/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

lol, I'll play "Devil's advocate" and (a) propose something (b) assault the definition of tradition.

(a) The verse you quote is meant to ensure that the truth, which should be known by the writer and church of that time, is preserved.

(b) Since the writing of said scripture, a long time has passed. Suppose A years ago, what was taught was to do Z. This tradition persists as per the verse you quoted. Nevertheless, the tradition gets currupted over time. Say, at time B. Well, if tradition is then preserved from time B, what's being perserved is a curruption and not the truth. Inevitably, the "tradition" of time B would have to be altered or broken to return to that which was taught at time A.

It all comes down to whether a degredation provably occurred from back then to the present such that the traditions upheld now are currupted versions of the originals.

Although not provably necessarily, by means of comparison we can talk of likelihood. E.g., even when talking about what a "conservative" or a "liberal" is, it is a certainty that the values associated with such labels have changed over time. E.g., the conservative might propose that women should possess a certain level of modesty and decorum by means of dress. However, despite the statement remaining the same, is it not the case that the implementation has changed over time? E.g., style of dress of the Puritans, style of dress of the early 1900s, style of dress of the present. In short, this is an example wherein a tradition whose label has remained the same, but whose implementation has become currupted.

This at means proves that curruptability of tradition is possible. Hence, it is reasonable to believe it could happen with the traditions in Christianity. All the more so given the fact that it's religion (a key tool for controlling the masses) as well as how fractured it is.

>>839790

I have no idea what Protestants actually believe about salvation. I don't understand how they cannot reconcile the verses about "faith only" and James 2 to the exact Orthodox teaching.

Salvation is by faith alone, and no deeds can ever make you holy in front of God. For example, a murderer, even if he saved a thousand people will still be a murderer.

We believe that without Christ paying the price, nobody could be saved through deeds or the law.

But to refer to "faith only" as FAITH ONLY is completely absurd.

>If you love Me, keep My commandments

>1 Corinthians 6:9-11

Can you say that you were washed and sanctified by God if your faith does not make you repent of sin and change as a person (which is a deed by all means)

Protestantism is complete insanity. I legitimately cannot understand how so many small sects believe different things

>>839792

I completely understand your point of view but God already assured us that it's fine to stick to the original Church

>I will build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

>Sola fide = antinomianism

This place really never changes huh

>>839794

If you ever find yourself saying "I have no idea how" or "I legitimately can't understand" you should do a little research or pose it as a question. Sola fide does not have the problems you're assuming.

>Salvation is by faith alone, and no deeds can ever make you holy in front of God.

This is what is meant by the reformers.

>But to refer to "faith only" as FAITH ONLY is completely absurd

Agreed, it's called antinomianism. There were five other solae.

Sola fide is strictly referring to the doctrine of justification.

>>839796

Where did you find those phrases, particularly Sola Scriptura, in the Latin Vulgate?

If we take Sola Scriptura as given, then if we can interpret Verse A by Verse B, or Verse B by Verse A, then where does it say, in Scripture, which interpretation is correct?

–

For everyone to agree on a point requires a base minimum of shared understanding of a given tradition to make that point meaningful. This greater context is always wilfully ignored in Protestantism.

How many differing interpretations are there to explain the meaning of a verse? How have they developed over time? And will they develop again in the future? The answer is numerous for the first question, greatly for the second, and undoubtedly for the third. So, if Protestantism keeps changing then its popularly accepted claims are without grounds. It is a tradition derived from a greater tradition.

–

Successful rebellion is always, without exception, a mere tool of someone already in a position of power. Whig/Liberal rubbish on this point flows freely, with an ever-ready pool of anti-establishment liberals with an obscenely delusional conception of anthropology that always seeks new ways to rebel. Now, most of these amount to nothing, but on occasion some rebel movement becomes of some value to someone in power, at which point it gains traction and the history afterwards is written as if it was a force of nature bubbling up from below.

We might call this process: The Iron Law of Rebellions as Tools.

To demonstrate this Iron Law, it is worthwhile picking any serious rebellious movement for liberty, and then having a look at exactly where the movement received funding, and who supported it.

For our purposes, we will consider the Reformation. And to examine this, we will consider three examples of leadership in this revolution: John Wycliffe, Jan Hus and Martin Luther.

John Wycliffe was indisputably sponsored by John of Gaunt - the selfsame John of Gaunt that was Duke of Lancaster, one of the richest men in England, and the dominant political force following the senility and death of his father King Edward III and the death of his elder brother Edward the Black Prince whilst King Richard II was a minor. Per Rev. J. E. Healey, S.J.:

>John of Gaunt and John Wyclif

“That Gaunt, openly and publicly, even defiantly, supported Wyclif clearly indicates that there was some connection between the two men – call it an alliance, for lack of a better word.”

And further:

“By the process of elimination we arrive at politics as the basis of the alliance. There are three points of Wyclif’s doctrine that might be thought to appeal to Gaunt: 1. the withdrawal of clerics from secular offices; 2. the disendowment and seizure of church property; 3. the dignity and supremacy of a king. Of these I consider the third as most likely to have appealed to Gaunt; however, I must state that this view has not been advanced by historians to my knowledge.”

