Sola Scriptura?

[Hitch]

Sola Scriptura and the Early Church

 

[Scotth1960]

What a bunch of baloney. Such a statement shows an utter lack of reality.

Ask yourself, Scott, can this "truly Catholic and universal (Greek) Orthodox Church" convoke an Ecumenical Council? Have they, in 1000 years?

CAN THEY???

No, even the Greeks admit they cannot.

Why? Because they are not the universal Catholic Church but are in partial schism. If the Greeks cannot call an Ecumenical Council, they cannot define doctrine or defend the faith in a definitive way. Thus, they cannot be THE Catholic Church, since part of the power of the Catholic Church IS to bind and loosen for Christians. THe Greeks cannot do this. At all. THey are just a collection of national churches - apostolic and of lecit orders, but in schism, nonetheless.

Regards

The pope of Rome, "francisdesales" (sic) says of himself, Pope Pius IX, "I am the way, the truth, and the life, no one comes to the Father but by me (the pope)".
If that is not blasphemy, what is blasphemy then. Vatican I cannot be ecumenical, because it contradicts the first 7 ecumenical councils, none of which taught papal infallibility, and it contradicts the church fathers, none of whom taught the supremacy of the popes of Rome.
Scott Harrington Erie PA
PS The pope is not above an ecumenical council. Pope Leo III (795-816 AD) acknowledged this when he forbad the FILIOQUE.

 

[Ashua]

Sola Scripture (in tandem with the Holy Spirit) is the only way to go. You can use the commentary and teachings of other men to help you understand things or see things in other ways; but ultimately they are not worth ANYTHING if they are not truly consistent with the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Alabaster]

Sola Scripture (in tandem with the Holy Spirit) is the only way to go. You can use the commentary and teachings of other men to help you understand things or see things in other ways; but ultimately they are not worth ANYTHING if they are not truly consistent with the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Scotth1960]

What a bunch of baloney. Such a statement shows an utter lack of reality.

Ask yourself, Scott, can this "truly Catholic and universal (Greek) Orthodox Church" convoke an Ecumenical Council? Have they, in 1000 years?

CAN THEY???

No, even the Greeks admit they cannot.

Why? Because they are not the universal Catholic Church but are in partial schism. If the Greeks cannot call an Ecumenical Council, they cannot define doctrine or defend the faith in a definitive way. Thus, they cannot be THE Catholic Church, since part of the power of the Catholic Church IS to bind and loosen for Christians. THe Greeks cannot do this. At all. THey are just a collection of national churches - apostolic and of lecit orders, but in schism, nonetheless.

Regards

Dear francisdesales,

This logic cuts both ways. There has been NO ECUMENICAL COUNCIL after the schism of 1054 AD. The pope of Rome can't call such a council because HE IS NO LONGER ORTHODOX. When the popes of Rome were Orthodox Christians, they could participate in Ecumenical Councils. Now that they teach heresy, they are in schism from the One Catholic Church. No matter how much they call themselves "THE Catholic Church". In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[francisdesales]

Vatican I cannot be ecumenical, because it contradicts the first 7 ecumenical councils, none of which taught papal infallibility, and it contradicts the church fathers, none of whom taught the supremacy of the popes of Rome.

Which Ecumenical Council states that only the first seven are effective??? This is just more propaganda. ALL Ecumenical Councils are led by the Spirit of God.

Secondly, where does Vatican 1 contradict any of the first 7 councils??? That logic is silly, like me saying that icons contradict the Church fathers of the first six councils just because they don't mention icons...

Vatican 1 teaches infalliblity of the Bishop of Rome in only very limited situations, an idea which does have a long history within the universal Church.

PS The pope is not above an ecumenical council.

Of course not. Both are led by God. The Pope doesn't pit himself against Ecumenical Councils, so I fail to see your point.

 

[francisdesales]

Sola Scripture (in tandem with the Holy Spirit) is the only way to go. You can use the commentary and teachings of other men to help you understand things or see things in other ways; but ultimately they are not worth ANYTHING if they are not truly consistent with the Holy Scriptures.

The problem is that sola scriptura is not found in the scriptura, so it is a tradition of men, not a teaching of sacred Scriptures. The Church teaches what is consistent with the Holy Scriptures, since individuals tend to disagree on numerous passages. If you think otherwise, look up "Christian churches" in the Yellow Pages, all, no doubt, who think THEY are being led by the "Spirit" to correctly understand Scriptures. Often, these communities disagree completely. Thus, the idea that individuals can interpret the Bible "truly consistently" is a fantasy.

