last post. I hate when these types of things drag on forever. We're not going to agree and that is what it is. I'll let you guys respond and leave it at that. Thanks again for the friendly discussion.  

[jmbejdl]

Who interprets Holy Tradition?

The Church

The problem with your argument here is that we have all 4,200 pages of pre-nicea writtings that all of us can access and read.

Holy Tradition is not another set of writings - it's the living Tradition of the Church. You can't just pick it up and read it.

You'll see the fathers contradict each other often, on theology, scripture, etc. If they always had the fullness of truth wouldn't there have been universal opinion then?

They individually do not always have the fullness of Truth. The Church, as a whole, does. You're looking at the issue analytically where we would look at it holistically (not that I'm surprised, after all I was once Protestant myself).

Anyway, I hope this is my last post. I hate when these types of things drag on forever. We're not going to agree and that is what it is. I'll let you guys respond and leave it at that. Thanks again for the friendly discussion.  

You're welcome

James

[walter1234]

Who interprets Holy Tradition?

The Church

The problem with your argument here is that we have all 4,200 pages of pre-nicea writtings that all of us can access and read.

Holy Tradition is not another set of writings - it's the living Tradition of the Church. You can't just pick it up and read it.

You'll see the fathers contradict each other often, on theology, scripture, etc. If they always had the fullness of truth wouldn't there have been universal opinion then?

They individually do not always have the fullness of Truth. The Church, as a whole, does. You're looking at the issue analytically where we would look at it holistically (not that I'm surprised, after all I was once Protestant myself).

Anyway, I hope this is my last post. I hate when these types of things drag on forever. We're not going to agree and that is what it is. I'll let you guys respond and leave it at that. Thanks again for the friendly discussion.  

You're welcome

James

I want to ask one question. What is the difference between the tradition of Orthodox Church and  the tradition of Catholic Church?

[katherineofdixie]

Who interprets Holy Tradition?

The Church

The problem with your argument here is that we have all 4,200 pages of pre-nicea writtings that all of us can access and read.

Holy Tradition is not another set of writings - it's the living Tradition of the Church. You can't just pick it up and read it.

You'll see the fathers contradict each other often, on theology, scripture, etc. If they always had the fullness of truth wouldn't there have been universal opinion then?

They individually do not always have the fullness of Truth. The Church, as a whole, does. You're looking at the issue analytically where we would look at it holistically (not that I'm surprised, after all I was once Protestant myself).

Anyway, I hope this is my last post. I hate when these types of things drag on forever. We're not going to agree and that is what it is. I'll let you guys respond and leave it at that. Thanks again for the friendly discussion.  

You're welcome

James

I want to ask one question. What is the difference between the tradition of Orthodox Church and  the tradition of Catholic Church?

How much time have you got?

[Fabio Leite]

Happy Lutheran

Do you believe the promise of God that bread and wine would be His flesh and blood and only those who ate His flesh and drank His blood would be saved?

Do you believe that it was through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit that the evangelist Luke described the words of Isabel to Mary: "Who am I, that comes to me the Mother of my Lord?"

Do you believe that Jesus transformed that apostolic community into His own body *despite of* their general desbelief, so great that even right before His ascension they were asking who would be first among them (so much for papal claims here)?

Do you believe that Jesus gave the keys to the kingdom to the Apostles and that He did not lay it in a book? And that He promised that He would be with this community until the end of times and it would never be defeated by the gates of Hell?

Do you believe the keys were given to the Apostles or Acts 10:47-48?

[mike]

All Baptised Christians date back 2,000 years. I was baptised by someone who was baptised etc all the way back (One Baptism etc).

How can you be sure?

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Who interprets Holy Tradition?

The Church

The problem with your argument here is that we have all 4,200 pages of pre-nicea writtings that all of us can access and read.

Holy Tradition is not another set of writings - it's the living Tradition of the Church. You can't just pick it up and read it.

You'll see the fathers contradict each other often, on theology, scripture, etc. If they always had the fullness of truth wouldn't there have been universal opinion then?

They individually do not always have the fullness of Truth. The Church, as a whole, does. You're looking at the issue analytically where we would look at it holistically (not that I'm surprised, after all I was once Protestant myself).

Anyway, I hope this is my last post. I hate when these types of things drag on forever. We're not going to agree and that is what it is. I'll let you guys respond and leave it at that. Thanks again for the friendly discussion.  

You're welcome

James

I want to ask one question. What is the difference between the tradition of Orthodox Church and  the tradition of Catholic Church?

In premise? Nothing.  Tradition is a word which includes essentially EVERYTHING in the life of the Church.  Tradition includes the Canons, councils, hymns, prayers, Liturgies, icons, incense, rules, writs, architecture, organized structure,  teachings, dogmas, doctrines, and of course the Bible itself.  The Bible and the other aspects of the Tradition are just subdivided volumes of a single Anthology, collectively called the Tradition.  This ontology is the same both in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  However, while in premise Tradition is the same, it is the way in which the differing aspects of Tradition are implemented and manifested where the distinctions between Orthodox and Catholic are found.  There are variations in approach, methodology, and interpretation of these aspects of Tradition.  The idea of what Tradition is remains the same, the details of what is in the Tradition is where we find variation.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[walter1234]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Who interprets Holy Tradition?