Rev. Healey, having issue with the fact that John of Gaunt did not appropriate church property rejects these first two points, whilst acknowledging:

“The duke, one feels, was prepared to use Wyclif as a threat to his clerical opponents; a political tactic one can readily understand.”

Regardless, the implication is the elite joining the rebel against the structures of society. Successful rebellion is pro-power rebellion by default, as Rev. Healey notes:

“According to Wyclif, the king is the father and leader of his people; and all, clergy and laity, must obey him in matters temporal and in any conflict of the temporal and the spiritual. His power is from God; and to God alone is he accountable. This divine origin of kingly power could not fail to appeal to John of Gaunt.”

The basis of the rapid success of protestantism was its rebellion against the middle of society and its support of power. This procession was obviously set about with vigour by the reign of Henry VIII, but the groundwork had already been laid.

>>839799

Jan Hus was sponsored by Zbyněk Zajíc of Hazmburk, military advisor to the Bohemian King Wenceslaus IV. Hus also had strong connections with the King's Court and, through Queen Anne, to Wycliffe. Hus was very much influenced by Wycliffe's opinion on the pre-eminence of the secular authority. Hus' rebellion was supported when it was useful, and then shutdown when its use had ceased; the Hussite rebellion which followed was itself used by the general Jan Žižka.

Mediated by Georg Burkhardt, Martin Luther was sponsored by Frederick III, Elector of Saxony. Frederick III protected Luther following the Diet of Worms because, like Wycliffe and Hus, Luther advocated for the secular right of kings.

Protestantism was clearly a sponsored rebellion - as are all successful rebellions.

This Iron Law of Rebellions as Tools has application to current socio-political issues. The central power promotes the rebellion to further its own ends. The wisdom of this is secondary to the immediate incentive of power in a faulty system which contains the delusion of Imperium in Imperio. It is a design error, and it is a grave and unforgivable error to ascribe such an error the trapping of a mystical act of destiny. Such actions promote licence, not liberty, and the process creates an individualising effect that sets the state for greater centralisation as noted by De Maistre:

>Considerations on France

“It seems that all the monsters spawned by the Revolution have worked only for the monarchy. Through them, the luster of victories has won the world’s admiration and has surrounded the name of France with a glory not entirely dimmed by the crimes of the Revolution; through them, the king will return to the throne with all his brilliance and power, perhaps even with an increase in power.”

>>839801

You are avoiding my argument and its implications: that all implication occurs outside the text, and therefore sola scriptura is a solecism.

>>839807

Do you not see how the shared position contradicts sola scriptura; that Protestants are operating within a tradition, and not by scripture alone?

>>839808

1, it doesn't

2, Protestantism is a tradition, nobody denies it

Give me an accurate definition of sola scriptura

>>839809

Sola scriptura is the heretical belief that Scripture is the sole infallible source of authority for Christian faith and practice.

A variant of this position is Prima scriptura, the heretical belief that Scripture is above Sacred Tradition.

As I said before, Protestants interpret within a tradition; for scripture cannot be rationally understood and comprehended by every person abstractly. Now, tradition exists outside Scripture, and tradition is necessarily equal to Scripture. For all men necessarily reason in a language and with though patterns inherited from their society and use concepts only understandable following an education. Hence, Scripture is not the sole infallible source of authority for Protestants; nor is Scripture superior to Sacred Tradition.

–

The basis for the Protestantisms of 'Faith Alone' and 'Once Justified, Always Justified' are perhaps most simply contradicted and refuted by Galatians 5:19-21.

>Galatians 5:19-21

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury,

idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,

envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the Kingdom of God.

Saint Paul emphatically warns the believers that those who commit these grave sins shall not inherit the kingdom of Heaven. This verse refutes absolutely both 'Faith Alone' and 'Once Justified, Always Justified.'

It proves that a believer can lose his salvation, thus dissolving 'Once Justified, Always Justified.' And it also proves that a believer can lose his salvation through grave sins; that is, for his deeds, and not exclusively the act of apostasy or the denial of faith; refuting 'Faith Alone.'

A Protestant cannot argue that this passage only applies to false or insincere believers, and not to truely justified believers; for when Saint Paul says "I foretell you, as I have foretold to you" he is speaking directly to the true believers - he gives the warning directly to fellow members of the Body of Christ (Galatians 3:26-27). Thus, there can be no doubt that the statement of Saint Paul applies to true believers.

Some Protestants may argue, in desperation, that the passages of the New Testament that concern the deaths of people for sinful behaviour (such as Romans 8:12-13) only refer to the death of the flesh, and not that true believers can be damned or excluded from the Kingdom of God for those sins. Galatians 5:19-21 refutes this claim without the need for addition or amendment to our argument above.

