On Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition

Orthodox Advices ^ | 1981 | Elder Cleopa of Romania

[annalex]

A Catholic Christian views the Church as his mother. This is related to the notion of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the first Tabernacle of Christ and therefore the first Church, and the fact that we believe her to be our spiritual mother (cf. John 19:27).

[Quix]

Why should we care how you construe reality (of which scripture is a part)?

= = = =

'Tis a free country . . . sort of.

Though another valid, Scriptural answer would be . . .

BECAUSE SCRIPTURE AND GOD COMMAND IT that believers prefer one another over their own interests and even love their enemies.

[Quix]

For other foundation no man can lay, but that which is laid; which is Christ Jesus. 12 Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble: 13 Every man's work shall be manifest;
= = = =

Indeed.

The foundation of The Church Universal is Jesus The Christ.

period.

[Quix]

(you probably are trying to say "Catholic")
= = =

No. NOT AT ALL. I wrote Romanist and meant Romanist.

The Romanists do NOT have a copyright or monopoly on the concept or reality of Christ's Church Universal.

[William Terrell]

A Catholic Christian views the Church as his mother. This is related to the notion of the Blessed Virgin Mary being the first Tabernacle of Christ and therefore the first Church, and the fact that we believe her to be our spiritual mother (cf. John 19:27).

Very interesting orientation. But the Catholic church is not the Bride of Christ. All Christians of all types all over the world who are faithful to God and Him whom He sent, and who seek the Kingdom sincerely bearing fruit, some 30 fold, some 60 fold, some 100 fold, are the Bride of Christ.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

I don't see a function for your Mother such as She describes.

(your John cite describes Jesus seeing that His birth mother is to be taken care of.)

[annalex]

All Christians of all types [...] are the Bride of Christ.

The Catholic ecclesiology is as follows. There is no such thing as invisible church. The boundaries of the Church are visibly defined by the sacrament of Baptism. Those who are properly (with water, in the name of the Triune God) baptized are baptized into the Catholic Church. This is because Christ has one bride and one body, and one mother, and either three are the type of Church. If a baby is baptized by a Trinitarian Protestant minister that baby is Catholic and if he dies he goes to heaven, as any sinless Catholic. If the baptized Christian continues the life as Christ commanded, confessed his sins and receives Communion and grows in faith, no matter what he calls himself, he is Catholic. In other words, we don't make the distinction between the universal Church and the Catholic Church, and we reject the unscriptural notion of universal invisible church. By this definition, curiously, there may be more Catholics who call themselves Orthodox than who call themselves Catholic, thanks to the vibrant church life of the Orthodox.

There is no salvation outside of the Church.

Jesus seeing that His birth mother is to be taken care of

Jesus had any other mother? Mary is the Mother of Christ entire, per council of Ephesus. Tell me you are not sneaking in any nestorianism by this strange epithet.

The notion that Mary was provided for as elderly mother at the last possible moment of Christ dying on the Cross is also strange. Do you really think that Christ -- who foretold His death to everyone who'd listen -- neglected to provide for the welfare of His mother in an orderly fashion? The scripture indicates that the relationship is of adoption as much as of elderly care, in other words, not only John takes care of Mary but Mary adopts John. As anything that transpires on the hill of Golgotha, this is a moment pregnant with deep meaning. At least that is how the Catholic church teaches about it.

I do not intend to turn this thread into another generic discussion about Mary or the meaning of the Church Universal, and unless you have specific questions of what the Church teaches on these matters, will not respond to any mariophobic or anticlerical barbs.

I, of course, invite you to continue the discussion on the proper roles of Scripture and Tradition, as is the topic.

[William Terrell]

I do not intend to turn this thread into another generic discussion about Mary or the meaning of the Church Universal, and unless you have specific questions of what the Church teaches on these matters, will not respond to any mariophobic or anticlerical barbs.

I'm not being "anticlerical", other than some things I say hurt the clergy's interests.

One of your traditions says it has the right of judgment of my soul, another says that no one who does not become Catholic can be saved, another says the Catholic church has sole authority to give the meaning of scriptures, a number says the Catholic church is a gate which God must pass through to get to me and me to Him.

I am definitely discussing the "proper roles of Scripture and Tradition, as is the topic". I'm just not agreeing with them and telling you how I reach that conclusion.

There is no salvation outside of the Church.

Matthew 6:33 But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.

Luke 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.

Please read these two passages. They are the words of Jesus, and if they are not true, how can any passages in the New Testament be true?

What they do, just those two, regardless of the balance of the scripture that says or implies the same, is take any authority of the final disposition of a man's soul from any church.

That disposition has been reserved and promised to those individuals who, at their election, seek the Kingdom, or, according to what I understand Calvin's doctrine to be, the Book of names to be saved has already been written.

Either way, the effect is the same. When individuals have the same holy power over their destinations that the church claims, the church must be just another organization.

As for Baptism, two kinds are what I see named: of water and of the Holy Spirit wherein the Holy Spirit enters the individual baptized.

According to the scriptures, John baptized by water for repentance of past sins. Jesus and His disciples baptized with the entry of the Holy Spirit.