The Church

The problem with your argument here is that we have all 4,200 pages of pre-nicea writtings that all of us can access and read.

Holy Tradition is not another set of writings - it's the living Tradition of the Church. You can't just pick it up and read it.

You'll see the fathers contradict each other often, on theology, scripture, etc. If they always had the fullness of truth wouldn't there have been universal opinion then?

They individually do not always have the fullness of Truth. The Church, as a whole, does. You're looking at the issue analytically where we would look at it holistically (not that I'm surprised, after all I was once Protestant myself).

Anyway, I hope this is my last post. I hate when these types of things drag on forever. We're not going to agree and that is what it is. I'll let you guys respond and leave it at that. Thanks again for the friendly discussion.  

You're welcome

James

I want to ask one question. What is the difference between the tradition of Orthodox Church and  the tradition of Catholic Church?

In premise? Nothing.  Tradition is a word which includes essentially EVERYTHING in the life of the Church.  Tradition includes the Canons, councils, hymns, prayers, Liturgies, icons, incense, rules, writs, architecture, organized structure,  teachings, dogmas, doctrines, and of course the Bible itself.  The Bible and the other aspects of the Tradition are just subdivided volumes of a single Anthology, collectively called the Tradition.  This ontology is the same both in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  However, while in premise Tradition is the same, it is the way in which the differing aspects of Tradition are implemented and manifested where the distinctions between Orthodox and Catholic are found.  There are variations in approach, methodology, and interpretation of these aspects of Tradition.  The idea of what Tradition is remains the same, the details of what is in the Tradition is where we find variation.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

The idea of what Tradition in Catholic and Orthodox Church is remains the same. Why did Catholic Church still always fall and alienat from God in History, like power struggle between the Pope and Emperor, crusades holy war,Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis,Indulgence,etc?

[Ashman618]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Who interprets Holy Tradition?

The Church

The problem with your argument here is that we have all 4,200 pages of pre-nicea writtings that all of us can access and read.

Holy Tradition is not another set of writings - it's the living Tradition of the Church. You can't just pick it up and read it.

You'll see the fathers contradict each other often, on theology, scripture, etc. If they always had the fullness of truth wouldn't there have been universal opinion then?

They individually do not always have the fullness of Truth. The Church, as a whole, does. You're looking at the issue analytically where we would look at it holistically (not that I'm surprised, after all I was once Protestant myself).

Anyway, I hope this is my last post. I hate when these types of things drag on forever. We're not going to agree and that is what it is. I'll let you guys respond and leave it at that. Thanks again for the friendly discussion.  

You're welcome

James

I want to ask one question. What is the difference between the tradition of Orthodox Church and  the tradition of Catholic Church?

In premise? Nothing.  Tradition is a word which includes essentially EVERYTHING in the life of the Church.  Tradition includes the Canons, councils, hymns, prayers, Liturgies, icons, incense, rules, writs, architecture, organized structure,  teachings, dogmas, doctrines, and of course the Bible itself.  The Bible and the other aspects of the Tradition are just subdivided volumes of a single Anthology, collectively called the Tradition.  This ontology is the same both in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  However, while in premise Tradition is the same, it is the way in which the differing aspects of Tradition are implemented and manifested where the distinctions between Orthodox and Catholic are found.  There are variations in approach, methodology, and interpretation of these aspects of Tradition.  The idea of what Tradition is remains the same, the details of what is in the Tradition is where we find variation.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

The idea of what Tradition in Catholic and Orthodox Church is remains the same. Why did Catholic Church still always fall and alienat from God in History, like power struggle between the Pope and Emperor, crusades holy war,Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis,Indulgence,etc?

You said the key word POWER wherever there is the posibility for a human to dominate others it will eventually be abused

[walter1234]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

Who interprets Holy Tradition?

The Church

The problem with your argument here is that we have all 4,200 pages of pre-nicea writtings that all of us can access and read.

Holy Tradition is not another set of writings - it's the living Tradition of the Church. You can't just pick it up and read it.

You'll see the fathers contradict each other often, on theology, scripture, etc. If they always had the fullness of truth wouldn't there have been universal opinion then?

They individually do not always have the fullness of Truth. The Church, as a whole, does. You're looking at the issue analytically where we would look at it holistically (not that I'm surprised, after all I was once Protestant myself).

Anyway, I hope this is my last post. I hate when these types of things drag on forever. We're not going to agree and that is what it is. I'll let you guys respond and leave it at that. Thanks again for the friendly discussion.  

You're welcome

James

I want to ask one question. What is the difference between the tradition of Orthodox Church and  the tradition of Catholic Church?

