Posted on 04/20/2015 11:50:07 AM PDT by NRx
Introduction
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all. Ephesians 4:6
And I believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church ... The Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed
And if ever you are sojourning in cities, inquire not simply where the Lord’s House is (for the other sects of the profane also attempt to call their own dens houses of the Lord), nor merely where the church is, but where is the Catholic* Church. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures, XVIII
Protestant Christians around the world are steadily becoming more aware of the reality of the Church. This century has especially seen a tremendous reawakening to this aspect of Christianity. “What is the Church?” is often the question that drives Protestants to either Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy. Many Protestants who begin reading the the writings of the early Church—especially works like Tertullian’s Prescription Against the Heretics, St. Cyprian’s Unity of the Catholic Church, or St. Irenaeus’s Against the Heresies—, or who begin to ponder the implications of 1 Timothy 3:15, [1] soon begin to realize that the concept of unity with the One Visible Church is central to Christianity. All other doctrinal issues and disagreements are downstream of the issue of the Church, for She is the “pillar and ground of the Truth.” Find the Church and one finds the fullness of Truth. [2]
The question of the Church was certainly the catalyst in my own journey, especially after reading the Ignatius Press edition of Thomas Howard’s delightful book Evangelical Is Not Enough. In the Postscript he reflects upon the steps that took him from Canterbury to Rome by saying that it was “the same old story which one finds in Newman, Knox, Chesterton, and all others who have made this move. The question, What is the Church? becomes, finally, intractable; and one finds oneself unable to offer any compelling reasons why the phrase ‘one, holy, catholic, and apostolic,’ which we all say in the Creed, is to be understood in any way other than the way in which it was understood for 1500 years.” If Howard introduced the question to me, the hammer that drove home the nails came, ironically, from yet another encounter with a Roman Catholic book. To this day Yves Congar’s monumental Tradition and Traditions remains one of the most important books I have ever read besides the Bible; for it thoroughly convinced me that the Bible, Tradition, and the Church are one majestic tapestry woven and preserved by the Holy Spirit. When I finally became aware of the reality of this undivided, historical and visible Church I knew I could no longer remain separate from Her. I was not in the Church, and I needed to be.
Most of what will I will say below assumes that the concept of an ancient consensus fidelium carries some weight with the reader. For those who are of the opinion that the God-enlightened Fathers of the Church are not important, or who are under the sway of liberal scholars who champion theological relativism, there is probably not much common ground for discussion. One Protestant I have corresponded with, a doctoral candidate studying under Thomas Oden at Drew University, is probably representative of many when he said:
“As for the ‘proper interpretation’ of Nicea being, by definition, that interpretation which the Church has given it: First, that assertion so clearly begs the question that it leaves one suspecting whether there is any room left for dialogue at all. But second, and more importantly, I would contend with your assumption about the nature of Tradition. The Creed is itself an aspect of Tradition and, as such, leaves room for a spectrum of interpretations. For you to demand that there is only one possible interpretation of the Creed is certainly counter to the way [in] which that same Tradition has interacted with itself. The whole methodology of the Councils permits a breadth of freedom within certain conceptual parameters. We are not all required to affirm the same interpretation of the Creed, just the same Creed.”
Is there any common ground for discussion? It is difficult to say.
Another way of stating my position is that I unapologetically presuppose that the Church is indeed “the pillar and ground of the Truth,” that the Mind of the Church (the consensus fidelium) has something authoritative to say to us today, that what She says is clearly discernible, and that Her Tradition is timeless and unchanging.
Now, by “unchanging” we Orthodox do not mean “static” or “institutionalized,” as those misinformed about the Church’s understanding of Tradition often think. What is meant is that there can be no doctrinal changes to the Apostolic deposit. Only new expressions of the “faith once delivered to the saints,” expressions typically formulated in response to attacks on the Church’s beliefs, are even considered, let alone adopted.[3] St. Vincent of Lérins, in his masterful fifth century treatise entitled The Commonitory, perfectly expresses the platform from which I make my presentation:
I have often then inquired earnestly and attentively of very many men eminent for sanctity and learning, how and by what sure and so to speak universal rule I may be able to distinguish the truth of Catholic faith from the falsehood of heretical pravity; and I have always, and in almost every instance, received an answer to this effect: That whether I or any one else should wish to detect the frauds and avoid the snares of heretics as they rise, and to continue sound and complete in the Catholic faith, we must, the Lord helping, fortify our own belief in two ways; first, by the authority of the Divine Law, and then, by the Tradition of the Catholic Church.