Regards

 

[francisdesales]

Dear francisdesales,

This logic cuts both ways. There has been NO ECUMENICAL COUNCIL after the schism of 1054 AD.

Sure there was. Catholic bishops from all over the known world were present at these Councils. The Greeks refused to come, and that was their fault for shirking their duties as Bishops of Christ's Church, putting pride before obedience and humility. Or perhaps the Emperor wouldn't let them go. Ah well, Eastern Bishops had a history of Caesaropapism....

However, the Catholic Church continues to define doctrine and unify Christians throughout the world as they come to Christ during the various crisis of their eras. The Catholic Church has a mission, to bring all to Christ. Councils are one of the means of doing that. Christ did not leave His Church without a means of binding and loosening, since Christ intended for that power to remain - He doesn't do such things for no reason.

The Orthodox are ossified, can offer nothing when theological issues come up that demand unified action. All they can do is give opinions, opinions that have absolutely no authority outside the Patriarch's borders. THIS is a "universal church"??? Having NO power to bind and loosen, except for those Christians living within a small geographic area? This is why the East THEMSELVES know they cannot convoke a Council. They have no authority over each other, there is no central authority.

It remains up to you to prove that the 8th Ecumenical Council was not a valid Council. Merely saying it wasn't 800 years later is meaningless, especially when it is accepted world-wide, even by secular historians. Did the Catholic Church think it wasn't? The Bishops present claimed it was, just as they did at Nicene, and just as at Nicene, the Bishop of Rome verified it as so. The Greek bishops present at Florence claimed it was - until they got home and were nearly lynched by Greek peasants whose unifying principle was to hate Rome.

 

[Scotth1960]

Sure there was. Catholic bishops from all over the known world were present at these Councils. The Greeks refused to come, and that was their fault for shirking their duties as Bishops of Christ's Church, putting pride before obedience and humility. Or perhaps the Emperor wouldn't let them go. Ah well, Eastern Bishops had a history of Caesaropapism....

However, the Catholic Church continues to define doctrine and unify Christians throughout the world as they come to Christ during the various crisis of their eras. The Catholic Church has a mission, to bring all to Christ. Councils are one of the means of doing that. Christ did not leave His Church without a means of binding and loosening, since Christ intended for that power to remain - He doesn't do such things for no reason.

The Orthodox are ossified, can offer nothing when theological issues come up that demand unified action. All they can do is give opinions, opinions that have absolutely no authority outside the Patriarch's borders. THIS is a "universal church"??? Having NO power to bind and loosen, except for those Christians living within a small geographic area? This is why the East THEMSELVES know they cannot convoke a Council. They have no authority over each other, there is no central authority.

It remains up to you to prove that the 8th Ecumenical Council was not a valid Council. Merely saying it wasn't 800 years later is meaningless, especially when it is accepted world-wide, even by secular historians. Did the Catholic Church think it wasn't? The Bishops present claimed it was, just as they did at Nicene, and just as at Nicene, the Bishop of Rome verified it as so. The Greek bishops present at Florence claimed it was - until they got home and were nearly lynched by Greek peasants whose unifying principle was to hate Rome.

Dear francisdesales, The pope of Rome in 381 AD should have stood up and said, "The Lord and Giver of Life ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son". If the pope of Rome has authority in an ecumenical council, he would have had authority back then, and then the original Creed would have said "And the Son". Yet Rome acknowledges this Council as ecumenical. Rome wants to have it both ways. Follow an ecumenical council, but then claim later it has a right to modify and contradict an earlier ecumenical council. If the Council of Constantinople I in 381 AD was in error for not saying "and the Son", then the pope of Rome at that time was also in error for not protesting and standing up for the FILIOQUE. If the pope had the Holy Spirit, he would have said that back then. But HE DIDN'T. Therefore, the DECISION of the PREVIOUS ECUMENICAL COUNCIL STANDS. And CHALCEDON states NO ONE (including the pope) has the right to ALTER an ecumenical council. Yes, there are only 7 councils in common between Rome, Constantinople, and the rest of the Orthodox Church, and NONE OF THEM SAY "FILIOQUE". That alone shows the pope of Rome is in schism from the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church until 1014 AD never insisted on FILIOQUE.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Alabaster]

The problem is that sola scriptura is not found in the scriptura, so it is a tradition of men, not a teaching of sacred Scriptures. The Church teaches what is consistent with the Holy Scriptures, since individuals tend to disagree on numerous passages. If you think otherwise, look up "Christian churches" in the Yellow Pages, all, no doubt, who think THEY are being led by the "Spirit" to correctly understand Scriptures. Often, these communities disagree completely. Thus, the idea that individuals can interpret the Bible "truly consistently" is a fantasy.

