Scripture and Tradition

[D28guy]

Matt,

"Oh dear me! That old canard of "Constantine made Christianity the state religion and founded the RCC." Please, please , please can we drop this pseudo-historical rubbish?"

Ummm...the mix of paganism and christianity now known as the Catholic Church of Rome and her off-shoots began around the 3rd/4th century, Matt. Goodness gracious, this is church history 101, Matt.

*Slightly* stunned,

Mike

 

[BobRyan]

It is noteworthy that the Greek Orthodox still baptize Scripturally -- by immersion.

This practice is just starting to stop being infrequent among Catholics.

Hmmm so "as late a 1054 they did not ALL have the SAME tradition?"

 

[BobRyan]

DHK
Quote:
Originally Posted by DHK
When Christianity was made a state-religion by Constantine then Christianity became paganized and paganism became Christianized, and thus began the RCC in the fourth century, although some of its man-made doctrines and heresies had been lurking around for some time before that.

Oh dear me! That old canard of "Constantine made Christianity the state religion and founded the RCC." Please, please , please can we drop this pseudo-historical rubbish?

Ok time to "line up our historians" to see which ones we will place at a lower trusted level than MB's "I say so".:laugh:

I will start with one from the RCC ITSELF.

Recall "the obvious" that the RCC doesn't really have the "option" of claiming it did not exist at the time of Constantine.

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

Ibid -Pg 49 speaks of the change that occurred in the 4th century

"the clergy at first were not sharply differentiated from the laity..the clergy married, raised families, and earned their livelihood at some trade or profession. But as the practice grewof paying them..they withdrew more and more from secular pursuits, until by the fourth century such withdrawal was deemed obligatory"

"at first the Christian presbyter or elder (as they were really known) avoided any resemblance to the pagan or Jewish priests and, in fact even deliberately refused to be called a priest[/b]. He (the real Christian leader) saw his primary function as the ministry of the word. ..but the image of the Christian presbyter gradually took on a sacral character."

"[b]the more elaborate liturgy of the post-Constantinian era, with its features borrowed from paganism, enhanced the image of the minister[/b] as a sacred personage. The ministry of the word diminished in importance when infant baptism became the rule rather than the exception, for infants could not be preached to. "

"before Constantine the whole church was considered the realm of the sacred (priesthood of all) as opposed to the profane world. After Constantine and the breakdown of the separation between the church and the world, the polarity between the sacred and profane was transformed into one between the sacred clergy and the profane laity"

"legislation to this effect was first passed at the local synod of Elvira, Spain and taken up by the popes beginning with Siricius (d. 399), who enforced clerical celebacy (which was adopted mainly on the grounds that sex was incompatible with the sacred character of the clergy)"



So there we have it on two short pages (49-50) of that telling work done by a Catholic historian - revealing the ongoing evolutionary process in the church that brings us to where we are today.



Ibid - Page 42
"the liturgy itself was considerably influenced by the Constantinian revolution. Millions of pagans suddenly entered the church and some of their customs inevitably crept into the liturgy;[/b] the use of the kiss as a sign of reverence for holy objects, the practice of genuflection, devotion to relics, use of candles, incense and other ceremonial features derived from the imperial court. Under this pagan influence Christians began to face the east while praying which made it necessary for the priest to lead prayers while his back was toward the congregation."

 

[BobRyan]

The Catholic historian Thomas Bokenkotter's best selling pro-Catholic book "a concise history of the Catholic church" makes it abundantly clear..

How much influence did Emperor Constantine have on the RCC “really”. How much of a role in moving it past the point of merely “Not persecuted” ?

