The Catholic and Orthodox churches will both proclaim that “Holy Tradition” is binding on the church, but they can’t claim that the scripture specifically teaches that.

Of course we can. look read this very carefully and if you are an honest person you will abandon your protestant faith and the unbiblical concept of “sola scriptura”.

2 Thess 2:15

Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS that you have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.

the greek word is paradosis.It is passed down and delivered without alteration. The source of the holy Tradition is from Christ God and it was passed down to the apostles and this is what we are commanded to hold..not just the Bible or the unbiblical concept of sola scriptura. This specifically says that the bible is only a PART of the Holy Tradition.

And the traditions referenced here are the same as the “Holy Tradition” claimed by Catholic and Orthodox, even though the early church did not venerate Mary or believe she was perpetual virgin or claim she was co-redeemer or a mediator? (On the contrary, Jesus made quite plain in Matthew 12:45-50 that his mother and brethren had no more claim to Him than any other believer.)

Sorry, but scripture explains scripture much better than your interpretations. The traditions referred to here have to do with the way of life that Paul demonstrated to the Thessalonians. In the next chapter of 2nd Thessalonians, Paul elaborates on these traditions the Thessalonians were to follow.

2 Thes 3:6-12
6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after
the tradition which he received of us.
7 For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not ourselves disorderly among you;
8 Neither did we eat any man’s bread for nought; but wrought with labour and travail night and day, that we might not be chargeable to any of you:
9 Not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.
10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
11 For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
12 Now them that are such we command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ, that with quietness they work, and eat their own bread.

So the tradition Paul referenced in the verse you quoted was not a source of doctrine, but an example set of proper and moral conduct.

In fact, there are only 13 places where the word “tradition” or “traditions” is used in the New Testament. Of those 13 places, these two passages in 2 Thessalonians are the only ones where traditions are not spoken of as a negative thing.

For example, “For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men.” And, “Why do ye also transgress the commandment of God by your tradition?” And, “Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.”

.

Now, as for the “Holy Eucharist” being the literal body and blood of the Lord:

This is one of the most evident subjects in the Bible and it is the entire reason for the Church.

Christ tells us:

If you do not drink my blood and eat my body you have no Life in you.

Christ Himself tells us when instituting the Divine Eucharist:

“THIS IS MY BODY”

If you read the Bible in Greek you will see that the words Liturgy and Eucharist appear frequently and you probably already know that the epistle to the Hebrews mentions repeatedly that Christ is a Liturgist and high priest who practises the Divine Liturgy and institutes the holy Eucharist in heaven. It is completely and unarguably evident that the Apostles knew that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ also.
….
MaximusConfessor on July 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM

First, the epistle to the Hebrews says not one word about the Lord’s Supper. Though it speaks of priests and high priest and sacrifice, it is all in the context of the Old Testament system of sacrifice, not any church ordinance. In fact, the whole point seems to be to demonstrate that the sacrifice of Christ was the fulfillment of all the Old Testament laws concerning sacrifices. And the conclusion of the discussion is that the laws of Moses concerning sacrifice involved priests and the high priest making the same sacrifices over and over, while the sacrifice of Christ was once for all.

So it’s a little odd to try to compare this to the mass offered over and over, NOT once for all. Obviously, even if you believe that the bread and wine is transformed into the literal body and blood of Christ, it is not a new sacrifice, or else the sacrifice would be offered more often than the Old Testament sacrifices ever were. In such a case, the argument of Hebrews that Christ was once offered would be ludicrous. The Lord’s Supper is therefore symbolically representing the one sacrifice of Christ Himself on the cross.

Even in recent years, Vatican II has made more reforms. For example, it was in the past heavily discouraged for Catholic lay members to read their Bibles. The Catholic church even put to death those who sought to translate the scriptures into the common languages. Now, it’s officially encouraged.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 15, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Care to cite a Church document that says that those who read Bibles are to be put to death or punished? No organization on Earth has kept better records more meticulously for so long. Should be a simple task. We’ll wait.

I think you’re (wrongly) referring to the Church discouraging the reading of heavily edited bibles such as Luther’s that threw out or minimized Esther, Hebrews, James (”The Epistle of Straw”), Jude, and Revelation.

theCork on July 15, 2009 at 3:03 AM

Thanks for waiting. I’d have responded sooner, but sleep and work get in the way sometimes.

It’s fairly common knowledge that the Catholic church was not exactly on board with the idea of the Bible being translated into the vernacular. I won’t claim this is from memory or is original with me, but it’s not hard to find with Google.

(1) In the year 1215 Pope Innocent III issued a law commanding “that they shall be seized for trial and penalties, WHO ENGAGE IN THE TRANSLATION OF THE SACRED VOLUMES, or who hold secret conventicles, or who assume the office of preaching without the authority of their superiors; against whom process shall be commenced, without any permission of appeal” (J.P. Callender, Illustrations of Popery, 1838, p. 387). Innocent “declared that as by the old law, the beast touching the holy mount was to be stoned to death, so simple and uneducated men were not to touch the Bible or venture to preach its doctrines” (Schaff, History of the Christian Church, VI, p. 723).

(2) The Council of Toulouse (1229) FORBADE THE LAITY TO POSSESS OR READ THE VERNACULAR TRANSLATIONS OF THE BIBLE (Allix, Ecclesiastical History, II, p. 213). This council ordered that the bishops should appoint in each parish “one priest and two or three laics, who should engage upon oath to make a rigorous search after all heretics and their abettors, and for this purpose should visit every house from the garret to the cellar, together with all subterraneous places where they might conceal themselves” (Thomas M’Crie, History of the Reformation in Spain, 1856, p. 82). They also searched for the illegal Bibles.

(3) The Council of Tarragona (1234) “ORDERED ALL VERNACULAR VERSIONS TO BE BROUGHT TO THE BISHOP TO BE BURNED” (Paris Simms, Bible from the Beginning, p. 1929, 162).

