I'm becoming Orthodox

Correction--it shows that the "tradition of men" to be in conflict with the commandments of God. It doesn't condemn the tradition of the apostles, given to them from Christ Himself. Indeed it couldn't because the Apostle Paul (a real apostle) commanded the Christians to keep the traditions that he delivered, whether orally or by epistle. You can't seem to grasp that simple distinction. It's the source of the traditions that matters.

 

That is not true. We think it is, because so many people have interpreted it according to tradition (whether they directly claim it is "apostolic" or not), that now you have thrown your hands up and concluded no one can have a right interpretation of the scriptures(much like the agnostics now). So let's just choose the oldest [extant] of these traditions, and believe by faith that must be the truth. Sorry, but if men can't even get scripture right, how much worse will it be with some hypothesized oral tradition? And you still have not addressed the fact that the Jews use the same exact method of rejecting Jesus. They would say that the "new authentic apostolic interpretation of the Messianic passages of the OT" conflicted the oral tradition handed down from Moses (--just like you deride our "modern day interpretive traditions"!) Which would be more authoritative, if true? Now, how can Christ be proven?
Other points to keep in mind are that these apostles "traditions" were authoritative because they saw the risen Lord. Later leaders did not have that authority, and even if you insist that some knew the apostles, they could still have gotten some things wrong. When you look at the writings of the apostolic fathers, something is clearly different. It no longer has that certain touch of the Holy Spirit. all sorts of new methods of allegory/illustartion come up. (Such as Clement using the pagan fable of the Phoenix to try to illustrate the resurrection, and pseudo-Barnabas' comments on the hyena and weasel. Now imagine trying to argue that with science today!)
On the other hand; I see "quartodecimanism" mentioned before as one of the "heresies" stood against, but it was Polycarp and Polycrates, the sucessors to John, who fought for that, against the bishops of Rome. If you want to go on "apostolic tradition", then the catholic church opposed even this one point of that!

 

That is not true. We think it is, because so many people have interpreted it according to tradition...</font>[/QUOTE]Right...like the Baptist tradition, the Lutheran tradition, the Calvinist tradition, the Mennonite tradition, the Campellite tradition, the Weslyan tradition, the Pentacostal tradition, the Unitarian tradition, etc, etc, etc...

This oral tradition is not "hypothesized". It's really something that Paul commands the Christians to keep. It's by the Holy Spirit guidance in the Church that the Church can get both right.

What...are you telling me that Jews used Apostolic tradition to reject Jesus???

True..they would. (Of course, in their case they would be mistaken about the origin of their tradition.)

(And rightfully so--these modern day interpretive traditions, listed above, have led to increasing schisms and contradictions within Christendom.)

The Apostolic Tradition, of course, since it has the authority of Christ Himself and the promise of that Spirit would guide them into all truth. The Pharisee's tradition had neither.

Umm...how about by rising from the dead after three days and ascending into heaven? The Apostles were witnesses to this fact and were commisioned by Christ to spread His gospel in the power of the Spirit.

Exactly, and because Christ breathed His Spirit on them--the same Spirit that resides in the Church and guides her into all truth.

If they maintained the apostolic faith they did.
Hear Paul to Timothy:
"And these things which you heard from me among many faithful witnesses, commit these to faithful men who will be able to teach others also." (2 Tim 2:2) Notice Paul didn't put a time limit on this. He didn't say "these things which you heard from me commit to faithful witnesses, but tell them that once all of us apostles are dead and the canon is closed, just go by what is written, not what you may have committed to them (from me) orally."

Yes, the apostles are indeed the foundation of the church (Eph 2:20), but the church that is built on the apostles continues to be the pillar and ground of truth (1 Tim 3:15) and the fullness of Christ who fills all in all (Eph 1:23).

Wow...that's a subjective judgement. What do you mean by that exactly. Is that sort of like the "burning in the bosom"? I never claimed that the apostolic fathers were individually infallible nor that all their writings were free from error (scientific or otherwise). I do suggest that where there is patristic consensus--areas where there was no controversy and where they was substantial agreement over time and space--we ought to seriously consider what they said, especially if our modern day novel interpretations may conflict with theirs.