At first Constantine observed an attitude of formal correctness toward paganism. He remained its Supreme Pontiff, paid homage to the sun god on the official coinage, and in general was careful not to alienate the pagan masses…But he gradually revealed his true feelings. He imposed restrictions on pagan practice and publicly displayed the Christian symbols[/b] He attached the standards of the army to a cross emblazoned with the monograme of Christ and issued coins picturing himself wearing a helmet stamped with the same monogram…he increasingly identified the interests of the state with those of Christianity.
(Bokenkotter "A Concise History of the Catholic Church" page 38)

“The emperor showed great generosity to the Church in lavishing donations on it and erecting numerous sumptuous basilicas, including the magnificent one over the supposed site of the tomb of Peter at Rome and another over the tomb of Christ in Jerusalem. [b]He surrendered HIS Lateran palace in Rome to the bishop of Rome for a residence and it remained the Papal residence until 1308. When in 324 he moved the capital of the Empire to Byzantium, which was renamed Constantinople after him, he erected numerous churches there…

"[b]This alliiance with the state profoundly influenced every aspect of the church's thought and life.[/b] It carried many advantages, but it also entailed some serious drawbacks; ... Mass conversions where social conformity was the chief motivating factor; the widening gap between clergy and laity thanks to the official status conferred on them; persecution of dissenters as a menace to the unity of the state. The church would never be the same again - for better and for worse - and so Constantine's conversion is certainly one of the greatest turning points in the history of the Catholic church and of the world." Ibid - Pg 39

 

[BobRyan]

Result? We have BOTH Protestant historians AND Catholic historians admitting to the same historic facts regarding the pivitol impact of Constantine on the RCC -- and then we see some "hold outs" who with eyes and ears closed seem to say "I won't believe it -- I won't believe it".

What is up with that???

in Christ,

Bob

 

[Darron Steele]

In reference to me:

Hmmm so "as late a 1054 they did not ALL have the SAME tradition?"

Correct.

I do not know about baptism. I do not know when it became widespread in the west to replace baptism with sprinkling or pouring. It may have been after 1054. As I noted, the Greek Orthodox, following the meaning of the Greek word, have always immersed.

The traditions of Rome, versus the traditions of the rest of the church, differed by 1054. The reason for the split was because the Catholic bishop at Rome would no longer tolerate being disagreed with. He sent a `bull of excommunication' to the Orthodox. He initiated the split over prior disagreements over religious tenets.

Because it is commonly assumed in the church today that church unity means church agreement of opinion, it is commonly assumed that the dominant body of the church agreed on everything before 1054. This is incorrect: that dominant body stayed one dominant body despite disagreement long before 1054.

 

[Matt Black]

Does the truth hurt Matt? You don't like to see the truth of history posted, but only the rose colored revisionist history of the RCC? How convenient! It's nice to have your own version of history where one can block out the Inquistion as if nothing ever happened, but we know that is not true. There are still holocaust deniers among us too. But truth is truth, no matter how much one denies it.

OK, please then explain - and this applies to Mike, too - the historical process whereby Constantine 'started' this 'new' Church in the 4th century, together with contemporary evidence to support your claim. (It's all very well saying "the truth hurts" but you haven't actually produced any yet.)

 

[Matt Black]

Do you understand Greek?

NT Greek, yes. Did you even bother to read my post?

 

[DHK]

OK, please then explain - and this applies to Mike, too - the historical process whereby Constantine 'started' this 'new' Church in the 4th century, together with contemporary evidence to support your claim. (It's all very well saying "the truth hurts" but you haven't actually produced any yet.)

Did you read the posts by Bob?

 

[standingfirminChrist]

Some only read what they want to read and filter out that which proves them wrong.

 

[Matt Black]

Did you read the posts by Bob?

Yes, and whilst they contain a degree of factual accuracy, they - not Bob, but the historian he quotes - are also laden with historical inaccuracies. For example, it is not the case that clerical celibacy was enforced from the 4th century. That was a practice unique to the Western Church, which only became a canonical discipline under Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century after the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western halves of the Church (and for that reason I would reject it); even today the Eastern Church allows its priests to marry.

 

[DHK]

Yes, and whilst they contain a degree of factual accuracy, they - not Bob, but the historian he quotes - are also laden with historical inaccuracies. For example, it is not the case that clerical celibacy was enforced from the 4th century. That was a practice unique to the Western Church, which only became a canonical discipline under Pope Gregory VII in the 11th century after the Great Schism between the Eastern and Western halves of the Church (and for that reason I would reject it); even today the Eastern Church allows its priests to marry.

And herein sola scriptura reigns.