(4) In 1483 the infamous Inquisitor General Thomas Torquemada began his reign of terror as head of the Spanish Inquisition; King Ferdinand and his queen “PROHIBITED ALL, UNDER THE SEVEREST PAINS, FROM TRANSLATING THE SACRED SCRIPTURE INTO THE VULGAR TONGUES, OR FROM USING IT WHEN TRANSLATED BY OTHERS” (M’Crie, p. 192). For more than three centuries the Bible in the common tongue was a forbidden book in Spain and multitudes of copies perished in the flames, together with those who cherished them.

(5) In England, too, laws were passed by the Catholic authorities against vernacular Bibles. The Constitutions of Thomas Arundel, issued in 1408 by the Archbishop of Canterbury, made this brash demand: “WE THEREFORE DECREE AND ORDAIN THAT NO MAN SHALL, HEREAFTER, BY HIS OWN AUTHORITY, TRANSLATE ANY TEXT OF THE SCRIPTURE INTO ENGLISH, OR ANY OTHER TONGUE, by way of a book, libel, or treatise, now lately set forth in the time of John Wyckliff, or since, or hereafter to be set forth, in part of in whole, privily or apertly, upon pain of greater excommunication, until the said translation be allowed by the ordinary of the place, or, if the case so require, by the council provincial” (John Eadie, The English Bible, vol. 1, 1876, p. 89). Consider Arundel’s estimation of the man who gave the English speaking people their first Bible: “This pestilential and most wretched John Wycliffe of damnable memory, a child of the old devil, and himself a child or pupil of Anti-Christ, who while he lived, walking in the vanity of his mind … crowned his wickedness by translating the Scriptures into the mother tongue” (Fountain, John Wycliffe, p. 45).

(6) Pope Leo X (1513-1521), who railed against Luther’s efforts to follow the biblical precept of faith alone and Scripture alone, called the fifth Lateran Council (1513-1517), which charged that no books should be printed except those approved by the Roman Catholic Church. “THEREFORE FOREVER THEREAFTER NO ONE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO PRINT ANY BOOK OR WRITING WITHOUT A PREVIOUS EXAMINATION, TO BE TESTIFIED BY MANUAL SUBSCRIPTION, BY THE PAPAL VICAR AND MASTER OF THE SACRED PALACE IN ROME, and in other cities and dioceses by the Inquisition, and the bishop or an expert appointed by him. FOR NEGLECT OF THIS THE PUNISHMENT WAS EXCOMMUNICATION, THE LOSS OF THE EDITION, WHICH WAS TO BE BURNED, a fine of 100 ducats to the fabric of St. Peters, and suspension from business for a year” (Henry Lea, The Inquisition of the Middle Ages).

(7) These restrictions were repeated by the Council of Trent in 1546, which placed translations of the Bible, such as the German, Spanish, and English, on its list of prohibited books and forbade any person to read the Bible without a license from a Catholic bishop or inquisitor.

Following is a quote from Trent: “…IT SHALL NOT BE LAWFUL FOR ANYONE TO PRINT OR TO HAVE PRINTED ANY BOOKS WHATSOEVER DEALING WITH SACRED DOCTRINAL MATTERS WITHOUT THE NAME OF THE AUTHOR, OR IN THE FUTURE TO SELL THEM, OR EVEN TO HAVE THEM IN POSSESSION, UNLESS THEY HAVE FIRST BEEN EXAMINED AND APPROVED BY THE ORDINARY, UNDER PENALTY OF ANATHEMA AND FINE prescribed by the last Council of the Lateran” (Fourth session, April 8, 1546, The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, Translated by H.J. Schroeder, pp. 17-19).

The above found here, if you’d like to look for yourself.

It is only the Orthodox Church that has unaltered apostolic succession.

MaximusConfessor on July 15, 2009 at 12:18 PM

We Catholics, of course, as subject to the Diocese of Rome, differ, of course.

Who made the first bishop? Who made the forty-ninth one? That’s a really important question, because it gets right to the heart of primacy.

The fact that the Orthodox churches recognize transubstantiation is a big reason why the Catholic Church tells its members we are in communion with you. That and the fact that we recognize your claim to apostolic succession, even if you fail to recognize our paternal claim of primacy.

If by “apostolic succession” you mean that the church members of today can trace back to the apostles of the early church, then Protestants, Catholics, and Baptists alike all have “apostolic succession.”

Wrong. Apostolic succession is passing of the baton unaltered. Apostolic succession is passing of the Holy Tradition in it’s fullness WITHOUT ALTERATION from Bishop to Bishop from the apostles until today.Every Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church has unaltered apostolic succession,we can show you lists and writings that prove that the most ancient Orthodox Bishops believe exactly the same things as we do today.

It is only the Orthodox Church that has unaltered apostolic succession.

The roman catholics do not have apostolic succession because they have altered many many things(such as the creed which by Holy council was forbidden from alteration).

The Catholic and Orthodox churches will both proclaim that “Holy Tradition” is binding on the church, but they can’t claim that the scripture specifically teaches that.

Of course we can. look read this very carefully and if you are an honest person you will abandon your protestant faith and the unbiblical concept of “sola scriptura”.

2 Thess 2:15

Therefore brethren stand fast and hold the TRADITIONS that you have been taught, whether by word or our epistle.

the greek word is paradosis.It is passed down and delivered without alteration. The source of the holy Tradition is from Christ God and it was passed down to the apostles and this is what we are commanded to hold..not just the Bible or the unbiblical concept of sola scriptura. This specifically says that the bible is only a PART of the Holy Tradition.

The Church is physical because it is absolutely necessary to administer the blessed mystery of the holy Eucharist which is truly Christ’s body and blood.
Maximus the Confessor

That would only be true if you believe the Catholic teaching that the priest transforms bread and “fruit of the vine” into the actual body and blood of Jesus. If it is only symbolically representing the body and blood of Jesus, then there’s no particular reason why you need a priest to administer it.