Regards

It is the Holy Spirit's role to interpret scripture to us as individual children of God. How does He do that? By speaking into our spirits when we are reading that inspired word! He also opens our spiritual eyes with rhema when people of God speak the truth of the word to us.

It isn't any one institution's job to interpret scripture for the world. That is simply spiritual arrogance and a huge mistake.

 

[Scotth1960]

Dear francisdesales, The pope of Rome in 381 AD should have stood up and said, "The Lord and Giver of Life ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son". If the pope of Rome has authority in an ecumenical council, he would have had authority back then, and then the original Creed would have said "And the Son". Yet Rome acknowledges this Council as ecumenical. Rome wants to have it both ways. Follow an ecumenical council, but then claim later it has a right to modify and contradict an earlier ecumenical council. If the Council of Constantinople I in 381 AD was in error for not saying "and the Son", then the pope of Rome at that time was also in error for not protesting and standing up for the FILIOQUE. If the pope had the Holy Spirit, he would have said that back then. But HE DIDN'T. Therefore, the DECISION of the PREVIOUS ECUMENICAL COUNCIL STANDS. And CHALCEDON states NO ONE (including the pope) has the right to ALTER an ecumenical council. Yes, there are only 7 councils in common between Rome, Constantinople, and the rest of the Orthodox Church, and NONE OF THEM SAY "FILIOQUE". That alone shows the pope of Rome is in schism from the Catholic Church, for the Catholic Church until 1014 AD never insisted on FILIOQUE.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

Dear francis, Some of the Greeks disobeyed God the Holy Spirit, and signed on to Florence with schismatic Rome. Rome was then in heresy, too. As a judgment against the unfaithfulness of the majority of bishops among the Greeks, holy Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 AD. This should show the fruit of union with Rome is God's judgment. The true Church has already pronounced God's wrath upon the Filioque heresy. All who accept it are accepting a FALSE GOSPEL. ANATHEMA is then upon those who say "AND THE SON", UNLESS THEY REPENT! There is MERCY with God to ALL who repent. There is still time, then, to believe JESUS CHRIST and ACCEPT JOHN 15:26 AS IT IS, WITHOUT "AND THE SON" IN IT. In Erie Scott Harrington

 

[francisdesales]

Dear francisdesales, The pope of Rome in 381 AD should have stood up and said, "The Lord and Giver of Life ... who proceeds from the Father and the Son".

Scott, I can see your knowledge of the apostolic church is quite limited. When did you join the Orthodox Church?

That's not generally how Councils work. Usually, the Pope witnesses the proceedings and doesn't take part in the specific day-to-day discussions. He approves the format and the final definitions.

If the pope of Rome has authority in an ecumenical council, he would have had authority back then, and then the original Creed would have said "And the Son".

It wasn't part of the agenda to discuss this.

Yet Rome acknowledges this Council as ecumenical. Rome wants to have it both ways.

How so? It is not the Pope's job to micromanage and interdict the proceedings. He looks at the results and adds his input, but largely, it is left to the bishops to attempt to define what we believe.

Follow an ecumenical council, but then claim later it has a right to modify and contradict an earlier ecumenical council.

There is no contradiction. The Filioque is a clarification of what we believe, just as Constantinople is a clarification of Nicene. And Chalcedon is a clarification of Constantinople.

If the Council of Constantinople I in 381 AD was in error for not saying "and the Son", then the pope of Rome at that time was also in error for not protesting and standing up for the FILIOQUE.

That's false logic. That is like saying that Nicene was in error because nothing was said about the Holy Spirit... OR, that Nicene was in error because nothing was said about icons.

Yes, there are only 7 councils in common between Rome, Constantinople, and the rest of the Orthodox Church, and NONE OF THEM SAY "FILIOQUE".

An ecumenical Council doesn't need to have every single bishop in the Universal Church present. Nicene certainly did not, nor did Ephesus. In many cases, only several hundred bishops out of thousands showed up. And because the Orthodox was in Schism, it was no surprise that they decided, on their own volition, to stubbornly remain separated from the Body.

Scott, your logic is really terrible. It is largely "begging the question". In addition, your stance doesn't take into account what your very own church says about the Latin Church.

Regards

 

[Scotth1960]

Scott, I can see your knowledge of the apostolic church is quite limited. When did you join the Orthodox Church?

That's not generally how Councils work. Usually, the Pope witnesses the proceedings and doesn't take part in the specific day-to-day discussions. He approves the format and the final definitions.



It wasn't part of the agenda to discuss this.