So was it a really a "heresy" (false doctrine) or was it a controversy regarding church praxis and discipline (when to specifically observe the anniversary of Christ's resurrection)? At any rate, regardless of its origin, those who observed Pascha on Sunday--those in Rome, Gaul, Egypt, Palestine, etc--constituted the majority, tracing this custom to Peter and Paul. Polycarp (bishop of Smyrna) and Anicetus (bishop of Rome) actually agreed to live and let live on the issue. Later, Irenaus (himself a disciple of Polycarp, yet who kept Pashca on Sunday) rebuked Victor (bishop of Rome) for basically speaking too rashly against the churches in Asia minor. With time, however, the common practice was to observe Pascha on the day of the week on which Christ rose from the dead. In summary, this was a question of discipline and praxis, not theological doctrine or dogma.

 

Bob you still haven't told us how you could have personally observed a churchservice with a lot of standing and sitting in a denomination where there are no seats!

 

How could you go to the Lincoln Memorial in Washington DC? How could you salute a flag? How could you hang pictures on your wall of your love ones (living and dead)?

Would you use your Bible as toilet paper? If not why? If you hold those pages in high regard what difference is that than a sacred image?
Secondly, Icons are just as sacred as Biblical text. In fact, most people pre-modern times got to know Christ through sacred images. Most people could not read or write. What good was a Bible to them? Icons tell the Biblical stories to amazing detail. The Cathedrals in Europe used Stain glass windows (although not as good as Icons). So, if you treat you Bible with respect (special table in the house) then you should show the same respect for Icons.

Why do you burn an American flag if it has touch the ground? Etc...

If you treat secular things with that kind of respect then how much greater should you respect the heros of the Bible. </font>[/QUOTE]Respecting something and kissing it, and believing you are actually connecting with someone through an image, are entirely different things.

I had gone and listed about a dozen verses showing that we preach the gospel through the word, not an image, but I lost it when trying to post. I think you know those verses are in the Bible, so I won't try to do it again.

I have a problem with seeing Mary as a "queen."

To "venerate" is a lot more than respect in Orthodoxy:

"to honor (as an icon or a relic) with a ritual act of devotion"

 

From the same link as previous post, this person (who is Orthodox) is trying to show how veneration and worship are not the same.

But he says veneration shows a "deep longing" for the saint. Are we not supposed to be focused on Christ, not the dead saints? I have no longing for them. I respect them, but longing for them is another level. The subtle elevation of saints so that focus is on them instead of Christ is one of the big problems I have with this.

Also, the above seems to be saying that the Orthodox bow to icons and relics "apologising for sin or asking some great favour." So now you are praying to the saints. When you talk to dead saints and ask for forgiveness (and how can a saint forgive?) or ask for a "favor," you are praying.

And

So God works "through" the icons. They are much more than pictures in Orthodoxy.

 

Correction--it shows that the "tradition of men" to be in conflict with the commandments of God. It doesn't condemn the tradition of the apostles, given to them from Christ Himself. Indeed it couldn't because the Apostle Paul (a real apostle) commanded the Christians to keep the traditions that he delivered, whether orally or by epistle. You can't seem to grasp that simple distinction. It's the source of the traditions that matters. </font>[/QUOTE]When Paul said this in 2 Thess. 2.15, the canon of scripture was not complete. He wrote this around AD 51 or 52, before many other of his writings for the NT had yet been done. He was writing to the church at Thessolonica, so naturally he would say this. At that time they only had some writings. Other teachings, oral at that time, were later were put into writing.

Don't you think God could get his all his word he wants us to have in writing? Why would he give oral teachings in addition to his word to be passed down outside of the canon? Especially when God himself said scripture is sufficient for what we need as believers.

 

Indeed.

That would be "tradition" in conflict with God's Word.

And as we see in 2Cor 11 even APOSTLES are shown to be FALSE and having FALSE teaching/tradition/doctrine!!

So "the substance of the PERSON" is not the issue NOR the FACT that they hold high office.

IN Mark 7 it is actual HUMANS as LEADERS in the MAGESTERIUM of the ONE TRUE CHURCH started by God at Sinai!!