Theregoestheneighborhood

This is one of the most evident subjects in the Bible and it is the entire reason for the Church.

Christ tells us:

If you do not drink my blood and eat my body you have no Life in you.

Christ Himself tells us when instituting the Divine Eucharist:

“THIS IS MY BODY”

If you read the Bible in Greek you will see that the words Liturgy and Eucharist appear frequently and you probably already know that the epistle to the Hebrews mentions repeatedly that Christ is a Liturgist and high priest who practises the Divine Liturgy and institutes the holy Eucharist in heaven. It is completely and unarguably evident that the Apostles knew that the Eucharist is the body and blood of Christ also.

1 Corinthians 10:16

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?

St Paul then chastises them and tells them that heretics cannot partake of the Holy eucharist and later he warns of the grave danger of partaking unworthily of the Holy Eucharist which is Christ’s body and blood and he mentions that heretics have died because they partook unworthily.

Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.

I Corinthians 11:27- 30

In between these two paragraphs, Townsend fills the pages with the usual liberal complaints about the church, including gay rights, abortion, and — this is the best part — a complaint that the church hierarchy doesn’t listen to the congregations and change religious doctrine to match public opinion

I like my church except for its beliefs

It won’t let me kill babies, and I want to stop the hurt

Protestantism is protest. Originally against Catholicism, but in general, conscience drives the individual and they have to leave the body if their conscience tells them.

Catholicism is the One and Original Church. Top down. They have to obey conscience but the understanding of the faith comes from the top.

It shows the influence of secularism in America

This is not schism in the normal sense. This is schism in the sense of separating oneself from the idea that there is absolute truth and certain morality at the core of one’s faith

I call it blind decadance, afflicting the society that has thrown away the concept of absolute truth.

Without the anchor, the boat drifts.

Last week the top Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Katherine Jefferts Schori, stated that the concept of personal salvation is ‘idolatry’

She said salvation is “the great Western heresy: that we can be saved as individuals, that any of us alone can be in right relationship with God.” – CBN

Her right to say, but what a slide away from the original concepts

Strange.After 10 years of Catholic education, I never even saw a bible.

Jeff from WI on July 15, 2009 at 4:53 AM

Strange. I had Catholic education and I certainly did. Every Catholic I’ve ever known has seen Bibles during their Catholic education. What kind of Catholic school was it?

But even if you only attended daily mass… you heard (and read in the missal) the Bible from end to end thrice during your education.

Care to cite a Church document that says that those who read Bibles are to be put to death or punished? No organization on Earth has kept better records more meticulously for so long. Should be a simple task. We’ll wait.

I think you’re (wrongly) referring to the Church discouraging the reading of heavily edited bibles such as Luther’s that threw out or minimized Esther, Hebrews, James (”The Epistle of Straw”), Jude, and Revelation.

theCork on July 15, 2009 at 3:03 AM

Strange.After 10 years of Catholic education, I never even saw a bible.

Even in recent years, Vatican II has made more reforms. For example, it was in the past heavily discouraged for Catholic lay members to read their Bibles. The Catholic church even put to death those who sought to translate the scriptures into the common languages. Now, it’s officially encouraged.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 15, 2009 at 1:33 AM

Care to cite a Church document that says that those who read Bibles are to be put to death or punished? No organization on Earth has kept better records more meticulously for so long. Should be a simple task. We’ll wait.

I think you’re (wrongly) referring to the Church discouraging the reading of heavily edited bibles such as Luther’s that threw out or minimized Esther, Hebrews, James (”The Epistle of Straw”), Jude, and Revelation.

Baptist churches were never part of the Catholic church.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 14, 2009 at 1:27 AM

Your religion was founded by a man, John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606. You are right that it has no continuity to the Apostles nor is it the same Faith that was held by the apostles. Because of this it is essentially a neo-christian cult, I’m sorry but this is the truth.

Baptist churches existed before Amsterdam. In Switzerland, the Baptist churches have long claimed to be able to trace their heritage back to the time of the apostles. So John Smyth, whoever he was, can hardly have been the first.

Baptist churches also existed in England before 1605.

What you say is not “the truth.” It is an error based on historical ignorance.

The error is at least understandable, since Baptists, unlike Catholics or Protestants, have always believed in independent churches rather than a hierarchy controlled by a central organization. That does make it rather difficult to find the first Baptist church. There always seems to have been an earlier one. And since it only makes sense that later churches came from earlier churches, that should also not be a surprise.

What is fact is that the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox churches have never been a universal church, even before they split from each other. There have been churches throughout history which refused to align with Catholicism. Even at the church council called by Constantine, the bishop of Rome was not acknowledged by other churches to have authority over them.

It would hardly be possible here to go down history and trace the many groups which were labeled as heretics and persecuted by the Catholic church throughout the ancient and medieval world. There certainly were heretical groups, but it was also a convenient label to apply to churches over doctrinal disputes. Ironically, what finally stopped the persecution was when some of those who had been Catholic, and were therefore used to allying themselves with political benefactors, “protested” the Catholic church and defended themselves. That is, the Protestants fell into the same error their Catholic forebears had of allying with princes and warriors to protect them. To take the classic Roman Catholic allegory, the Protestants decided their church should also have two swords: the sword of spiritual power, and the sword of temporal power. Which ended up in the Thirty Year’s War, where the Catholic Church tried to force them back into their organization at the point of a sword, and found the Protestants had played at the same game and had swords of their own.

The end result, after much destruction, was a bloody draw. The good result of it was that it pretty much marked the end of war between the Protestants and Catholics, at least directly. (Though there were some exceptions, like the war that nearly broke out between Catholic Spain and Protestant Britain, lots of political intrigue, and the curious naming of one queen of England “Bloody Mary” in honor of the number of Protestants put to death in her quest to make England Catholic again.)