Although the same truth and doctrine is found elsewhere (Ephesians 5:5-11; 1 Corinthians 6:9-11) those other passages describe categories of sinners that are barred from heaven. In the face of these passages, some Protestants will argue, again in desperation, that categories of sinners are listed because a washed, true believer cannot get to the point where he is identified with any of these categories. This argument is disproved by the command of Saint Paul to not be idolaters nor commit fornication (1 Corinthians 10:7-8). Irregardless, Galatians 5:19-21 does not mention categories of sinners but rather lists the sins that will bar you, that is true believers, from heaven, refuting this objection without the need to say more on the subject.

Those who have actually become the sons of God and put on Christ will not inherit the Kingdom of God if they commit grave sins. This is the teaching of the Bible. Anyone who teaches otherwise rejects the teaching of the Bible and teaches a false gospel. 'Faith Alone' and 'Once Justified, Always Justified' are unbiblical lies. And everyone who promotes either is a heretic and a deceiver.

>>839810

Has this behavior ever brought you closer to an understanding with someone?

>>839815

Worry more about your own understanding and, thereby, your own soul.

To protestants, catholics are the ones who corrupted and strayed from the church. First rule of not being retarded: know whom you're arguing against

>>839810

>Strawman

Not protestants, no one believes the Bible holds all truth. The Bible holds truth that is infallible and not to be contradicted by any man, exalted or otherwise.

The irony is you are the ones who entirely deny the Holy Spirit.

>>839795

What do you mean by justification?

>>839816

You speak lengthly to hear yourself talk, you're not fooling God.

>>839828

A few hundred words is too much for you?

>>839816

Philippians 2:3

Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves;

>>839831

Worrying about your own understanding or soul does not exclude worry for the soul or understanding of another.

Perhaps it seems to you, by the nature of my argument, that I am attacking Protestantism for my own sake and not, as is reality, to save souls from its heretical positions.

>>839810

I already answered this in another thread.

>>839757

>>839794

>I don't understand how they cannot reconcile the verses about "faith only" and James 2 to the exact Orthodox teaching.

I don't think there's actually a verse that exactly says "faith only." In Ephesians 2:8-9 it says by grace are we saved through faith, and that not of ourselves, it is the gift of God.

Orthodox means "right way" so yes there is one correct reconciliation of all Scripture. That doesn't mean just because you call yourself Ortho church that actually makes you orthodox though. Only saved believers are truly orthodox.

>But to refer to "faith only" as FAITH ONLY is completely absurd.

I think when people say faith only they are implying that salvation is by grace through faith, and that it has nothing to do with our own works. I don't think they are saying faith is the only thing we are commanded to do. Not unless they are antinomians with a poor understanding of the work of God in our lives.

>1 Corinthians 6:9-11

>Can you say that you were washed and sanctified by God if your faith does not make you repent of sin and change as a person (which is a deed by all means)

Paul said in Philippians 1:6 that he was confident in this very thing, that he which hath begun a good work in them would perform it until the day of Jesus Christ. So clearly, someone who is saved is enabled by God to do these things. However, it seems the important point needs to be made, that works, except the work Christ did for us, are not what saves; that which came first by grace through faith is our only valid justification before God, the only thing that will be accounted righteous and worthy and acceptable before Him is the blood shed by the Lamb of God for remission of sins. Ephesians 1:11-14. And of course we are confident that being so justified, God will work in every life that is so sanctified. Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (Romans 8:30)

>Protestantism is complete insanity.

Are you including yourself in that? Adding pedobaptism and baptismal regeneration is an innovation of later times that contradicts Holy Scripture. Whoever first came up with that was in darkness and was not being guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit as it says in John 16:13-14. As 1 Corinthians 2:14 says the natural man receiveth not the things of God, so whoever came up with those various innovations contrary to Scripture had to have been a lost person.

>I legitimately cannot understand how so many small sects believe different things

Scripture is unanimous, it is only people that in their fallible being could have errors. Anyone who is not in agreement with the clear fundamentals of Scripture is lost and needs to hear the word of God in order to accept the Lord Jesus and his word. Without God's help it wouldn't be done, as we need his help in all things; but the Holy Spirit is given at all times since Christ came, as a witness that we may know the truth.

>>839794

>I have no idea what Protestants actually believe about salvation. I don't understand how they cannot reconcile the verses about "faith only" and James 2 to the exact Orthodox teaching.

Through ungodly amount of mental gymnastics. James white is a classical example of protestant coping with works and faith.

Why do Cathodox love these s—post threads where they do nothing but intellectually masturbate about how superior they are so much?

>>839989

Because they're taught they have apostolic beliefs without someone truthfully telling them they're just fapping in an echo chamber when they think that.

>>839989

we do not intellectually masturbate

rather, it is important to us that the protestants come to the true faith after being corrupted by the reformators and their false promise of reconstructing the original faith

>>840030

>Because they're taught they have apostolic beliefs

we are indeed taught that we have the apostolic faith, the difference here being that we have the ability to back it up

in other words, the truthful telling here proceeds from the catholics. is the church of christ an echo chamber for defending the correct ancient doctrines? obviously not.

>Here I'll start with an obvious one: James 2:14-26

It doesn't refute protestantism for the same reason why it doesn't support catholicism- it predates both.