How so? It is not the Pope's job to micromanage and interdict the proceedings. He looks at the results and adds his input, but largely, it is left to the bishops to attempt to define what we believe.




There is no contradiction. The Filioque is a clarification of what we believe, just as Constantinople is a clarification of Nicene. And Chalcedon is a clarification of Constantinople.



That's false logic. That is like saying that Nicene was in error because nothing was said about the Holy Spirit... OR, that Nicene was in error because nothing was said about icons.



An ecumenical Council doesn't need to have every single bishop in the Universal Church present. Nicene certainly did not, nor did Ephesus. In many cases, only several hundred bishops out of thousands showed up. And because the Orthodox was in Schism, it was no surprise that they decided, on their own volition, to stubbornly remain separated from the Body.

Scott, your logic is really terrible. It is largely "begging the question". In addition, your stance doesn't take into account what your very own church says about the Latin Church.

Regards

Francis, You ignore medieval history. And early Church history. St. Peter rebuked Simon Magus who tried to buy the Holy Spirit with money. The Roman papal church sells forgiveness for money. Martin Luther preached against papal indulgences in 1517 in his 95 theses. How can Christ's church in any way be said to be selling salvation of souls for money? This is clearly a wrong practice.
Because of this, Constantinople is away from Rome, and the Protestants also protested the sale of forgiveness for money. According to papist logic, money is required to redeem souls from purgatory, a place which does not exist.
Florence was a false council.
In Erie Scott Harrington

 

[Scotth1960]

Francis, You ignore medieval history. And early Church history. St. Peter rebuked Simon Magus who tried to buy the Holy Spirit with money. The Roman papal church sells forgiveness for money. Martin Luther preached against papal indulgences in 1517 in his 95 theses. How can Christ's church in any way be said to be selling salvation of souls for money? This is clearly a wrong practice.
Because of this, Constantinople is away from Rome, and the Protestants also protested the sale of forgiveness for money. According to papist logic, money is required to redeem souls from purgatory, a place which does not exist.
Florence was a false council.
In Erie Scott Harrington

Francis, You words are in error. What are you talking about "my" church. The Church belongs to God, and God belongs within His Church. I am just an inquirer into Orthodoxy. I do agree with what they say. I just haven't become one with them yet. I have spent many years as a Protestant. I don't assent to everything Luther taught, either. Nor with the popes of Rome. I believe the Orthodox Church is teaching the true Gospel. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

 

[francisdesales]

Dear francis, Some of the Greeks disobeyed God the Holy Spirit, and signed on to Florence with schismatic Rome.

More of the same "begging the question". Here, let me correct your statement...

Some Greeks disobeyed God the Holy Spirit, and refused to listen to their bishops that returned from Florence, stating "I WILL NOT SERVE THE LORD"... The Scriptures clearly state that the Son of God also sends the Spirit. But you refuse to address it, prefering your faulty logic of "I said so"...

Rome was then in heresy, too.

Impossible. Rome was never in heresy. Constantinople's patriarchs had a tradition of being in heresy, not the Bishop of Rome. Look to the greatest Eastern saints - who did they turn to when their own patriarchs attempted to force them from the faith once given? Athanasius, Maximus the Confessor, John Chrysostom, the Cappadocians. I am going from memory, but I think the Patriarch of Constantinople was accused and removed from office for heresy nearly 20 times in 1000 years. The Eastern Church was OFTEN in schism, even before 1000 AD. It appears that people in the East just don't want to listen to authority, unless it is their own.

As a judgment against the unfaithfulness of the majority of bishops among the Greeks, holy Constantinople fell to the Turks in 1453 AD. This should show the fruit of union with Rome is God's judgment.

Ever consider it was the other way around, that God allowed the Greeks to suffer because the Greeks THEMSELVES refused to listen to their own bishops, men who were speaking for God???

ANATHEMA is then upon those who say "AND THE SON", UNLESS THEY REPENT! There is MERCY with God to ALL who repent. There is still time, then, to believe JESUS CHRIST and ACCEPT JOHN 15:26 AS IT IS, WITHOUT "AND THE SON" IN IT. In Erie Scott Harrington

Yawn...

And John 20 speaks of the Lord Jesus Christ confering the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles without the Father. Really, Scott, you need to read my posts, I already addressed this several times. The Scriptural witness is against the Orthodox. As a former Protestant, you should be able to understand what that means.

Regards

 

[Ashua]

Revelation 2:12-16

12And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write; These things saith he which hath the sharp sword with two edges;

13I know thy works, and where thou dwellest, even where Satan's seat is: and thou holdest fast my name, and hast not denied my faith, even in those days wherein Antipas was my faithful martyr, who was slain among you, where Satan dwelleth.