The bad result of the Thirty Years War was that the church you belonged to became a matter of where you were born, not which church you chose to attend. If the ruling family where you lived was Catholic, you were Catholic, if Lutheran, so were you, etc.

You’re wrong.The Church is the Body of Christ, that is, those of us in the Orthodox Church WHO PARTAKE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST WHICH IS CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD. We are catechized(discipled) and baptised and we ALL believe the same things. WE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST.

Compelling logic, there. Now that you’ve said that I’m wrong and you’re right, I must yield.

Or I could just say that you’re wrong. The Church is not the Orthodox Church. You are not the body of Christ.

Of course the church is physical on earth also. This is an undisputable fact due to the fact that the Bible clearly tells us that the Apostles ordained bishops,priests and deaconate and passed down succession through laying on of hands. They taught us the Holy Tradition(which is what we are to stand fast and hold). This is why “the CHURCH is the guardian and repository of all truth”.

Where does the Bible teach that the Apostles ordained priests? Bishops and deacons, yes, but they were bishops and deacons of local churches. The Bible does not mention ordination of priests at all.

However, Peter, whom you claim to follow, writing to all Christians, said that we are “an holy priesthood.” It’s ironic then to see that priesthood taken from the body of Christ as a whole and assigned only to a newly created religious order by the same people who proclaim that Peter was the first pope. In the Catholic church, church members are not priests.

The Bible also teaches nothing about succession of apostles. What it does teach is that bishops were to be ordained in every city. The ordaining of bishops and deacons does not translate into the anointing of them as successors to the apostles. It points to them as being ordained by God through the work of apostles, and of those who have been ordained before.

But you’ll never find a passage in the Bible where one man is ordained as a successor to a particular apostle. That is an inference, not a Biblical teaching.

They also did not teach “Holy Tradition.” That sprang up after the fact, and after the New Testament had already been given. The Catholic and Orthodox churches will both proclaim that “Holy Tradition” is binding on the church, but they can’t claim that the scripture specifically teaches that.

The Church is physical because it is absolutely necessary to administer the blessed mystery of the holy Eucharist which is truly Christ’s body and blood.

That would only be true if you believe the Catholic teaching that the priest transforms bread and “fruit of the vine” into the actual body and blood of Jesus. If it is only symbolically representing the body and blood of Jesus, then there’s no particular reason why you need a priest to administer it.

Why would Christ go to the trouble of having His Apostles ordain successors through catechesis and laying on of hands,teaching them to catechize and ordain successors and teaching them to hold Holy Synods with all the Bishops of the Church to settle disputes?

He didn’t. That is, you won’t find a teaching of Christ to ordain “successors,” but simply to ordain the officers of the churches. You won’t find where Christ taught the holding of Holy Synods with all the Bishops of the Church. The only real example you can point to was a gathering specifically of apostles at Jerusalem. There appears to have been no effort to call all pastors of local churches in to participate in the decision-making. You’re taking something that was added much later, “Holy Synods,” and trying to squeeze them into the New Testament where they do not exist. This is bad enough, but then you want to use their existence that you can’t prove or demonstrate as a proof of something else.

Your religion was founded by a man in the 1600’s so therfore you are working under the false premise that the whole world was apostate and that the Church was destroyed for the first 1,600 years until Mr Smyth came along.

Don’t even bother with the ad hominem. I don’t believe the church was apostate for 1600 years and then restored. I believe the church has always been here, though often persecuted. Much of this persecution was at the hands of those who called themselves Christians.

You can’t be the Church because you believe radically different things than us and you have no continuity to the Apostles but I have already addressed this.

Which is exactly how the persecution of other Christians was justified by the Catholic church through the ages.

Fortunately, we have learned to discuss these differences without resorting to the use of the sword to force conformity.

As for apostolic succession, the very fact that the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church, and that we’re well past the foundation of the church, indicates that there are no new apostles. Which destroys the whole idea of apostolic succession.

That statement makes absolutely no sense. The church does not stop and start..It is continuous. Under your scenario anyone can just make a “new” Church with nothing in common with the Church founded by Christ. That is extremely dangerous and forbidden in Scripture. This may be your idea of what the church is but it is not the Church that is the Bible talks about.

This is a straw man you’ve constructed by conflating two different things. If by “apostolic succession” you mean that the church members of today can trace back to the apostles of the early church, then Protestants, Catholics, and Baptists alike all have “apostolic succession.”

But that’s not what is meant by the term, and you should know that. “Apostolic succession” is meant to teach that the apostles of the early church chose successors who inherited the authority the apostles had to lead the church. And that therefore the pope — or the Hierarch — has the same authority over the church that Peter or the apostles had. There is no such biblical teaching. There is such a teaching in Holy Tradition, but not in scripture itself.

That is, “apostolic succession” has to do with inheriting authority, not whether the church started and stopped or existed continuously.

Whether or not a church is a church of God can be measured by how true the church is in faith and practice to God’s word. The ugly truth about the Protestant Reformation is that the Protestant churches succeeded specifically because the Roman Catholic church was no longer true to God in faith and practice. Some “protested” and left the Catholic church, some tried to reform it from within. Those of us on the outside have differing opinions on how well they succeeded at such reform. But the very existence of the Counter-Reformation, as it was called, proves that there was need of reform. So much need that even those most loyal to their church recognized the need of such reforms.

Even in recent years, Vatican II has made more reforms. For example, it was in the past heavily discouraged for Catholic lay members to read their Bibles. The Catholic church even put to death those who sought to translate the scriptures into the common languages. Now, it’s officially encouraged.

I accept the presidency of Peter but take the position that the Church was to be built upon the rock of revelation—not on Peter. Further, the point at issue is whether there has been an inspired perpetuation and transmission of Petrine primacy or a deviation and departure from the spirit and intent of the conferred divine commission, as recorded in the New Testament. . . . .

also find it rather perplexing that a Church that believes in divine succession finds it necessary to vote,

Fed45 on July 13, 2009 at 1:00 PM

his letter is a complaint about their procedure, not a command to correct it. In fact, Clement does not write as their Christian leader. . . .