In premise? Nothing.  Tradition is a word which includes essentially EVERYTHING in the life of the Church.  Tradition includes the Canons, councils, hymns, prayers, Liturgies, icons, incense, rules, writs, architecture, organized structure,  teachings, dogmas, doctrines, and of course the Bible itself.  The Bible and the other aspects of the Tradition are just subdivided volumes of a single Anthology, collectively called the Tradition.  This ontology is the same both in the Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church.  However, while in premise Tradition is the same, it is the way in which the differing aspects of Tradition are implemented and manifested where the distinctions between Orthodox and Catholic are found.  There are variations in approach, methodology, and interpretation of these aspects of Tradition.  The idea of what Tradition is remains the same, the details of what is in the Tradition is where we find variation.

stay blessed,
habte selassie

The idea of what Tradition in Catholic and Orthodox Church is remains the same. Why did Catholic Church still always fall and alienat from God in History, like power struggle between the Pope and Emperor, crusades holy war,Inquisitio Haereticae Pravitatis,Indulgence,etc?

You said the key word POWER wherever there is the posibility for a human to dominate others it will eventually be abused

IF Pope's POWER is so great, can Catholic Church be as 'healthy' as Orthodox Church?

[Ashman618]

Power and authority are are only bring health when used properly, which is why the abuse or misuse of power is the problem, but again understand when dealing with humans things go south

[Benjamin the Red]

IF Pope's POWER is so great, can Catholic Church be as 'healthy' as Orthodox Church?

"For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?"
(Matthew 16:26)

[walter1234]

十字軍東征（拉丁文：Cruciata，伊斯蘭世界稱為法蘭克人入侵，1096年－1291年）是一系列在羅馬天主教教皇的准許下，由西歐的封建領主和騎士對他們認為是異教徒的國家（地中海東岸）發動了持續近200年的宗教性戰爭，東正教徒也參加了其中幾次十字軍。參加這場戰爭的士兵佩有十字標誌，因此稱為十字軍  [參 1]

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%81%E5%AD%97%E8%BB%8D%E6%9D%B1%E5%BE%81

I see the above information from Chinese wikipedia about crusades( You may use google translate to translate the above Chinese(tradition) to English).

The above quotation (from Chinese Wikipedia) said that Orthodox Church had joined the crusaders for serveral times. Is this true?

[Cyrillic]

十字軍東征（拉丁文：Cruciata，伊斯蘭世界稱為法蘭克人入侵，1096年－1291年）是一系列在羅馬天主教教皇的准許下，由西歐的封建領主和騎士對他們認為是異教徒的國家（地中海東岸）發動了持續近200年的宗教性戰爭，東正教徒也參加了其中幾次十字軍。參加這場戰爭的士兵佩有十字標誌，因此稱為十字軍  [參 1]

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%81%E5%AD%97%E8%BB%8D%E6%9D%B1%E5%BE%81

I see the above information from Chinese wikipedia about crusades( You may use google translate to translate the above Chinese(tradition) to English).

The above quotation (from Chinese Wikipedia) said that Orthodox Church had joined the crusaders for serveral times. Is this true?

Yes. But that was to reconquer the territory the Turks and Arabs had stolen from them.

[walter1234]

十字軍東征（拉丁文：Cruciata，伊斯蘭世界稱為法蘭克人入侵，1096年－1291年）是一系列在羅馬天主教教皇的准許下，由西歐的封建領主和騎士對他們認為是異教徒的國家（地中海東岸）發動了持續近200年的宗教性戰爭，東正教徒也參加了其中幾次十字軍。參加這場戰爭的士兵佩有十字標誌，因此稱為十字軍  [參 1]

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%81%E5%AD%97%E8%BB%8D%E6%9D%B1%E5%BE%81

I see the above information from Chinese wikipedia about crusades( You may use google translate to translate the above Chinese(tradition) to English).

The above quotation (from Chinese Wikipedia) said that Orthodox Church had joined the crusaders for serveral times. Is this true?

Yes. But that was to reconquer the territory the Turks and Arabs had stolen from them.

What does "them" refer to ? Why were those territories so important to Orthodox Church in the end of 10th century ?

[Cyrillic]

十字軍東征（拉丁文：Cruciata，伊斯蘭世界稱為法蘭克人入侵，1096年－1291年）是一系列在羅馬天主教教皇的准許下，由西歐的封建領主和騎士對他們認為是異教徒的國家（地中海東岸）發動了持續近200年的宗教性戰爭，東正教徒也參加了其中幾次十字軍。參加這場戰爭的士兵佩有十字標誌，因此稱為十字軍  [參 1]

http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%8D%81%E5%AD%97%E8%BB%8D%E6%9D%B1%E5%BE%81

I see the above information from Chinese wikipedia about crusades( You may use google translate to translate the above Chinese(tradition) to English).

The above quotation (from Chinese Wikipedia) said that Orthodox Church had joined the crusaders for serveral times. Is this true?

Yes. But that was to reconquer the territory the Turks and Arabs had stolen from them.

What does "them" refer to ? Why were those territories so important to Orthodox Church in the end of 10th century ?

Them refers to the Byzantines (the Byzantine Empire was Orthodox). The majority in Antioch and Asia Minor was Orthodox but at the end of the 11th century those provinces were subjugated by the cruel Turks, so the Byzantines wanted to reclaim those territories and free the inhabitants.