Catholics using the bible to attempt to prove the legitimacy of the catholic church are blinded by the same error that causes protestants to use the bible to defend sola scriptura. They are trying to twist the word of God into something that it is not

>>839794

> I legitimately cannot understand how so many small sects believe different things

that's the result of sola scriptura. It's a very divisive heresy

>>839944

>Orthodox means "right way" so yes there is one correct reconciliation of all Scripture.

nonsense. people and cultures are different. Paul took great pains to point out that circumcision is all right for jews but pointless for gentiles, which makes it clear that different cultures and peoples can vary in belief and practice but still be united in Christ. The idea that there is one correct view, and possessing that view is essential for salvation, is a scam by false shepherds that want to terrify their flock into obedience.

The argument over salvation by works v faith is an utterly pointless argument over semantics.

>>839830

A peep in pride is more tiring than a dissertation in good spirit. Your thoughts re swollen like a balloon, whilst you believe they are greater than a jewel for being larger.

>>840592

It is impossible for a man to scare another into genuine salvific obedience, only God can do that.

>>840596

>>839828

You refuse to engage with contrary arguments as a defence of your own position. Sad.

>>840592

>nonsense. people and cultures are different.

That doesn't mean Scripture has multiple different truths. It means there is an actual correct way of going about things and that all of it is consistent. Just because people and cultures are different does not change or override right and wrong. It does not mean that different parts of Scripture disagree with each other, which is the opposite of what I am saying and apparently what you are implying here by objecting to the idea that this is all one grand truth.

>Paul took great pains to point out that circumcision is all right for jews but pointless for gentiles,

He said it doesn't matter either way and also that that's part of the old law, which those who are in Christ are no longer alive toward. Those who still wanted to impose it for whatever reason were Judaizers who effectively denied the work done by Christ to bring in the new covenant. None of that has anything to do with the idea that there is one truth for one group and another for a different group or that Scripture is in any way discordant. There is one right way about this, and in this case it is that circumcision, that is, of the flesh, doesn't matter. Not that it should be enforced in some Christian groups but not others, which is what you seem to be loosely implying; it is that it doesn't matter no matter who you are talking to either Jew or Greek or Scythian.

It's the same rule regardless of people group. You kind of tried to make it sound like it was different rules or different truths but it's not.

>The idea that there is one correct view

If this is what you are fighting against, then it follows that you're a relativist. I don't see what a relativist is doing on this board, seeing as they believe that truth can mean whatever anyone wants. I don't see why you're trying to convince anyone of anything if that's the case or why you're even on here.

Snap, what was I doing when I had communion a few weeks ago at my nondenominational church? Ah, you wrecked us!

>>840603

It does not make sense to make an argument against social ineptitude.

>>840742

You nondenoms are just the Christian version of "atheism is not a belief system". Sophists, that is all.

>>840755

Nothing you have said has constituted an argument toward anything. Every post you made insulting the Catholic made no reference to his posts but just attacked his character.

>>840757

Incorrect. You just don't understand the Bible. Simple as that.

>>840774

But your interpretation, contrary to the very people that collated the books of the Bible together, is correct?

>>840779

No, I'm worried about tradition for the sake of tradition. The Pharisee followed this line and the heart of God wasn't in it:

The Lord says: "These people come near to me with their mouth and honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. Their worship of me is based on merely human rules they have been taught."

>>840779

If anything, the people you're talking about tried to corrupt the Bible. They failed, because we still have the received text today, despite their determined efforts. Thanks be to God for that. They were unable to change a single word of the Scripture that I have today, as it's been preserved from the moment of inspiration.

Matthew 24:35

Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.

>>840742

The only nondenominational Church out there is the Catholic Church

Everything else is denomination, Churches made by men. Including the Church you were in, seperated from Christ.

>>840838

>church that split from the rest of the church in 1054 is the true church

>>840873

The Council of Florence was a major reunion council that reconciled many in the East to the Church. The July 6 of 1439 Papal bull of union with the Greeks at the Council of Florence which taught the Filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction was endorsed and accepted by representatives of all five patriarchal sees as well as by the Byzantine Emperor. This bull of union was signed by the entire Greek delegation with the exception of Mark of Ephesus. The refusal of this one bishop to accept an ecumenical council can have no bearing on whether the council is indeed ecumenical. For, if it did, then the first seven councils - which are considered by the Eastern Orthodox to be ecumenical - would not, in fact, be ecumenical; they were not all accepted by all bishops. For instance, two bishops at the Council of Nicea refused to accept nor sign its decree.

Hence, there is no basis for the Eastern Orthodox to reject the July 6 of 1439 Papal bull of Union with the Greeks as the act of a true ecumenical council. For to reject it as ecumenical would, logically, force them to hold that there has never been a true ecumenical council in Church history.

So, if one follows the Eastern Orthodox and believes that the Filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction are false doctrines then one would be forced to conclude that their church defected from the "true faith" at the Council of Florence in AD 1439 by accepting the Filioque and the Papal Primacy.