Not one case exists within the New Testament itself of a bishop writing to someone else’s church. . . .

Clement’s Roman letter is only one example of Christians expressing concern to other Christians in the absence of apostles who could rightfully require obedience. Ignatius, the bishop of Antioch, wrote to six churches, including Rome, but no one argues that such acts suggest the primacy of his bishopric. . .

These are quoters of apostles, not apostles and prophets themselves. Therefore, reading the Apostolic Fathers without assuming that they knew of the predictions of apostasy would be like reading Acts and the epistles without assuming that the apostles knew of Christ’s ministry. All communication has a context in which it is expressed, and the closing books of the New Testament disclose conditions and concepts that dominated the apostolic bishops.

Fed45 on July 13, 2009 at 5:48 PM

Saved your posts till last. They were very good. I agree with much of what you write. But obviously not all of it and not your conclusions. And those 3 great Bishops are not the only important early fathers we have. And you cannot forget the Didache from the first century.

I will only touch on the few things you mentioned that I quoted above.

I see you accept that Peter was the leader and believe there was no succession. That is a position I can understand, even though I disagree. Especially because of the Old Testament scripture about the chief steward and the keys. We simply disagree on succession.

As I have already mentioned to you, Catholics also believe that the Church is founded on Peter’s faith beliefs (which are ours). But not only on his declaration, on him the man, as a foundation stone. And his declaration pointed out who the leader should be for all to see, the finger of God. So we agree on some points and not others. No sense rehashing it all.

Just to be clear. Popes and their succession are not Divine, nor are they Divine decisions. Church councils (local and ecumenical) debate things. Only a few things from Sacred Tradition that have formally been defined in matters of faith and morals are infallible. These are not new public revelation, but the Holy Spirit explaining further and in more detail the faith from the first century Apostles for those who came later and weren’t there to know everything the Apostles knew and saw and were taught.

So who succeeds a Pope is not Divine Revelation. God has an acting will and a permitting will. So some were not always the best choices. But God brings good out of bad. The election of a Pope is not an infallible decision or declaration. He is rightly the only Pope, but not necessarily the best choice. Hence, the debate to pick him. Of course there is always debate before formal infallible decisions on faith also. It’s the mechanism of the Church that the Holy Spirit uses. God used fallible men to write infallible Sacred Scripture and God uses fallible men to reveal infallible Sacred Tradition. But the election of a Pope does not fall into that category.

It is the office itself that was set up by Christ as a Divine decision of His, not each and every successor. Some men in the Church fail Him. The office is His chief steward here on earth until He comes again. Like in the Old Testament, it was an office with succession. The chief steward had the keys.

As I posted previously, Peter in fact did asked Clement to succeed him as Bishop of Rome, but Clement declined. So then it went to Linus, I think, and Clement became the 3rd or 4th Bishop of Rome. So Peter did have a hand in picking his successor. As you have written, Bishop’s offices were filled.

I disagree with you about Clement’s letter. Yes, we see other Bishops then and today preaching to other Bishops and the faithful in other areas, not under their jurisdiction. But that doesn’t negate the chair of Peter or Rome’s orthodoxy in teaching. There are many early writings that talk about that from the first couple centuries of the Church. Anyone can look them up.

The reason that we do not see any Bishop’s letters (other than Apostles) in the New Testament is because the Bishops in the 4th century Church councils limited what should be considered Scripture to only the writings of the Apostles and their scribes (Mark and Luke.) But for several centuries Barnabas’ letter was considered scriptural. As well as a few other writings. Widely accepted as Scripture, but not universally. Same with some books that were accepted into the Bible. Widely accepted, but not universally. Like Hebrews, James, Jude, 2 and 3 John, 2 Peter, Revelation. These along with Barnabas, Shepherd of Hermes, Didache and a 4 Gospel passages in our Bibles were all debated and all in the same category. Widely, but not universally accepted as Scripture.

Most in the West did not accept 1 Clement as Scriptural, but some did. By the 4th century, most even in the East did not. But for a couple hundred years in the East, 1 Clement was considered Scriptural by almost everyone in the Eastern Churches.

These same Bishops who decided (through the Holy Spirit) what is in our Bibles, believed in Sacred Tradition and in the chair of Peter and the orthodoxy of Rome’s authority. You can see it in the actual canons of the councils themselves. Rome had a precedence and honor. Universally.

Because to the early Church, Sacred Scripture was part of Sacred Tradition. And that oral Tradition was from the Holy Spirit and included the chair of Peter.

So just because you don’t see other letters from Bishops in the New Testament doesn’t negate their authority. Or make it less than the authority of the Apostles. The Apostles passed on their authority to these men. We see St. Paul doing that with St. Timothy. And just because other Bishops besides the Bishop of Rome did this, doesn’t negate his office or special authority.

And that the New Testament writers and early fathers wrote and correctly predicted apostasy and false teachers, doesn’t mean that the Church itself, would fall into apostasy. Some would, but not the official Church. Because if the official Church officially taught error on matters of faith and God, then the gates of Hell would have prevailed against it. And at such an early date. As soon as the Apostles died. In fact a couple teachings that Protestants disagree with were written about even when St. John was still alive. Certainly right after John. By the men who heard those Apostles preach or were once removed. And by those who the Apostles selected to succeed them.

I also disagree that Clement’s letter did not carry authority to the Corinthians, who petitioned him for help. When Clement wrote back, he did so with fatherly authority, as if it was expected of him and he even seemed to apologized for taking so long in responding to his responsibilities because of “calamities” that had befallen the Church in Rome.

And he said this:

“If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger. . . . You will afford us joy and gladness if being obedient to the things which we have written through the Holy Spirit, you will root out the wicked passion of jealousy.”