No higher church authority existed inside HUMANITY!

And so TODAY we have the same issue.

HUMANS are still at the top - and in leadership though ALL the church claims to servce God - STILL tradition is coming from the HUMANS!!

This does not make all tradition wrong. But it certainly points to the fact that tradition IS KNOWN to be in conflict with scripture!!

EVEN within the ONE TRUE church started by God!

As already pointed out - this does not condemn "ALL TRADITION" but it points to the need to VALIDATE Tradition JUST as Christ did in Mark 7 - against the Word of God!! And when Tradition conflicts with that word - reject it! Condemn it! Declare it to be error!

Easy.

Simple.

Obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

In Gal 1 Paul CONDEMNS the tradition of Apostles and EVEN of ANGELS from HEAVEN - shoud it CONFLICT with the teaching of God's Word!

"If WE (Apostles) or AN ANGEL FROM HEAVEN should come to you teaching a different Gospel LET HIM BE ACCURSED"!! Gal 1.

What a great slam dunk against the error that IF you get connected to the right denomination - you can swallow whatever you are told without checking it out against the Word!!

As if Mark 7 was not enough!

As if Acts 17:11 were not ENOUGH!!

In Christ,

Bob

 

But where in Scripture does Paul say: "Only keep the oral stuff until the canon is closed, then just go by what's written?" Where in fact, in Scripture is there any talk of a written New Testament "canon" at all, let alone one that was eventually going to be "closed"? Yeah, Peter rightfully classifies some of Paul's epistles as "scripture", but that's about it. In fact Paul expects Timothy to commit to others (who will in turn commit to others) what he heard from Paul (2 Tim 2:2) without the caveat
of when the "canon is closed" to only keep what he wrote.

But where in Scripture does it say that all oral teachings Paul (or any of the other apostles--many of whom left no writings) gave would ultimately be committed to writing?

I suppose He could do whatever He wants...even "speak" through the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the Church.

Why not? The assumption behind your question is that Chrisianity can somehow be reduced to a written instruction manual. The early Christians saw it, however, as life in Christ. (Keep in mind that the first list of the NT "canon" that exactly matched the 27 books we use today was written in AD 367 by Athanasius. All lists before that left multiple books out--and at times included some we no longer have in the "canon"--except for the Council of Laodicea in 354 which only left out Revelation. So for over 300 years after Pentecost there was no finalized "closed canon" of which to speak.)

Where in Scripture does have God saying that Scripture is "sufficient"?

 

What I meant by "hypothesized" was the assumption of what some of these traditions were; that it was anything that cannot be found in scripture, such as candles and icons.

No; it was Mosaic tradition. That would be equally as God-given as any apostolic tradition, and since the Mosaic came first, that would be what any later revelation would be judged by. If the later would be found to contradict their interpretation of the former they naturally would reject it. Remember, not only is scripture subject to man's interpretation; but so is even these "traditions". That's why, once again, if man cannot get the written word right, it will be so much worse with some nebulous nonwritten word.

And likewise, the RCC/EOC can be mistaken about the origin of theirs.

And it was your Church's traditions that started it. You were able to hold it off with the stranglehold the Church ad for centuries; but the advent of printing killed that for you.

And Moses had his miracles to verify him. Once again, this "tradition" would be authoritative over any later one.

Unless you deny that the church ever fell into any error, it is obvious that it was quite possible for the church to not follow the Spirit into all truth, and mantain this apostolic faith (see Jude 3,4)

Why wouldn't they be? What would detemine what would be included in writing, and what would be left out? A secret code or something? This is based on a continued assumption that these "oral traditions" were a totally DIFFERENT and SEPARATE set of teachings! 1 Cor.11 gives us an example of these teachings. He mentions the oral instruction they received, and then goes on to expound it.

With the exception of John (who was in exile), they wer still nearly century after most of the apostles. A Lot had changed and spread out in that time. Some of the teachings that mark later RCC/EOC cannot readily be found (Fromt he earliest father I have read; I do not see icons and candles). Some are undoubetly misunderstood, just like the scriptures. Like Ignatius' "confess not the bread and wine to be the body and blood". That is ambiguous at best. It could go either way" literal or metaphorical. But of course, fo someone trying to project their practice back to the NT, they are giong to snatch this up as a definite "proof" of their view as we know it today.