An intense resistance to the union, supported by a wealthy elite, developed in Constantinople, and at times the pro-union Patriarchs of Constantinople were forced to absent themselves from their home church, Hagia Sophia. The members of this resistance were in direct contradiction with the Universal Church and its formal proclamation at Florence. And it is for this active rebellion that God allowed Constantinople to fall under the darkness of Islamic domination on May 29, AD 1453 - the Feast of Pentecost.

Following the fall of Constantinople, Mehmed the Conqueror appointed the anti-union Gennadius Scholarius as Patriarch of Constantinople, who immediately renounced the Filioque and the Papal Primacy of Jurisdiction.

The Russian Orthodox Church, despite the unionist sentiment of the Metropolitan of Russian, refused to accept the Council of Florence, justified their position by rallying around Mark of Ephesus, and, in AD 1448, declared itself autocephalous.

>>840874

Cut the copy-pasta.

The council wasnt ratified back home, so its invalid.

The guys that signed said they are signing in their own name, and this needs to get proclaimed in the East, and they said it again and again.

The Pope knew this, which is why he sent Isidor of Kiev to do it(which turned into a fiasco).

i learned it off New Advent, and a catholic writer, btw.

>>840888

As I already said: The Council of Florence was endorsed and accepted by representatives of all five patriarchal sees as well as by the Byzantine Emperor.

And as I wrote elsewhere: Many Eastern Orthodox will mention that participation in, or acceptance of, a Council by the five Patriarchal Sees - that is, Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem - is in some manner important in the consideration of whether a Council is ecumenical, and therefore binding and infallible in its decrees on faith. And the Council of Florence is such a Council.

Your suggestion that ratification in the East is necessary for validity is fallacious. For it suggests that the the Faith bows to some undefined Eastern authority or to an Eastern majority. In either case, this is incorrect by the standards of the Eastern Orthodox.

For the Eastern Orthodoxy, by their rejection of the Papacy, consider all bishops equal in authority; they believe some bishops have a special place, or honour, in ecclesiastical organisation but they hold that all bishops are equal in authority and "divine right." And this renders them unable to resolve where the territory, or jurisdiction, of one bishop begins and another bishop ends.

This false and unbiblical ecclesiology also renders them unable to consistently differentiate true and binding ecumenical councils from false ones, as many false councils in Church history were approved by many bishops. An unanswerable question immediately arises: If all bishops have equal authority then why are some councils, that were approved by bishops, considered to be infallible and binding while others are not? The Eastern Orthodox has no consistent answer to this question.

The assertion that the Council of Florence is not ecumenical is fallacious, for it was decreed by the Authority of the Papacy, and it was agreed upon by the five Patriarchal Sees. Any other position must necessarily found itself on the heretical position of the rejection of the Papacy, on a specious definition of ecumenical councils, or on the truth of articles of dogma being beholden to their acceptance.

>>840892

None of this has anything to do with the Word of God, it's just political wrangling, as you yourself have virtually admitted. And Just because you get some prominent nobles to accept something does not make it truth. Rather, the witness of God in his sacred word is more important than these. Maybe this eternal unending truth is starting to become more clear now. You can't political wrangle your way to victory and that's something only the antichrist would think to do. Hence, every self-declared pope that ever lived being antichrist.

>>840922

>And Just because you get some prominent nobles to accept something does not make it truth.

The acceptance or denial of any number of nobles or patriarchs is independent of the truth. But to suggest that the attempted reunion of the Eastern Schismatics to the Immaculate Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church, was "political wrangling" and not an attempt at bringing our brothers in the East back to the true Faith is heretical, by its denial of the ecumenical nature of the Council, by its denial of the dogma of the Church, and by its denial of, and insult toward, the Successors of Peter.

What species of Protestant are you? It matters not, they were all founded on the same principle of "political wrangling"; each of their founders was supported by some powerful individual, or group thereof, to thereby weaken the Church of Christ and strengthen the grip of that individual, or group, on their polis.

>>840892

>Your suggestion that ratification in the East is necessary for validity is fallacious.

From the New Advent site itself:

https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06111a.htm

>Nevertheless the reunion of the Churches was not yet an accomplished fact. The Greek representatives insisted that their aforesaid declarations were only their personal opinions; and as they stated that it was still necessary to obtain the assent of the Greek Church in synod assembled, seemingly insuperable difficulties threatened to annihilate all that had so far been achieved.

>The erudition of Bessarion and the energy of Isidore of Kiev were chiefly responsible for the reunion of the Churches as accomplished at Florence. The question now was to secure its adoption in the East. For this purpose Isidore of Kiev was sent to Russia as papal legate and cardinal. but the Muscovite princes, jealous of their religious interdependence, refused to abide by the decrees of the Council of Florence…. Nor was any better headway made in the Greek Empire…Isidore of Kiev was sent to Constantinople to bring about the desired acceptance of the Florentine "Decretum Unionis" (Laetentur Coeli), but, before he could succeed in his mission, the city fell (1453) before the advancing hordes of Mohammed II.

Again, your walls of text in which you try to sound smart, and repeat yourself a lot to make stuff look more truthful, are just filling.

Here, and in other places(i think "A latin defence of Mark of Ephesus" also mentions it), the Greek bishops repeatedly said proclaiming the union back home is necessary for it to be ratified by both sides.