I was baptized with water, but I repented my sins. I still am repenting as I break down my barriers of rationalization and become aware of my wrongness in a matter.

Water, from the passages that refer to water baptism, seems to be a symbol and sets those baptized on a path of repentance. It clearly shows that John didn't expect those he baptized to make a full repentance instantly. Baptism of the Holy Spirit is another matter. The scriptures related to that show a dramatic and immediate effect on the individual.

I've seen this in protestant churches, and I would have probably seen it in Catholic churches. But the great majority do not experience this, and if they did the Earth would be white as snow.

If the Catholic church had the authority to baptize with the Holy Spirit, then every priest, regardless of rank would cast the Spirit on those he baptizes. This doesn't seem to be so. And no protestant church pastor or group would be able to cast the Spirit. It seems some do.

It appears to be the quality of the individual priest or pastor and the belief of the baptized that have the effect of calling the Holy Spirit. Not the authority of an organization, no matter how old. That seems to be the only option left.

Do you really think that Christ -- who foretold His death to everyone who'd listen -- neglected to provide for the welfare of His mother in an orderly fashion?

Who judges that it was or was not in Jesus' orderly fashion when He did it? The Catholic church? You would have to agree that would be awfully convenient.

[Quix]

SEEMS like, SOUNDS like, READS like a LOT of Biblical perspective I can affirm. Praise God for that.

Thx.

[Quix]

It appears to be the quality of the individual priest or pastor and the belief of the baptized that have the effect of calling the Holy Spirit. Not the authority of an organization, no matter how old. That seems to be the only option left.

= = =

INDEED and well put, imho.

[kosta50]

If the Catholic church had the authority to baptize with the Holy Spirit, then every priest, regardless of rank would cast the Spirit on those he baptizes

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to (X)the end of the age." [Mat 28: 18-20]

Our Lord clearly defines how the nations are to be baptized (in the name of, mentioning individually, the Holy Trinity). You can rationalize away, but unless you were baptized by the Trinitarina formula it's not what the Lord commanded.

And He also leaves no doubt that the His commandments are to be taught by the Church. He didn't say "let them read the Bible." The Church elders are to teach. No Sola Scriptura there.

It doesn't get much clearer than this.

[Cronos]

Each Christian has the need to read Holy Scripture, yet each Christian does not also have the authority or ability to teach and interpret the words of Scripture. This privileged authority is reserved for the Church

Brilliantly put. The Church as a community has far more ability to understand the wonders of God, then each of us individually,

[Cronos]

thank you for pointing out Elder Cleopa -- I just glanced through some works right now and I NEED to read more. Wonderful! Thanks!

[Cronos]

Of course it falls apart when you consider that EO and RCs both cling to tradition, yet each considers the other schismatic

Actually we don't. Furthermore, it's pretty common knowledge that the ROOTS of the disunion were more political and linguistic than anything -- The Western half wanted to be pally with the new Frankish Emperors, while the Eastern was pretty much under the thumb of the Roman Emperors in Constantinople. Furthermore, both Rome and Constantinople wanted to be #1 -- remember that Constantinople wasn't one of the original 7 Churches. A lot of political posturing, by mortal men. Then we have the differences in language as evidenced by the filioque: the Latins probably couldn't quite figure out why the Greeks objected, not getting that the Greeks thouight the filioque conveyed dualism. They stopped talking and misunderstanding grew over the centuries, causing the wide schism, which is now being bridged.

[Cronos]

Is the RC correct or the EO?

the Apostolic Church, which comprises of the two above (among others) IS correct.

[Cronos]

I'd say both.

[Cronos]

Papal jurisdictional authority

The entire piece about Papal authority is becoming increasingly a lame horse -- the Vatican has been demonstrably showing in the past few decades that the idea of first among equals is more correct -- witness the Eastern Catholic Patriarchs having equal honor in Pope JP II's funeral. Since neither the Eastern nor Western Roman Empires exist, and since the Catholic Church is increasingly moving away from Italian Popes, we will see this concept moving closer to the idea of the Papacy as seen in the first century, with less of the political back-biting.

[Cronos]

Among the groups that broke away from the Church there are a bewildering multitude of beliefs -- some akin to The Church (as Anglicanism WAS), and some completely deviant (Mormonism, Unitarianism, Jehovah's Witnesses -- yes, they aren't protestant, but they grew up from the idea of going against the chain of thought)

So, when you say "Protestant", what do you mean? Kosta would mean things like the Christian SCientists, what do YOU mean?

[Quix]

I mean folks who believe that Christ came in the flesh . . . and the basic doctrines of the faith that all Trinitarian Biblically founded Christian groups believe in common.

[Cronos]

I think the main thing is dialogue -- even among us here on the Forum. I've learnt a lot about Eastern Orthodoxy here and I KNOW that many of our Protestant brethern were brought up on various stories of the Church that, when they read later, are really NOT true.

[Cronos]

I wouldn't go that far. Islam is a virulent heresy, no doubt, but most Protestant groupings aren't and nearly all Protestants are decent, good, Christians. Other groupins like the Moonies etc. are prety akin to Islam.