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

The claim of so many Protestant sect's because every sect has there own interpretation holds no water. It is plain and simple--The RCC and others plainly reject the Word of God. It is very obvious that Peter had a wife. Jesus came into his own home, where his wife and mother were staying at the time, and he healed his wife's mother. Peter was married. Mandatory celibacy is absolutely wrong, and there is no Biblcal mandate for it. That tradition is unScriptural and there is no need to look to the ECF or tradition for any support.

 

[Eliyahu]

1. Just because you say 100 times that the world is flat doesn't make it true.

2. You miss the point: we're not talking about whether the NT uses the LXX for its OT quotes, but rather about the fact that the Berean believers would, as Greek-speaking Jews, have had the LXX as their primary OT source document.


Not "too much different", surely? Some of the words have changed but not the meaning, and the changed words can easily be attributed to the Acts scribe or redactor's faulty memory. The meaning is the same. In fact, if anything, the Acts passage follows more faithfully the LXX version of Amos 9:11-12, since neither mentions Edom, which is found only in the Hebrew version of Amos 9:12[/color][/size][/font]

Heh heh - see above!

You just repeat to insist your ignorance about the Greek and Bible itself.

When anyone say that NT quoted LXX, the wording must be exactly the same. Bible is not a fiction or novel. If anyone quoted Septuagint, why didn't he repeat the same wording but state differently?

Read the followings, it start from different words, en te hemera vs meta tauta, then anastesow became anastrepso, then anastesow to anortheso, omiting mou, theos, ....... so many.

Is this what you mean by quotation? Is this your term of Quote?

Show me any simpler verse which you believe surely quoted LXX in NT.




LXX Αmos 9:11-12

Εν τη ημερα εκεινη αναστησω την σκνην Δαυιδ την πεπωκυιαν και ανοικοδομησς τα πεπτωκοτα αυτης και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης αναστησω και ανοικοδομησω αυτην καθως αι ημεραι του αωνος

Οπως εκζησωσιν οι καταλοιποι των ανθρωπων και παντα τα εθνη εφ’ ους επικεκληται το ονομα μου επ αυτους λεγει κυριος ο θεος ο ποιων ταυτα

Greek NT
Acts 15:16-17

Μετα ταυτα αναστρεψω, και ανοικοδομησω την σκηνην Δαβιδ την πεπτωκυιαν, και τα κατεσκαμμενα αυτης ανοικοδομησω και ανορθωσω αυτην,

17 Οπως αν εκζητησωσιν οι καταλοιποι των ανθρωπων τον Κυριον, Και παντα τα εθνη εφ’ ους επικεκληται το ονομα μου επ ουτους, Λεγει Κυριος ο ποιων ταυτα παντα

 

[D28guy]

Matt,

I've heard you say that your denomination (Anglican) is actually just a different name for the Episcopal group over here in the USA.

If that is the case...

1) Are you comfortable with your leaderships view that practicing homosexuals are fully acceptable as Bishops?

2) If not...what is your basis for disagreement?

Thanks,

Mike

 

[Matt Black]

Mike, you're correct that The Epicopal Church in the USA (TEC, formerly ECUSA) is part of the Anglican Communion (Church), just as is the Church of England over here. To answer your questions:-

1. I wouldn't be comfortable if that were the case but actually it's not correct that the leadership of the Anglican Communion is of the view that practising homosexuals are fully acceptable as bishops. In fact, if you look at the ruling of the last Lambeth Bishops' Conference (which is the nearest we get to a leadership meeting) of 1998 plus the pronouncements of the Archbishop of Canterbury, the opposite would tend to be the case: Lambeth 1998 made it quite clear that practising homosexuals were not to be consecrated as bishops and, by consecrating Gene Robinson as +NH, TEC are in defiance of this and are in danger (as they have been warned by ++Rowan Catuar (the Archbishop of Canterbury) of being excommunicated; the fact that they haven't yet been thrown out is less due to a lack of will as to the factthat, compared to eg: the SBC, Anglican wheels grind exceedingly slowly (Lambeth Conferences are only once every 10 years). My advice is to watch this space, particularly Lambeth 2008 this year.