Your speculations on what is fallacious or not is irrelevant to the point at hand.

>>840930

>What species of Protestant are you? It matters not, they were all founded on the same principle of "political wrangling"

I could ask you the same question in essence.

>But to suggest that the attempted reunion

What does reunion mean but in a political sense. We see that many within these existing unions teach and believe many different things, the only thing considered to be determining whether they are ""unified"" or not is whether or not they politically support the same faction being in power or another. There's no other difference in belief involved, besides one political aspect. Yet nothing from Scripture about this; yet you act like it is a determining factor in something with respect to God.

>an attempt at bringing our brothers in the East back to the true Faith

>to the Immaculate Bride of Christ, the Catholic Church,

Trying to politically wrangle a group of officials into the same group does not relate to people becoming right with God and being saved, and believing in his Word. Salvation is an individual matter uniquely relating to each individual, and it does not have to do with what particular political party, or temporal kingdom, or empire you support. Although sometimes certain parties or factions might be better than others, this is not indeed the requirement for salvation as you suggest.

>is heretical, by its denial of the ecumenical nature of the Council, by its denial of the dogma of the Church,

These are your words. And what part of Scripture are you thinking of that has been denied? This was supposed to be posting verses in this thread that refute Protestantism; the word verses, generally implies verses out of Scripture. So far, you have mentioned hardly any Scripture aside from one copy paste which was made first from another thread.

>each of their founders was supported by some powerful individual

God is a very powerful individual. However it is not related to strengthening or weakening the grip of a polis, it is only related to the heavenly kingdom, as Jesus said in John 18: "Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world:"

>>840874

>Slight mention of schism

>Wall of text

Everytime

>>840892

This beauracracy. Did Jesus once mention any of these bishops, hiearchies, systems, and traditions?

The fundamental teaching of Christ is lost.

The only council that matters to me is the Council of Jerusalem.

>>840932

Your quotation of the New Advent is beside the point of our discussion: Was the Council of Florence ecumenical?

I have already shown that it was.

The "necessity of the Greek bishops' proclamation of the union for ratification" is specious reasoning; for then the other councils, even those prior to the schism, would not be ecumenical.

The failure of the East to accept the decrees of the Council as dogma then is a failure of the East to accept the true Faith.

>>840945

Go and read the filioque thread. There is a great number of points of difference in the dogma of the Catholic Church and the Eastern "Orthodox". That thread is also littered with the Scripture denied by the "Orthodox."

>Salvation…does not have to do with what particular political party, or temporal kingdom, or empire you support.

I agree on the manner of temporal rulers. But outside the Church there is no salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles proclaims:

>Canticle of Canticles 6:8-9

One is my dove, my perfect one is but one, she is the only one of her mother, the chosen of her that bore her. The daughters saw her, and declared her most blessed: the queens and concubines, and they praised her. Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terrible as an army set in array?

The Church represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ, and the Head of Christ is God (1 Corinthians 11:3). In her then is one Lord, one faith and one baptism (Ephesians 4:5). She is prefigured in the one ark of Noah, the only one pilot of the ark, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed. (Genesis 7:21-23).

>However it is not related to strengthening or weakening the grip of a polis

Then I suppose that it was mere coincidence that Protestantism removes ecclesiastical power by making the practice of Christianity a privately held belief without direct political relevance.

Or that there is a direct relationship between the success of efforts to restrict supra-national Church authority and the failure of the Reformation within those realms. In other words, wherever concordats between the Papal See and temporal rulers had already limited the jurisdiction of the Church within national boundaries, there the princes saw no need to throw off the yoke of Catholicism, precisely because Catholicism had already been reduced to a suasive body beneath the secular power.

>>839790

Would it be inconceivable that the traditions taught by word of mouth were also recorded in what would become the Gospels, Acts of the Apostles, and the Catholic Epistles?

>>840981

For Aristotle, the overall science within which enquiries about practical reasoning and justice find their place was politics, and the necessary milieu for their experience in action was the polis.

For Aquinas, the concerns of politics had to be understood in the framework of a rational theology, and the civitas had to be understood in relation to the civitas Dei.

Scripture must be understood in the framework of Tradition; for Tradition is the standing ground from which all enquiry is made and understood.

>>840983

Not an answer to my question at all. What prevents the early church from recording oral traditions in writing for preservation for future generations? Moses did it. Not a stretch to assume Luke, Mark, Matthew, John, and others did as well.

Catholic "tradition" is a bunch of dressed up heresy to defend their satanist anti-christ globalist infallible pope.

>>841053

It is the answer; for only tradition outside a text can explain a text. And if tradition were written down, then there would be a tradition needed to explain what had been written down.

There is no understanding apropos nothing.

>>839790

Not all Protestantism is Sola Scriptura. I know some would like you to believe that (Presbyterians, Baptists, and Lutherans specifically), but it's just not the case for everyone. There have been hundreds of millions of Methodists and Anglicans who taught otherwise ("prima scriptura" if you will. Importance of scripture, but also respect for traditions).