Remember, that Peter’s and Clement’s humble attitude to their authority does not negate their authority. Later Pope’s should have learned from their example. Many did. And the official title that Pope’s sign documents with is “Servant of the Servants of God.” The whole washing of the feet thing.

I don’t expect you to agree with me, any more than I agree with you. But I am grateful for your polite and interesting discussion. We will have to agree to disagree. And pray that one day all us Christians are united in the fullness of His truth.

Last night I fell asleep reading HA because I was up so late the night before here. lol I have been busy today and I have a lot to do. I am going away for a few days. So I may not post here again before the thread is gone.

I prayed for all of you at Mass last night. Please keep me in your prayers.

God bless each of you here, including those who read and do not post.

but Catholics back home won’t care, because they know Obama’s on their side. In fact, Obama’s agenda is closer to their views than even the pope’s. …

Sounds like typical liberal “if-I-say-it-people-will-believe-it” delusions again.

MaximusConfessor on July 14, 2009 at 1:06 PM

No offense taken. We just disagree, that is all.

I do not care if someone is blunt in their opinions. I just don’t have to agree with them.

May God bless you always.

Do the pathetic losers who write thousands of words in a single “comment” actually expect anyone to read their rambling?

corona on July 14, 2009 at 9:33 AM

Speaking as a pathetic loser. lol I read everything written on this thread. Because I am involved in the discussion and have an open mind and treat my fellow debaters with respect.

I write only for those who have an open mind and heart and are interested in this discussion. I bold some things for those who want to skim.

And if someone is not interested, they do not have to read what I write at all. I take no offense to that, nor do I think less of that person.

but some may be interested, even if you are not. So I write, when time permits. These are serious and complicated issues and cannot be reduced to soundbites.

Elisa on July 14, 2009 at 12:26 PM

Thank you Elisa. I don’t mean to offend you. you are obviously a very pious and Orthodox thinking Roman Catholic,I just think you should come home to the Orthodox Church.

I’ll mention the small but growing number of Jewish men and women who have examined the claims of Jesus for themselves and realized that He is the God, Savior and Messiah foretold by the prophets.
KyMouse on July 14, 2009 at 7:32 AM

Yu should come home to the Jerusalem Patriarchate of the Orthodox Church. We are the original Church and have been in Jerusalem for 2,000 years.
Jews for Jesus is a heretical protestant group founded in the 1980’s.

Here is the website for the Jerusalem partiarchate.
http://www.gopoj.org/

Everyone should read this page because it gives you all an idea on what is really happening in the state of israel.

The israeli government is keeping the patriarch of the original Christian Church hostage and is keeping him in house arrest and no one is able to visit him.

Everyone knows Christ was crucified due to the sins of George Bush.

Jeff from WI on July 14, 2009 at 8:53 AM

LOL thanks for that.

Baptist churches were never part of the Catholic church.
ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 14, 2009 at 1:27 AM

Your religion was founded by a man, John Smyth, who launched it in Amsterdam in 1606. You are right that it has no continuity to the Apostles nor is it the same Faith that was held by the apostles. Because of this it is essentially a neo-christian cult, I’m sorry but this is the truth.
Another thing, there are many many baptist sects. NONE of them agree with each other on doctrine and they all have widely varying personal interpretations of Scripture.
From this alone, we know that the baptists groups are NOT the Church. Christ clearly and numerous times tells us that the Church is ONE and ONE in doctrine and belief!

Christ built a spiritual temple of all believers, as Scripture tells us. It’s a mistake to try to tie this to a human organization. What we might well call the Universal Church, made up of all believers, will never physically exist on this earth for the simple reason of constraints of time and space.

You’re wrong.The Church is the Body of Christ, that is, those of us in the Orthodox Church WHO PARTAKE OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST WHICH IS CHRIST’S BODY AND BLOOD. We are catechized(discipled) and baptised and we ALL believe the same things. WE ARE THE BODY OF CHRIST.

Unlike the gnostic heretics..we do not hold a radical dualization of body,soul and spirit.

ARE BODIES ARE SANCTIFIED ALSO. This is a very important point that you should consider. We receive the Holy Eucharist and are bodies are deified also. This is the Body of Christ on earth and this is the Fullness of Himself that He told us about in the Bible.
The Body of Christ on earth(the Orthodox Church)is united with the Body of Christ in paradise.The saints are living and not dead(as Christ clearly tells us),they are also part of the body of Christ and this is is why we ask them to pray to Christ for us(”the effective fervent prayer of the righteous avails much”).

Of course the church is physical on earth also. This is an undisputable fact due to the fact that the Bible clearly tells us that the Apostles ordained bishops,priests and deaconate and passed down succession through laying on of hands. They taught us the Holy Tradition(which is what we are to stand fast and hold). This is why “the CHURCH is the guardian and repository of all truth”.

The Church is physical because it is absolutely necessary to administer the blessed mystery of the holy Eucharist which is truly Christ’s body and blood.

Why would Christ go to the trouble of having His Apostles ordain successors through catechesis and laying on of hands,teaching them to catechize and ordain successors and teaching them to hold Holy Synods with all the Bishops of the Church to settle disputes?

Your religion was founded by a man in the 1600’s so therfore you are working under the false premise that the whole world was apostate and that the Church was destroyed for the first 1,600 years until Mr Smyth came along.

In order to believe your illogical statement you would have to accuse Christ of being a liar..because Christ clearly told us that he would build a Church on His Apostles and that His Church would NEVER BE DESTROYED.

That is, I may be in the same church as the Apostle Paul, but we can’t be part of the same body of believers, since he died generations before I was born.

You can’t be the Church because you believe radically different things than us and you have no continuity to the Apostles but I have already addressed this.

As for apostolic succession, the very fact that the apostles and prophets are the foundation of the church, and that we’re well past the foundation of the church, indicates that there are no new apostles. Which destroys the whole idea of apostolic succession.