2. For the record, I'm against the practise of homosexuality because it is not in accordance with Scripture as correctly interpreted; the attempts of various liberals eg: in TEC to 'explain away' the OT and NT verses which condemn same-sex sexual relationships are not in accordance with how Church Tradition has interpreted those Scriptures throughout the centuries.

And herein sola scriptura reigns.

Matthew 8:14 And when Jesus was come into Peter's house, he saw his wife's mother laid, and sick of a fever.

The claim of so many Protestant sect's because every sect has there own interpretation holds no water. It is plain and simple--The RCC and others plainly reject the Word of God. It is very obvious that Peter had a wife. Jesus came into his own home, where his wife and mother were staying at the time, and he healed his wife's mother. Peter was married. Mandatory celibacy is absolutely wrong, and there is no Biblcal mandate for it. That tradition is unScriptural and there is no need to look to the ECF or tradition for any support.

Oh I agree. But you're pushing at an open door here: I'm not Catholic and have already stated I'm against clerical celibacy because it falls outside of both Scripture and Tradition.

 

[Eliyahu]

Matt,

Returning to the original theme of this thread, have you ever thought about this Mt 28:19-20?


[FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]

19 Go ye therefore, and teach F55 all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: 20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
​

[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Geneva, Helvetica]FOOTNOTES:
F54: was: or, had been
<A name=F55>F55: teach...: or, make disciples, or, Christians of all nations
[/FONT]
http://bible1.crosswalk.com/OnlineStudyBible/bible.cgi


So, Jesus asked the Disciples to make disciples.

Then the next Disciples must have made disciples, then the next disciples would have made another disciples, even down to us. Now therefore we are the disciples of Jesus. Are you claiming that only the Catholic priests have got the Holy Tradition?

We have the Tradition enough for the worship and belief which coincide with the Bible.
How come Purgatory, Infant Baptism, Papacy, Obligatory Celibacy, Statue Worship, Prayer to the Dead which are either contradictory to the Bible or disagree with the Bible?

Do you believe about the Purgatory?

 

[Matt Black]

For me, Matt 28:18-19 supports the concept of Tradition with the idea pf teaching and discipleship therein.

No, I don't believe in Purgatory - that was a unilateral invention of the medieval western half of the Church

 

[DHK]

Matt,
You are inconsistent. Throughout the thread you have been supportive of Tradition and dead set against sola scriptura. But when sola scriptura shows how man-made doctrine comes up through tradition, such as celibacy, purgatory, and other such unbiblical doctrines you throw them out the window. Inevitably you give into sola scriptura admitting that the Bible becomes the supreme authority in matters concerning faith and doctrine.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Matt,
You are inconsistent. Throughout the thread you have been supportive of Tradition and dead set against sola scriptura. But when sola scriptura shows how man-made doctrine comes up through tradition, such as celibacy, purgatory, and other such unbiblical doctrines you throw them out the window. Inevitably you give into sola scriptura admitting that the Bible becomes the supreme authority in matters concerning faith and doctrine.

I don’t think Matt has been “inconsistent”, but what is consistent is that Holy Tradition has to be backed-up with Holy Scripture and vice versa. Both go hand in hand…before there was a completed table of the contented New Testament, there was Holy Tradition.

IN IC
-

 

[DHK]

I don’t think Matt has been “inconsistent”, but what is consistent is that Holy Tradition has to be backed-up with Holy Scripture and vice versa. Both go hand in hand…before there was a completed table of the contented New Testament, there was Holy Tradition.

IN IC
-

That is a joke. Where did this tradition come from? The Bible came before any tradition could even be established. As was aptly pointed, and even by Matt himself, celibacy didn't come until the 3rd or 4th centuries. It filtered into Christianity--a heretical doctrine by means of Tradition of men. But the Bible gives plenty of Scripture and example of both Apostles (like Peter) who was married; and the qualifications of a pastor who should be married. Celibacy was ruled out in the early churches. A bishop or pastor must be the husband of one wife, ruling well his own household. That leaves celibacy out in the cold doesn't it. These heretical doctrines that make their way through Tradition are wrong.