But here some one perhaps will ask, Since the canon of Scripture is complete, and sufficient of itself for everything, and more than sufficient, what need is there to join with it the authority of the Church’s interpretation? For this reason—because, owing to the depth of Holy Scripture, all do not accept it in one and the same sense, but one understands its words in one way, another in another; so that it seems to be capable of as many interpretations as there are interpreters. For Novatian expounds it one way, Sabellius another, Donatus another, Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, another, Photinus, Apollinaris, Priscillian, another, Iovinian, Pelagius, Celestius, another, lastly, Nestorius another. Therefore, it is very necessary, on account of so great intricacies of such various error, that the rule for the right understanding of the prophets and apostles should be framed in accordance with the standard of Ecclesiastical and Catholic interpretation.
Moreover, in the Catholic Church itself, all possible care must be taken, that we hold that faith which has been believed everywhere, always, by all. For that is truly and in the strictest sense “Catholic,” which, as the name itself and the reason of the thing declare, comprehends all universally. This rule we shall observe if we follow universality, antiquity, consent. We shall follow universality if we confess that one faith to be true, which the whole Church throughout the world confesses; antiquity, if we in no wise depart from those interpretations which it is manifest were notoriously held by our holy ancestors and fathers; consent, in like manner, if in antiquity itself we adhere to the consentient definitions and determinations of all, or at the least of almost all priests and doctors.
What then will a Catholic Christian do, if a small portion of the Church have cut itself off from the communion of the universal faith? What, surely, but prefer the soundness of the whole body to the unsoundness of a pestilent and corrupt member? What, if some novel contagion seek to infect not merely an insignificant portion of the Church, but the whole? Then it will be his care to cleave to antiquity, which at this day cannot possibly be seduced by any fraud of novelty.
But what, if in antiquity itself there be found error on the part of two or three men, or at any rate of a city or even of a province? Then it will be his care by all means, to prefer the decrees, if such there be, of an ancient General Council to the rashness and ignorance of a few. But what, if some error should spring up on which no such decree is found to bear? Then he must collate and consult and interrogate the opinions of the ancients, of those, namely, who, though living in divers times and places, yet continuing in the communion and faith of the one Catholic Church, stand forth acknowledged and approved authorities: and whatsoever he shall ascertain to have been held, written, taught, not by one or two of these only, but by all, equally, with one consent, openly, frequently, persistently, that he must understand that he himself also is to believe without any doubt or hesitation. [4]
In this same vein, and echoing 1 Timothy 3:15, St. Irenaeus wrote:
But, again, when we refer them to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth...
It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about....
In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same vivifying faith, which has been preserved in the Church from the apostles until now, and handed down in truth. [5]
In short, accusations of “begging the question” will fall on deaf ears. The Church—as it has been historically expressed and understood in the Nicene Creed—is an object of faith. In this sense, belief in the Church is no different than belief in God. The Church as an infallible “pillar and ground of the Truth” cannot be proven empirically. We are simply to believe in it. [6] Thus, my appeal to those men who have been hailed throughout the centuries by countless Christians as Doctors and Teachers of the Faith par excellence ultimately stems from my belief, or faith in, an indefectible Church—a Church that has an authoritative Mind and Tradition which has been formed and preserved by the activity of the Holy Spirit. My platform is in principle no different than a Protestant’s belief in an “infallible Bible” interpreted through the unbiblical lens of “sola Scriptura.” [7]
At the outset, then, I wish to challenge Protestants to “Question Authority,” as the popular slogan goes. That is, I want them to see that their views do not rest on what the Church has always believed and confessed, but rather upon their own modern post-enlightenment understanding of things. This modern mindset is an inheritance from the well-intentioned Reformers who—in their attempt to bring the Church back to true Christianity, “pure and undefiled”—unfortunately became unwitting victims of the collapsing framework of late-medieval scholastic nominalism.[8] Shackled in a corrupt mindset that is alien to the Fathers of the Church, they developed a litany of doctrines that are nowhere to be found in the “Mind of the Church.”
(Please read the rest at the linked PDF.)
Excellent question; I would answer it exposes a bias.
This is a complex article. It took me a full 45 minutes to read through it, crossing myself several times.
The discussion of the “oneness” of The Church is demonstrated and brought home to us at each Divine Liturgy where we truly do worship our Triune God in company with the angels and the saints. It’s not a matter of visible or invisible. Like us here and the angels and the saints, The Church IS.