That statement makes absolutely no sense. The church does not stop and start..It is continuous. Under your scenario anyone can just make a “new” Church with nothing in common with the Church founded by Christ. That is extremely dangerous and forbidden in Scripture. This may be your idea of what the church is but it is not the Church that is the Bible talks about.

You are correct that none of the Protestant churches have apostolic succession. Neither does the Catholic Church or the Orthodox Church. Neither does the Baptist church, of course. Apostolic succession is not a Biblical doctrine.

I have already proven that apostolic succession is a biblical doctrine of the Church. All of the apostolic Orthodox Churches were founded by the apostles and we can prove this and most importantly we(and only we) can prove that our Bishops today hold the same doctrine as the Apostles, we have held and guarded the Holy Tradition without alteration.

My point in addressing the issue at all is to answer the rather arrogant claim that Peter is the foundation of the church,

ALL of the Apostles were the foundation of the Church and they all established Apostolic Orthodox Churches. St Peter was never the head of the Church..Christ was always and always will be, the head of the Church.

You are confusing a Bishop and an Apostle. There were only 12 Apostles. Chosen by Jesus to lead the Church and spread the Gospel. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the Catholic Church believes Peter appointed a successor to lead the Church, not a local congregation. My question remains..with John the Beloved still alive, why would there be another leader of the Church?

No you don’t know what you are talking about. As for the RC claim..that does not matter and that has never been the case.

I don’t think you understand something. The roman catholic church=the bishop of old rome. The bishop of old rome split from ALL the other Apostolic churches founded by the Apostles. This is equivilant to one of the Apostles splitting from the other 12. Think Judas Iscariot. The Church founded by all the other Apostles remained while the bishop of old rome split from us and starting changing doctrine. You must understands that old rome was no longer the capital of rome since the 300’s. The capital was moved to Constantinople NEW ROME. The bishop of rome changed doctrine and split from us in the 1,000’s AD. That one bishop does not equal the church.

shick on July 13, 2009 at 4:45 PM

I have to say that I am also confused by what you are talking about with the “future tense” thing.

You seem to be saying that Jesus promised the keys and then didn’t give them? That the keys went to all the Apostles?

If that is the case, I see it as a stretch not to see the plain meaning of the text and you turn yourself into a pretzel to get away from it.

Jesus was only addressing Peter when He made the promise. And He never promised the keys to any one else. We do not see in Scripture Jesus saying He changed His mind. And we (in fact) see him telling Peter alone to “tend my sheep” and “strengthen your brethren.” Even after He failed the Lord.

Luke 22:31-32:
“Simon, Simon, behold Satan has demanded to sift all of you like wheat, but I have prayed that YOUR OWN faith may not fail; and ONCE YOU HAVE TURNED BACK, you must strengthen your bothers.” Jesus knew Peter’s future failings and prayed for him specifically and still picked him to lead.

In order to believe that Jesus did not give Peter the keys of authority as His chief steward you have to believe that Jesus made a promise He knew He would break and did in fact break. And you would have to ignore the rest of the New Testament that shows Peter in fact exercising that authority from the keys. With God’s blessing.

Since Jesus promised Peter the keys of authority and since Peter exercised that authority in Scripture, I think the burden of proof that He did not give Peter the keys is on your side. Where does Scripture say Peter did not receive them? Or that anyone else did?

These are the keys of royal authority of the chief steward, like the Old Testament Davidic Kings. Jesus is our Davidic King forever, as Scripture says. Only one person filled that office at a time. And it was an office with succession. (see my lengthy post here that contains some of the Scriptural support for this and why those during Jesus’ time knew exactly what He was saying to Peter about the keys.

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 1:51 AM

And about Jesus filling the “chair of Moses” transferring rabbinical authority to His Church and His Apostles with the binding and loosing as I mentioned in my post to you here

Elisa on July 13, 2009 at 10:03 AM

If this is not what you are saying, then I am not sure what you are saying about “future tense.” So, unless you clarify, we will have to agree to disagree.

God bless you.

St Peter was also the First Bishop of Antioch and yes He sat in the Bishop’s seat at Antioch longer than he sat on the Bishop’s chair at old rome.

so therefore using your logic it is the Antiochian Orthodox Church that is the true heir of St Peter. . . . .

Say what you want but it is a documented fact that the writing of 99% of the Fathers of the Church prove this beyond doubt. Go ahead and quote the 1% that disagree if you like.

. . . . ..the capital was moved from rome italy to Constantinople which was NEW ROME

MaximusConfessor on July 13, 2009 at 4:38 PM

As uncles has already mentioned, Rome is where Peter sat last. That is the chair of Peter. The office to be filled. During the persecution by the Barbarians, the bishop of Rome moved to Constantinople and later moved back to Rome. It is not geography that matters. It is the office of the chief steward who succeeded Peter’s office.

That Peter was called to be the leader, does take away from the calling and great mission and faith of the other Apostles and first shepherds of the Church.

Your statement about what the Fathers of the Church said is absolutely false. It is the complete opposite of what they wrote. They wrote about the chair of Peter, Petrine authority and the orthodox teachings of Rome. But I will not go through posting all the statements and links, even if I had the time. Anyone reading here with an open heart and open mind can read all the early Fathers for themselves and decide for themselves. They don’t have to believe you or me.

And the Catholic Church is made up of more than just the Patriarch of Rome (the Pope). There are 21 or so other Eastern Catholic Churches, each with their own Patriarch or ArchBishop. All united with the Bishop of Rome for final authority in matters of faith alone. Half of them are Cardinals also. The other half did not want to be Cardinals in the Western Church. Rome respects their independence. It’s nice to know that the Western Church has learned something in the past thousand years.

If anyone watched the funeral of the last Pope on TV, you would have seen them all praying and chanting in Greek in a small circle around the coffin, dressed differently than the Roman Cardinals. You would also have seen the Eastern Patriarchs dressed in black going into the conclave to vote for the next Pope.