>>841062

This has already been dealt with in this thread:

>>839810

>>841058

>>841058

Another non-answer dressed up in flowery, incorrectly used language. If that's the case, then nothing newly discovered can be understood at all.

How are you supposed to understand something written down by an ancient lost civilization then?

But we can understand because we can discern meaning from text.

Catholic "tradition" has been used to justify dozens of heresies and corrupt backroom deals over the centuries.

If you don't like how a passage is interpreted, the infallible pope just reinterprets it.

There's a reason the catholic church tried for as long as possible to keep the Bible in a language only understandable to clergy and not the unwashed masses.

Can't have those pesky followers seeing what it has to say for themselves.

>>841068

Not really. That's just repeating one element of Protestantism. But England had it's own Reformation that isn't quite the same. It's always struggled with incorporating these other Protestants as well (the Scots kirk, Puritans, etc). These very Protestants ended up killing the king of England himself and never got their way when the King James bible was produced. And there's a reason why the English still sing ancient hymns like "Phos Hilaron" and the English speaking Orthodox adapted their prayer books for Orthodox use (or Anglicans are some of the largest group of converts to Orthodoxy): Because of ancient traditions that still exist. The English "Reformation" has only ever wanted to get to a state of the church that is similar to the pre-Great Schism age. Nothing radical and stripped of history.

>>841124

I'll also add that it was largely Anglicans who translated the whole corpus of "Church Fathers" in English that we have now, and things of that nature. There is love for tradition. They just know Roman Catholics don't have dominion over all of it and would seek out the past for themselves.

>>841095

>How are you supposed to understand something written down by an ancient lost civilization then?

>But we can understand because we can discern meaning from text.

You are taking 'understand' to be a universal understanding, and not particular to the tradition from which you understanding the text; you cannot understand the text as the "ancient lost civilisation" understood the text if you are not of the same tradition as them.

>>841128

>you cannot understand the text as the "ancient lost civilisation" understood the text if you are not of the same tradition as them.

That's the thing though. All Christians ARE part of the same tradition. Some have just been duped into thinking otherwise. The Tradition is Christianity itself. That is their inheritance and heritage simply by following Christ and being baptized. They can open any number of books from, say, Chrysostom or Basil or Gregory of Nyssa, and find a kindred spirit and easily understand them. There's no veil or cloud blocking them from seeing their plain words. Only an atheist would not love Gregory of Nyssa. It's arrogant to say only Catholics would appreciate a beautiful soul like his. Catholics or even Orthodox rarely even appreciate Chrysostom, who they love to name-drop, but rarely ever actually have read him. He was a strong proponent of reading scripture. Nowadays, they scoff at the idea and mock those who place a high priority on holy scripture and dismiss them as Protestant rednecks and "bible thumpers". But it's their own saints who will bring this up to them on Judgement Day.

"I hear no one boast, that he hath a knowledge of the Scriptures, but that he owneth a Bible written in golden characters. And tell me then, what profiteth this? The Holy Scriptures were not given to us that we should enclose them in books, but that we should engrave them upon our hearts."

"Any time must be considered suitable for discourse on spiritual topics. If we have a precise realization of this, we will be able while relaxing at home, both before eating and after eating, to take the Scriptures in our hands and gain benefit from them and provide spiritual nourishment for our soul . . . This is our salvation, this is spiritual treasure, this security. If we thus strengthen ourselves each day—by reading, by listening, by spiritual discourse—we will be able to remain unconquered, and render the snares of the devil ineffectual.” - Chrysostom

The average Protestant has been done a disservice both by their own preachers as well as clerics from the older churches, in hiding what the church fathers truly said and what Tradition ultimately points to. Which is simply Christ and the scriptures.

>>841128

No christians besides restorationists think of themselves as outside the tradition of the early church

>>841138

>All Christians ARE part of the same tradition.

I would wholly disagree on this point, as there are a host of points of difference between Catholics, the species of Protestants, and the Eastern Orthodox. To wit, each of these groups differ in their understanding of Scripture and the Church Fathers and, consequently in their doctrine, i.e., the Papacy and Ecclesiastical Authority, the Filioque and the Procession of the Divine Persons, the Transubstantiation of the Eucharist.

I have read Saint John Chrystostom as well, but even his writings, especially those on the Procession of the Divine Persons, are understood differently by the Eastern Orthodox as by Catholics.

>>840964

>Your quotation of the New Advent is beside the point of our discussion

It's absolutely on the point, when discussing why the Council isnt considered legit in the East.

>The "necessity of the Greek bishops' proclamation of the union for ratification" is specious reasoning

Dude, we aren't talking about abstract "how councils should happen", we are talking about councils DID happen.

And in this council, the UNIONIST bishops said it needs to be proclaimed back home to come into effect.

And the Pope agreed to that, which is why he sent Isidor of Kiev to make sure it happens.

Seriously, when the pro-union party, including the Pope, agrees on this thing as a precondition from the get-go, what are we even talking about?

It's dead and done.

>>841148

Nowhere in Laetentur Caeli is the reunion made conditional on its proclamation or its acceptance in the East. To wit, the reunion is written of as having already taken place.