But it's all related. The Rcc/EOC tries to say that ALL of their practices were the "apostolic tradition", yet we see here, that at least some of the spostles did not keep it on Sunday. Yet, because several regions (including Rome and Egypt, usually the primary sources of such changes in the Church) which gained some power, and were able to outnumber others, we see their practice become "universal" in just a century or so. The opposition was relatively small, basically just a footnote in history (that I know about only from studying SDA and other sabbatarian literature), and could easily have been lost. Then, we would have another practice that was "apostolic tradition" and "unanimous among pratristic tradition", and "without controversy". And who could disprove it? This is a prime example of what I have been saying. "Discipline and praxis" vs. "theological doctrine or dogma"? It all changes the same way. And stuff like candles, vestments and icons certainly would fall into the former category. On the other hand, it could be claimed, and has been claimed by the Church often, that the raxis of honoring the day of the week Christ rose is as important as the other liturgies. After all, this was what the Eucharist was about!

 

Doubting Thomas,

You asked Marcia,

If Marcia is who I think she is, she has a ministry far beyond mine and can answer more fully, but here is just the "tip" of the proverbial "iceberg"...

"All scripture is given by inspirtation of God and is profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, instruction in rightousness, that the man of God might be complete, and thoroughly equipped for every good work."

If the scriptures were not completly sufficient, God would not say they make us complete and thoroughly equipped, because it would make God a liar. He would have to say that they make us "partially complete" and "partially equipped".

Let the "scripture twisting" now begin...

Sadly.

Mike

 

Bob&Tauf
Greatly surprised by both your answers, untill I found the following.

PEWS: As someone once said, “the very word itself has an unpleasing ring to it.” In the opinion of many, they are the bane of Orthodox ritual in this country. Pews regimentalize and restrict the Orthodox Christian's expressions of piety; they physically alienate/isolate individuals from each other (parents from children, the “back-pew-ers” from the “front-pewers”); they allow for “reserved seating” which is passed on from generation to generation (woe-betide the new member of a parish who sits in the “chair of doom”!)’ Anyway, the short of it is, they should not be in an Orthodox church – something clearly stated in both the first and sixth Ecumenical Councils and in the Apostolic Constitutions. The Orthodox Church ritual allows for movement of expression, not only of the clergy but of the laity: the lighting of candles, the gathering around the priest during the sermon, the veneration of icons and yes, the sitting down of the elderly, the infirm and the little ones in chairs placed around the edges and back of the church. Pews are a “westernization” that has infiltrated many Orthodox churches in this country; they are rarely seen in the countries of origin of many of these parishes.
http://www.uocofusa.org/reflections/questions/seek_pews.shtml

I have visited a handful of Eastern-and Oriental-Orthodox services in my life, never saw a single chair or pew there.

 

You mean things like pews, organs, pianos, and stained glassed windows as well? (Have you never attended a candlelight Christmas eve service?)

So now we have the proliferation of competing and contradictory traditions. Yeah, that's a big improvement.

And Moses had his miracles to verify him. Once again, this "tradition" would be authoritative over any later one. </font>[/QUOTE]You're honestly going to compare the miracles of the Old Covenant with Christ rising from the dead, fulfilling the Old Covenant, and sending His Spirit whom He promised to the Apostles to guide them into all truth?

Actually, I do deny that the entire visible Church fell into error.

What would be included would be whatever Paul felt (under the Spirit's guidance) needed to be addressed to the particular communities he to which he was writing. You're still going on the assumption that Paul's epistles (and the New Testament in general) were meant to function as an exhaustive catechism, church manual, or systemtic theology book. You seem to be reducing Christianity to a written instruction manual rather than a life to be lived. Remember the churches were functioning without any written NT writing for several decades, and the limits of the NT canon weren't even "finalized" until the end of the 4th century.