I can’t say as I necessarily agree with the author’s conclusions as to the options open to Protestants. I can say that I have yet to meet a convert to The Church from Protestantism (other than by marriage in some cases) who did not come to The Church by way of The Fathers and a realization of where to find The Faith as it always and everywhere has been practiced.
Agreed. I actually feel sorry for Nrx. This is ridiculous.
FYI I did not call anyone a hater.
Thanks
Ya right...It has everything to do with your wing of the Catholic religion as the Roman wing...Same church fathers...Same forgeries...
I’ve enjoyed all the posts you’ve contributed to this site since you joined. They’ve consistently been of a very high quality. As a Roman Catholic, I find the Orthodox perspective to be enriching. Keep up the good work!
Thank you.
I know...and I was about ready to become a first time donor to FR. Now, I'm reconsidering to see how threads are handled going forward.
If catholics can't take the eat and run off and cry about it and the thread gets pulled......that's something to think about.
The Roman Catholic Church claims to be the one true church.
The Eastern Orthodox Church claims to be the one true church.
Just how any one true churches are there in the Catholic sphere?
This one true church the article speaks of, is which one of the 7 churches Jesus says there are in the book of Revelation?
The writer does not discern the word of God Eph 4:6 and confuses denominations with the one true church. which is not just in one denomination.
I am assuming based on your comment that you did not read the article.
“Visible and One”...says one-half of the “Great Schism” churches.”
You sound sooooo envious. It’s better to be one-half of the “Great Schism” churches then a bunch of puny, man-made sects.
“But I am going to guess you haven’t read much, if any. of the post.”
Honestly, it’s asking a lot for people on a forum to read an entire article before popping off at the keyboard (I downloaded the PDF and it is 35 pages). Even if one did, would it make a difference?
You enjoy the subject matter of the piece, so you are highly unlikely to budge from your understanding of it. Every “protestant” critique will be a priori proof of schism.
At least you got some responses.
Both points wholly without proof. The problem with pedigree is that it must be proven perfectly... If pedigree is unproven, then the doctrine 'carried down' (which I also object to) by that succession must naturally also be in question.
At the outset, then, I wish to challenge Protestants to “Question Authority,” as the popular slogan goes.
I wish EVERYONE would take up this challenge, and then compare whatever the result to what YHWH calls holy and set-apart... The nice thing about keeping Torah... such things are perfectly defined. YHWH does not change, and he declares, neither does Torah. what is declared from the beginning will be in the end. If your tradition is other than Torah, it is not from YHWH, pure and simple. Choose YHWH or choose men.
Funny that, as your fathers are what sent me absolutely in the other direction, as fast as I could run... there is not a doubt in my mind that I will never agree with this supposed authority, or the slipshod history that purports to uphold it.
It was Mary that did it for me roamer.
She was caught as a liar in her first promise for praying the rosary on the witness of her own ‘son’ when it is recorded He was tempted of Satan,
I knew then that a liar wouldn’t point to truth. What do you know, a few promises later, she points to her son Jesus..
And that has been a journey out of christendom, out of Judaism, out of Hebrew roots..
Out of religion..
But yesterday was His New Moon Day and today is His 1st day of His Work Week to me.. a faith step most wouldn’t take,,
The world calls it tiw’s day after some false god..
Amazing how the world, especially religion, looks more and more counterfeit each day.
He works in mysterious ways.. even through their Mary...
Praise Yah!
“What do the Romans have to do with this post?”
Everything wrong has to stem from der romanz. Even to the point of actually posting without taking a split second to literally read one line beyond the romanist headline.
FReegards
Can you prove from an infallible source that what your church calls tradition is exactly what the apostles taught?
Thank-you for the wonderful original posting. God Bless.
Do not be surprised when the “YOPIOS” (Your Own Personal Interpitation Of Scripture) crowd who come in to try to make a point.
It may get to the point that for those of us who are either are Catholic or Orthodox, even for good posts such as this one will have to end up becoming “caucus” just to keep the peace and to have meaningful postings.
Praise Yah indeed!
For me it is pretty structural - There is no way that Yeshua, or his disciples (operating under his authority), can add to or take away from Torah without being false prophets, one and all. No new laws, no new rites... Torah cannot be changed.
Therefore, any organization claiming authority through Yeshua that breaks Torah cannot be of Yeshua. Pretty simple.
But you are a different duck, delchiante... I cannot dismiss you with a wave of a hand, like I can these other doctrines which are so very far off the rails...
You and I might disagree a bit, but I can tell that you are trying to keep Torah. What to do with each other then?
Shalom.
I assume you don’t want to answer either question.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.