Besides this, the Byzantine Emperor John VIII Palaiologos, fearful of the Ottomans, was desperate for the reunion so that he might receive Catholic assistance in the defence of Constantinople - the Papacy held all the bargaining power.

Why then would the Eastern Orthodox demand that the papal bull be proclaimed in the East for its effect when, were the bull not proclaimed, Constantinople would receive no assistance?

>>841128

Where did the Catholic church develop its tradition? From apostolic succession right? If you read the Bible, you're reading what the actual original church founders believed. All tradition is derived from that, everything else is made up catholic mumbo jumbo to sell indulgences.

>>841189

>Those things pertain to the local, evangelical New Testament-based church.

>Matthew 7:7

And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and precepts of men.

This verse is understood by Matthew 15:9,11.

>Matthew 15:9

And in vain do they worship me, teaching doctrines and commandments of men.

The doctrines and commandments here reprehended are such as are either contrary to the law of God, (as that of neglecting parents, under pretence of giving to God,) or at least are frivolous, unprofitable, and no ways conducing to true piety, as that of often washing hands, etc., without regard to the purity of the heart. But as to the rules and ordinances of the Holy Catholic Church, touching fasts, festivals, etc., these are no ways repugnant to, but highly agreeable to God's Holy Word, and all Christian piety: neither are they to be counted among the doctrines and commandments of men; because they proceed not from mere human authority; but from that which Christ has established in His Church; whose pastors He has commanded us to hear and obey, even as Himself. (Matthew 18:17; Luke 10:16)

>Matthew 15:11

Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man: but what cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man.

No uncleanness in meat, nor any dirt contracted by eating it with unwashed hands, can defile the soul: but sin alone; or a disobedience of the heart to the ordinance and will of God.

>The answer here is that God has sent the Holy Spirit into this world and through Him we gain true understanding. It wouldn't be possible otherwise to come to the knowledge of the Truth. We need God to teach us via His ways, revealing to us the true meaning of his word as inspired.

>John 14:26

But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you.

Here the Holy Ghost is promised to the Apostles in order to teach them all truth, and to preserve them from error.

Which means that the establishment of the Authority of Peter, his Catholic Church, and his successors, was informed by the Holy Ghost and is therefore Truth.

>>841196

Not "everything else". Roman Catholics, as you speak to them now, are only derivative of a post Great Schism, post Crusades, post Aquinas church. This is nearly a thousand years after the age of the Church fathers. You're just buying into their propaganda yourself when you give them so much credit that they have dominion over ALL ages of the church, except the earliest centuries. You're part of the problem when you do this.

They barely even quote any Eastern church fathers, and the main Western early church fathers they do quote are Gregory and Augustine. And before that, not every region of the church agreed with them. Polycarp was a student of the Apostle John himself and lived in the 1st and 2nd century - and he was famous for disputing the bishop of Rome about the tradition on when to celebrate Pascha (Easter). Here you have the entire Mesopotamian region represented by Polycarp debating with a Roman bishop about a crucial matter - and only one of them actually knew an apostle. The Roman bishop agreed to disagree and they went their seperate ways. But never did he say "Hey, I'm the Pope and have apostolic succession." He would have been laughed at. No one in their right mind would try to pull the

"apostolic succession" on Polycarp. He was the only guy alive at the time who actually knew and taught what the Apostles said.

>>841157

>Why then would the Eastern Orthodox demand that the papal bull be proclaimed in the East for its effect when, were the bull not proclaimed, Constantinople would receive no assistance?

Yes, even though they were all pro-union, and everyone wanted Western assistance, they made it clear the Synod back in the capital needs to proclaim the Act of Union.

Again, this isn't something i made up, it's something the greek delegation in the 1400's considered mandatory, so it's not a post-facto justification.

>>841203

>Not "everything else". Roman Catholics, as you speak to them now, are only derivative of a post Great Schism, post Crusades, post Aquinas church. This is nearly a thousand years after the age of the Church fathers. You're just buying into their propaganda yourself when you give them so much credit that they have dominion over ALL ages of the church, except the earliest centuries. You're part of the problem when you do this.

Yes.

This is why Pope Benedict XVI, and the Chieti Agreement have such weird wording at times.

They know papal primacy is a thing, and in more stronger terms than the orthodox would like to admit, but trying to apply ultramontanism to the first millennium is anachronistic, and history is more annoyingly complicated than they would like to admit.

Like, take the good old The Formula of Hormisdas.

Yes, the East signed it, but both the Byzantines and the Maronites used shorter, modified versions in their languages that dial down on the papal claims, while still trying to be flowery and flattering to the Pope.

And the Pope went along with it, since it was the theological equivalent of the Letter of the Two Sorries.

>>841217

Every part of divine scripture is certainly profitable for all these ends. But, if we would have the whole rule of Christian faith and practice, we must not be content with those Scriptures, which Timothy knew from his infancy, that is, with the Old Testament alone: nor yet with the New Testament, without taking along with it the traditions of the apostles, and the interpretation of the church, to which the apostles delivered both the book, and the true meaning of it.