I don't see pews, pianos, or stained glass windows either. (However primitive icons have actually been discovered on the catacomb walls and in some synagogues. I guess the fact that these weren't yet specificallly mentioned was that there was no apparent problem with them)

It's only ambiguous for those who desparately don't want to admit the belief in the real presence from the beginning.

And those who deny the real presence, will with futility claim "ambiguity". All the Protestant church historians I read can admit this was no mere symbolic language--either here in Ignatius or in the other fathers.

 

Whose Church again is meant by "your Church's traditions"? Because the advent of printing did nothing bad for Orthodoxy. It did break the hold Catholicism had on Western Europe, but the Church that this thread is about suffered no particular ill effects that I know of from Gutenberg's genius. Orthodoxy never had a Reformation, and never needed one, never having developed a pope who acted as supreme ruler, nor an Augustinian view of original sin that led to a doctrine of purgatory, and to a teaching of works of supererogation deposited in a treasury of merit leading to indulgences to obtain release from purgatory, nor the withholding the cup of the Eucharist from the laity, nor mandatory priestly celibacy, and it maintained its liturgies and Scripture readings in the language of the people wherever it went.

Rather than inventing or decreeing a plethora of teachings, dogmas, and doctrines during the late Middle Ages as Catholicism did necessitating a Reformation, Orthodoxy was the same before 1054 in those areas as it was after 1054, and is not appreciably different today than it was in 1054. The RCC, OTOH, has had Trent, Vatican I, Vatican II, the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception, and so on, even just since the Reformation, besides all the additions and accretions in the five centuries between then and the Great Schism. </font>[/QUOTE]Tauf,
Excellent post!

 

But it was never about what just one apostle may have said or did (or was claimed to have said or did). It is the agreement of the apostolic body as a whole. Some early leaders in the church thought circumcision was necessary, but the apostles and elders as a whole determined otherwise. Similarly the church thought it good to come to a universal agreement about when to annually celebrate Paschal. With time they reached such an agreement.

However, I don't see why this is big deal since it took even longer for the church to come to a consensus on what the limits of the New Testament "canon" were. Before AD 367 there was no list that had exactly the same 27 books that we have today. We can thank the Church's Tradition--the ongoing life of the Holy Spirit in the Church--for the finally agreed upon 27 book NT that we have today.

 

From JND Kelly's EARLY CHRISTIAN DOCTRINES (pp.197-198):

"Ignatius roundly declares [Smyn.6,2] that 'the eucharist is the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins and which the Father in His goodness raised.' The bread is the flesh of Jesus, the cup His blood [Rom.7,3]. Clearly he intends for this realism to be taken strictly, for he makes it the basis [Smyrn. 6f] of his argument against the Docetists' denial of the reality of Christ's body. Because the eucharist brings Christians into union with their Lord, it is the great bond between them [Eph 13,1; Philad 4]. and since it mediates communion with Christ, it is the medicine of immortality, and antidote against death which enables us to live with the Lord forever [Eph 20:2]." (bolding is mine)

So apparently this eminent church historian (and he is just one example among many others) doesn't see this alleged "ambiguity" that you describe. Kelly is quite confident that Ignatius meant this to be taken realistically, not "metaphorically". It would seem, based on the plain statements of Ignatius, that this "ambiguity" is only in your imagination.

I'll throw another in for good measure, this time from noted Yale church historian, Jaroslav Pelikan in THE EMERGENCE OF THE CATHOLIC TRADITION, a book he wrote while still Protestant:

"Yet the adoration of Christ in the Eucharist through the words and actions of the liturgy seems to have presupposed that this was a special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of His presence in the church. In some early Christian writers that presuppostion was expressed in strikingly realistic language. Ignatius called the the Eucharist 'the flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins,' asserting the reality of the Christ's presence in the Eucharist against the docetists, who regarded his flesh as a phantom both in the incarnation and in the Eucharist." (p.168)
(again, emphasis mine)

Hmm...."strikingly realistic language"...no "ambiguity" here either.

Notice he said this was presupposed by the early Christians to be a "special presence, neither distinct from nor merely illustrative of His presence in the Church". This illustrates the Orthodox view beautifully (again see Fr. Schmemann's FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD)