Catholics and Orthodox - teaching etc authority after 1054

Discussion in 'Free-For-All Archives' started by Matt Black, Apr 1, 2005.

  1. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    If Jesus effectively intended to establish a Church with a single teaching authority and, assuming that that authority resided in the Church whilst united as both Catholic and Orthodox, what implications does this have for the authority - both in doctrine and practice - of both Catholic and Orthodox Churches after 1054 (arguably earlier if one dates the disunity from Rome's unilateral addition of the filioque )? (I partly ask this question because ISTM in some quarters that some Orthodox 'blame' Rome for the Reformation, viewing it as an inevitable consequence of Rome's 'unilateralism' in doctrine and practice post-1054).

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  2. Doubting Thomas

    Doubting Thomas
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,615
    Likes Received:
    6
    From what I've read, the Orthodox do in fact argue that it was Rome which in effect separated itself from the "One, Holy, Catholic church" with its unilateral (ie without an ecumenical council) addition of the filioque and the increasingly pretentious claims (and stature) of the monarchial papacy. There's also a saying among the Orthodox that "the pope was the first protestant" and conversely that "each protestant is a mini-pope".
     
  3. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    So can we in any sense talk in terms of a single Christian teaching authority in the second (and now third) millenium and, if not, where does that leave us epistemologically? "Every man doing what he (theologically) thinks fit in his own eyes" (with apologies and acknowledgements to the Author of 'Judges')? Very Baptistic, to be sure, but not very helpful theologically...

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  4. Born Again Catholic

    Born Again Catholic
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2002
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    0
    Matt

    You do realize that about 1/4 to1/3 of the world's orthodox christians are still united with Rome, the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church which most are familiar with is just one of 22 Rites within the Church, the other 21 our Orthodox Rites united with Rome, the Byzantine Catholic Church for example.

    The main branch of Orthodoxy actually agree to reunite with Rome in the 15th century but later reniged, in my view pride, insensitivity by some latin rite Catholics, and anger some of it justigied has kept the main body of Orthodoxy from returning home to the Church. I am hopeful however JPII has done a lot to break down the walls of seperation. After 1000 years apart the difference between the faiths seem to be more nomenclature and cultural rather than substantive. The same applies to the Oriental Orthodox who broke away in 525 ad?, infact they are probably a little closer to reuniting with the Church. The Anglicans our reuniting through departures every time the go further away from Rome the more Anglican priests go to Rome. When they started ordaining women priest over 700 priests became Catholic priests and many others just left their ministries and became Catholic. I am trully sad for them but their latest moves toward homosexuality will probably rip that church in half and undoubtedly much of the other hallf will come to Rome. They have introduced so much new heretical items true reunification with that church is probably impossible.
     
  5. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    The errors infused into the church BY the time of 1054 were already "myriad" as history shows.

    Or were you thinking that the RC church of 1054 held essentially to "Baptist" doctrine???

    In Acts 20 - Paul predicted error WITHIN the church.

    In 2Thess 2 - Paul predicted church apostacy.

    In Mark 7 Christ STATED - that error existed in the ONE TRUE CHURCH started by God at Sinai with it's church leader's "successors" CHOSEN according to the BIBLE model (not some man made tradition about Peter).

    I fail to see how you get to a 1054 (pure Dark Ages mythology mode church) doctrinal "purity" statement.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  6. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    In 1 Tim 1 - we find Paul saying that the whole reason that Timothy has to stay behind in Ephesus is to combat doctrinal error that is bursting forth from "within" the local congregation.

    How in the world can Matt keep claiming "Doctrinal purity" for a superstition riddled paganism-infused RCC???

    Even RC historians themselves admit to this - why is Matt the last one in on the fact of history??

    What histories are Baptists reading in Britain??

    He must not be Catholic OR Baptist ones.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  7. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    Matthew 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

    Matthew 16:18 I also tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and the gates of Hades will not prevail against it. (WEB)

    Matthew 16:18 And *I* also, I say unto thee that *thou* art Peter, and on this rock I will build my assembly, and hades' gates shall not prevail against it. (DARBY)

    Matthew 16:18 `And I also say to thee, that thou art a rock, and upon this rock I will build my assembly, and gates of Hades shall not prevail against it; (YOUNG'S)

    Perhaps the more pertinent question should be: What did Christ mean when he said "my church?"
     
  8. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have concluded that the Orthodox Church makes the best case. Also that we have no way of recovering what Jesus origionally had in mind for the Church. I have concluded that he expected his followers to reform Judaism from the inside, not start a new outfit.
     
  9. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Actually, DHK has hit the nail on the head. He and I (IIRC) disagree on the NT meaning of &epsilon;&kappa;&kappa;&lambda;&eta;&sigma;&iota;&alpha; - suffice it to say that I maintain that it has more than a purely local meaning in the NT - try Col 1:18-24 for starters - which supports my contention that up until the Great Schism there was a teaching authority, I respectfully submit - please test and examine this as I'm still very much 'floating' this idea (which in any event leads us up something of a blind alley after 1054, as my OP suggests!)

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  10. DHK

    DHK
    Expand Collapse
    <b>Moderator</b>
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2000
    Messages:
    37,982
    Likes Received:
    134
    The only teaching authority that each local church had was the Bible. Each church had its own pastor. Ephesus had Timothy. Crete had Titus. Apollos was in Crete. Aquilla and Priscilla were in Rome, and the church that was in their house.
    There is no evidence that Peter was ever in Rome except to be dragged there in order to die.

    Acts 14:23 When they had appointed elders for them in every assembly, and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord, on whom they had believed.

    Elders or pastors were appointed in every assembly where Paul went on his missionary journey. All of these assemblies (churches) were quite obviously independent of each other. There was no possible way that the one hundred or so churches that Paul started could be connected with each other. Many of them would not have even heard of some of the others. They did not have telephones, internet, trains, cars, etc. Travel and communication was difficult. Think of it: Most Americans have never been outside their own country, and yet Paul traveled most of Europe, Asia, and Macedonia. That is more than perhaps 90% of Americans who have modern means of travel will ever see. The people in the churches that he started likely did not travel much at all, unless they were the exceptional Christians like some of the ones mentioned in Thessalonians (where their faith was heard of throughout the whole world).

    There was no denomination; no central teaching authority. Every church had the Bible. Gradually they had the completed New Testament. It was their authority, not any magesterium, or any other single teaching authority. The searched the Scriptures daily to see whether these things were so.
    DHK
     
  11. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    I agree that in the NT model - the Acts 15 council shows a hierarchy and accepted authority - the Apostles and elders holding the meeting - and with James rendering Judgment after all have spoken.

    This is clearly a hierarchical model within a SINGLE denomination (or SECT as the Jews called them).

    However this is not what you are ultimately arging for since a number of non-Catholic groups have that same kind of hierarchy.

    You are arguing that CROSS denominational groups should ALSO have it - (so in the NT terms that would be like the Jews and the Christians where Christianity was considered a SECT of Judaism).

    Your proposal simply HAS NO working model shown in history or scripture.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  12. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    As for your 1054 claim "again". I have no idea what you think was so great in the error-infused dominant "beast" that ruled the domain of the former Roman Empire at that time.

    Is it just that they were able to put down dissenters with the sword -- or do you appeal to their doctrinal "result" as well?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  13. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    The working model is obvious - the Ecumenical and other Councils - or are you saying that our knowledge of the Trinity, orthodox Christology and the New Testament canon are a Bad Thing? :eek:

    As for persecution, that was carried out largely by secular authorities as a means of maintaining peace and uniformity in their dominions; church involvement only really commenced with the Lateran Council - which is way after the 1054 split

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  14. billwald

    billwald
    Expand Collapse
    Banned

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2000
    Messages:
    11,414
    Likes Received:
    0
    Darby met with (basically fouded) the Plymouth Brethern after inventing the premil, pre trib eschatology. The PBs funded Scofield, Dallas Theological, included Ryrie and etc. Most Baptists are functional PBs but don't know it. The origional Baptists were "reformed."
     
  15. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Given that the Church began about 70 years before the Bible was completed, I find that statement very hard to substantiate

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  16. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    There is NO case where a NT letter starts out with "unfortunately we STILL have an INCOMPLETE BIBLE".

    This is the view the RCC tries to promote - but it is NEVER found in the NT text!

    Think about that - it means that the OBVIOUS cases of sola scriptura as in Acts 17:11 were NEVER challenged by a "yes but our Bible is incomplete so HOW can we possibly test doctrine by scripture!!".

    No such argument against scripture is EVER found in the Bible records for the NT church!

    The only ones that try that trick - are the RC apologists trying to get out of the inconvenient details of the NT text as IT shows sola-scriptura being practiced!!

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  17. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    There's also no case where an epistle begins "now that we do have a complete Bible" (how on earth could it, since the epistle concerned was about to form part of the Scriptures?); you can read into that either way. The point is though that I'm afraid history is not on your side, Bob

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  18. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    #1. The points I just listed "Remain" since you have made no argument against them.

    #2. The fact that the Bible NEVER argues your case "HEY guys we have an INCOMPLETE BIBLE - better not be using scripture to TEST the words of those who speak to you to SEE IF those doctrines are SO" only WORSENS your own case.

    #3. The fact that the Bible never ADDS "Hey - we NOW have a complete Bible so the Acts 17:11 method can NOW be approved of" only devastates your case!

    You keep arguing that this "incomplete" attribute should have STOPPED the Acts 17:11 method from being approved AT LEAST until the whole Bible was completed. (Since you claim that the "incomplete Bible" argument is "substantive")

    The fact that the very OPPOSITE of what "you" expect to see -- is what we DO see in scripture only devastates your case.

    Your method of continually pointing out that same flaw in your argument - is not promoting your argument - so why do you go there?

    In Christ,

    Bob
     
  19. Matt Black

    Matt Black
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2003
    Messages:
    9,141
    Likes Received:
    0
    Bob, I've dealt with your points already on the SS thread and I don't propose to rehash them here

    Yours in Christ

    Matt
     
  20. BobRyan

    BobRyan
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2002
    Messages:
    30,837
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ok - as pointed out the scriptures don't seem to be making your case and it appears that the Acts 17:11 point is in fact devastating to it - "even more so" given the fact that these are

    #1. Non Christians doing the sola scriptura testing of a CHRISTIAN apostle.

    #2. The Bible they use is less than the one we have today!

    IF ever there was a time to NOT approve sola scriptura it was in Acts 17:11.

    And yet EVEN THERE in that most extreme cast it stands... APPROVED!

    The RCC case fails at that point with no way out.

    In Christ,

    Bob
     

Share This Page

Loading...