List from http://www.EWTN.com:

Eight Rites of the Catholic Church:

1. Roman 2. Armenian 3. Byzantine 4. Coptic 5. Maronite 6. East Syrian 7. West Syrian 8. Ethiopian (often listed as a recension of the Coptic Rite)

The twenty-two Catholic Churches:

* ROMAN RITE * 1. Latin Church

* ARMENIAN RITE* 2. Armenian Church

* BYZANTINE RITE * 3. Italo-Albanian Church 4. Melkite Church 5. Ukrainian Church 6. Ruthenian Church 7. Romanian Church 8. Greek Church (in Greece) 9. Greek Church of Former Yugoslavia 10. Bulgarian Church 11. Slovak Church 12. Hungarian Church 13. Russian Church 14. Belarusan Church 15. Albanian Church

* COPTIC RITE * 16. Coptic Church (in many lists the Ethiopian Church is also placed here)

* MARONITE RITE * 17. Maronite Church

* EAST SYRIAN RITE * 18. Chaldean Church 19. Syro-Malabar Church

* WEST SYRIAN RITE * 20. Syro-Malankara Church 21. Syrian Church

* ETHIOPIAN RITE * 22. Ethiopian Church (often listed under the Coptic Rite)

For an interesting history of all the Churches of the Catholic Church see this great article in Crisis Magazine. Some of the Churches never left unity with Rome during the Schism of 1054. Others returned shortly after the schism and some returned many centuries later.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1438500/posts

(note: the magazine has 2 more Churches in its list than the EWTN list. The Byzantine Church in the USA listed separately and the Georgian Church which is just getting back on its feet from Communism.)

God bless you Maximus. And your family.

There are 4 Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Those were all eye witness accounts of Jesus’ time on the earth. None of the authors were Catholic.

The rest of the New Testament (except Revelation) was written by Paul as letters to the early Church. . .. .

There is debate over who wrote the book of Revelation.

While it says the revelation of John, they don’t know if it is the same John of the Gospel.

ThackerAgency on July 13, 2009 at 12:31 PM

We are only sure of Matthew and John being eyewitness accounts. Mark and Luke may have been. Some very interesting traditions (small “t”) say they were, but we aren’t sure from Scripture and Sacred Tradition. And the beginning of Luke’s Gospel seems to say he wasn’t. Not clear.

John Mark was a companion of Peter and Paul. We see the early Christians gathering in his mother’s home. Luke was a companion of Paul. (along with Barnabas who also wrote a letter that was considered Scriptural for a few hundred years until the Church councils in the 4th century (inspired by the Holy Spirit) decided what books were scriptural and what books weren’t. Amongst other things, they decided Hebrew was and Barnabas wasn’t.)

Luke, the physician, is the only New Testament writer (Luke and Acts) who was a Gentile. The rest were Jews who became Christian. Back then Christians were all united under the Apostles and their Bishops. One universal – Catholic – Church.

Luke and Paul wrote the majority (lengthwise) of the New Testament. But these, along with John, were not the only writers. Peter, James and Jude wrote letters. And John also wrote 3 letters (as you know). While some modern scholars like to speculate that the Apostle John did not write the Gospel, 3 letters and Revelation, early Christian tradition says that he did. I go with that.

unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM

Great post.

MaximusConfessor and unglesmrgol, thank you for defending the Eucharist. That is something new and dear to my heart.

pannw on July 13, 2009 at 4:14 PM

Thank you for that excellent post. And I’m sure you know that you could have added even more Scriptural support to your post. But how much could you post? (certainly not a criticism, just an observation for others to note that you did not exhaust examples from the Bible.) Such as who was it in Acts who took the lead in replacing Judas? Who in the Church performed (by the power of God) the first healing? Who in the Church (by His power) first raised someone from the dead? Etc.

I see a lot of discussion about what individuals believe Scripture is saying. But I have noticed on this thread is that it is the Catholics who are by far bringing up the most Scriptural support for our position. (and reading the plain or literal text and having the most lucid comparisons of Scripture interpreting Scripture and reading the Bible as a whole.)

The others are explaining their Protestant/nondenominational tradition with very little Scriptural support. And there is a lot from Sacred Tradition and history that we could have added and didn’t. The Catholics have mostly stuck to Scripture. (Sola Scriptura – lol)

Scripture itself says that Jesus is the foundation of the church, so I don’t see how accepting the plain meaning of scripture is a “private interpretation.”

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 14, 2009 at 2:04 AM

That is, of course, what this argument is about. Jesus is quite clear in Matthew when he makes Peter occupy that position in his “building” simile. In Jesus’ building, the foundation is a rock, a solid, unyielding object.

At the point Jesus makes his statements about Peter, Peter is anything but unyielding. In the end, his martyrdom shows the solidity Jesus foretold.

Do the pathetic losers who write thousands of words in a single “comment” actually expect anyone to read their rambling?

corona on July 14, 2009 at 9:33 AM

We give them the same courtesy and the same attention that we give the pathetic losers who comment on pathetic losers.

Now each of us has chosen which Church we believe to be the correct one — you have chosen yours, and I have chosen mine.

unclesmrgol on July 13, 2009 at 1:12 AM

It is getting off topic of the sheer ludicrousness of Kathleen Kennedy Townsend wanting to figuratively crown Obama as an American Pope.

ThereGoesTheNeighborhood on July 14, 2009 at 2:04 AM

Not quite. I’ve already made earlier an equivalent statement, but the “you” in that statement was Kennedy Townsend. She has her ideas about the Church, and the Church has its own. The word “catholic” means “universal”, not “upper crust connecticut-to-maryland transplant” or “liberal” or even “american”.

Here’s an example, my personal testimony as a Christian and member of His body:

Unmasked

Surpass it.

An inspiring story. thanks for sharing…. blessings for the day…