14But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication.

15So hast thou also them that hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitanes, which thing I hate.

16Repent; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will fight against them with the sword of my mouth.

What church has the deeds of the Nicolaitanes? (Conquer the Laity/people) What church eats things sacrificed the graven images, and adorns their assembly with such idols? What church is also known to have good works?

 

[francisdesales]

St. Peter rebuked Simon Magus who tried to buy the Holy Spirit with money. The Roman papal church sells forgiveness for money.

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Sins were forgiven in confession, and the penance was to give a gift of money for the building of St. Peter's Bascillica. Certainly, this could be construed as an abuse - and that loophole was fixed. But no forgiveness was sold for money. Forgiveness was already granted before the penance was given.

Haven't you been to Confession yet? Remember the order?

Martin Luther preached against papal indulgences in 1517 in his 95 theses. How can Christ's church in any way be said to be selling salvation of souls for money? This is clearly a wrong practice.

Gosh, you might as well ask "how can Christ's church commit a sin"... Really, I didn't know that the Church on earth was perfect or would ever be perfected until the Second Coming.

 

[Scotth1960]

Scott, I can see your knowledge of the apostolic church is quite limited. When did you join the Orthodox Church?

That's not generally how Councils work. Usually, the Pope witnesses the proceedings and doesn't take part in the specific day-to-day discussions. He approves the format and the final definitions.



It wasn't part of the agenda to discuss this.



How so? It is not the Pope's job to micromanage and interdict the proceedings. He looks at the results and adds his input, but largely, it is left to the bishops to attempt to define what we believe.




There is no contradiction. The Filioque is a clarification of what we believe, just as Constantinople is a clarification of Nicene. And Chalcedon is a clarification of Constantinople.



That's false logic. That is like saying that Nicene was in error because nothing was said about the Holy Spirit... OR, that Nicene was in error because nothing was said about icons.



An ecumenical Council doesn't need to have every single bishop in the Universal Church present. Nicene certainly did not, nor did Ephesus. In many cases, only several hundred bishops out of thousands showed up. And because the Orthodox was in Schism, it was no surprise that they decided, on their own volition, to stubbornly remain separated from the Body.

Scott, your logic is really terrible. It is largely "begging the question". In addition, your stance doesn't take into account what your very own church says about the Latin Church.

Regards

Dear francisdesales, The Filioque is a clarification of nothing. It obscures and FALSIFIES Scripture and the WORDS OF JESUS CHRIST. The ecumenical councils do not contradict each other. They grow in knowledge of the grace and truth of Jesus Christ, but they do not develop or produce new doctrines. They merely say what needs to be said, and they add what needs to be added in opposition to heresies. They take nothing away and add nothing to Scripture and Orthodox tradition. Their Catholicity is universal. It is not centered in Rome. One city cannot be universal. The local Catholic church is in many cities, wherever there are Orthodox Christians. The majority of the patriarchs of the Ancient Church, Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, Constantinople, disagree with FILIOQUE. They ae NOT wrong. Papist Rome is WRONG. John 15:26 speaks against FILIOQUIST THEOLOGY.
In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington
PS One thing Rome and Constantinople agree on: Abortion is wrong and all human life is sacred.

 

[francisdesales]

Francis, You words are in error. What are you talking about "my" church. The Church belongs to God, and God belongs within His Church. I am just an inquirer into Orthodoxy. I do agree with what they say. I just haven't become one with them yet. I have spent many years as a Protestant. I don't assent to everything Luther taught, either. Nor with the popes of Rome. I believe the Orthodox Church is teaching the true Gospel. In Erie PA Scott Harrington

Oh, so you aren't even Orthodox??? Then pray tell why YOU still refuse to enter into an Apostolic Church when you know it is teaching the true Gospel? What are you waiting for?

 

[Scotth1960]

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Sins were forgiven in confession, and the penance was to give a gift of money for the building of St. Peter's Bascillica. Certainly, this could be construed as an abuse - and that loophole was fixed. But no forgiveness was sold for money. Forgiveness was already granted before the penance was given.

Haven't you been to Confession yet? Remember the order?



Gosh, you might as well ask "how can Christ's church commit a sin"... Really, I didn't know that the Church on earth was perfect or would ever be perfected until the Second Coming.

Requiring money as a penance to build St. Peter's cathedral?
That is a distinction without a difference. If money is required to be paid as a penance, it is still selling something. It was not the practice of St. Peter or St. Paul or any to require money before they would baptize anyone. They required confession and repentance before God. In Erie Scott Harrington