Christianity Lounge

[NSOE]

However, that's the exact same answer that a Catholic or OO would give. What would be the argument that would settle the issue over which church is the original and which two are the ones that broke off and are in schism?

In school they'd teach us the Patriarch of Constantinople wouldn't acknowledge the Pope's authority, and that they had mutually excommunicated each other, and so the East seceded. It wasn't that simple from what I've found.

In the West it's known as the Eastern Schism, long in the making, rising with pride- Michael Cerularius persuaded the emperor to appoint him the patriarch of Constantinople and cut the golden thread for good when one of the Papal legates excommunicated him- which wiki says was really invalid since the Pope had just died and St.Peter's chair was empty. He saw Rome as a provincial pretender he didn't have to contend with. Died in exile less than five years after the fact, banished from his post and the city, accused of heresy.

Michael Cerularius | Byzantine Emperor, Iconoclasm, Excommunication | Britannica

Michael Cerularius was a Greek Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople from March 1043 to November 1058 who figured prominently in the events leading to the Schism of 1054, the formal severing of Eastern Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism. Although Cerularius was educated for the civil service rather

www.britannica.com

 

[Servant of Christ]

In school they'd teach us the Patriarch of Constantinople wouldn't acknowledge the Pope's authority, and that they had mutually excommunicated each other, and so the East seceded. It wasn't that simple from what I've found.

In the West it's known as the Eastern Schism, long in the making, rising with pride- Michael Cerularius persuaded the emperor to appoint him the patriarch of Constantinople and cut the golden thread for good when one of the Papal legates excommunicated him- which wiki says was really invalid since the Pope had just died and St.Peter's chair was empty. He saw Rome as a provincial pretender he didn't have to contend with. Died in exile less than five years after the fact, banished from his post and the city, accused of heresy.

Michael Cerularius | Byzantine Emperor, Iconoclasm, Excommunication | Britannica

Michael Cerularius was a Greek Orthodox patriarch of Constantinople from March 1043 to November 1058 who figured prominently in the events leading to the Schism of 1054, the formal severing of Eastern Orthodoxy from Roman Catholicism. Although Cerularius was educated for the civil service rather

www.britannica.com

Ecclesiastes says "There is nothing new under the sun". The Holy Fathers saw this as a warning against novelty in faith. Heresies always reappear under new names, but the Church remains the same from Pentecost until today.

 

[Servant of Christ]

You're misunderstanding my argument. No one is arguing against having Bishops. The Apostles instituted Bishops. Every church should have them. What's being argued against is Ignatius' separation of Bishop from Presbyter, and his Monarchical Episcopate (One Bishop over Presbyters). The reason it's being argued against is because it's not the form of church government that the Apostles instituted.

"The whole Church" didn't. There were churches both during and after Ignatius' time that still had not embraced the Monoepiscopacy. What churches do a century or two later does not reflect back on the Apostle's intentions.

The reason the Monoepiscopacy was embraced was due to administrative purposes, not theological. The early church father, Jerome, recognized this: going so far as to call it a "man-made custom" and "not by divine ordination."

Clement does not speak of "Apostolic Succession" at all. He also does not issue commands to the Corinthians as if he had authority over them. He was telling the Corinthians that they should bring back their Bishops (who they kicked out) because the Bishops were ordained in an orderly way. Apostle's ordaining Bishops ≠ Apostolic Succession. AS depends on "unbroken lines" of succession. The earliest lines given by the earliest fathers were all broken. None of the lines agreed with each other.

There's nothing "transitional" in the Didache. What it says is "Elect for yourselves Bishops and Deacons." That's it. There is no three-fold ministry to be read implicitly there. The text presents a two-fold office.

In Acts 20:28, Paul tells the Bishops to be Shepherds (Pastors) over the flock of God. "Pastor" and "Bishop" and "Presbyter" refer to the same office.

Does the Bible teach the office of pastor? | GotQuestions.org

Does the Bible teach the office of pastor? Is the office of pastor the same as the office of elder/bishop?

www.gotquestions.org

You are drawing theological conclusions from an administrative wrinkle.

Ignatius, a disciple of John, taught the mono-episcopate. Rejecting it means rejecting the teaching of those who learned directly from the Apostles.

There is no evidence of any lasting church that rejected the mono-episcopate. The universal Church adopted it within a generation, which would be impossible if it were a corruption.

Jerome called episcopacy a custom to prevent schism, but he still lived under Bishops and submitted to them.

Clement explicitly says the Apostles appointed leaders and gave instructions for others to succeed them after their death. That is Apostolic succession by definition.

The Didache shows Bishops and Deacons alongside Prophets and Apostles; that is a transitional phase. Ignatius shows the next step - Bishop, Presbyter, and Deacon.

“Shepherd” is a description of what Bishops and Presbyters do, not the creation of a new office called “pastor”. The early Church never recognized such an office.

• Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107) repeatedly calls Christ the one Shepherd and applies the role of shepherding to the Bishop, never to a separate office.
• Clement of Alexandria (2nd c.) in Christ the Educator calls Christ the “divine Shepherd” and describes Bishops/Presbyters as imitating His pastoral care.
• John Chrysostom (4th c.) in On the Priesthood expounds at length on the pastoral burden of Bishops and Presbyters. He uses pastor only as a metaphor for their care, not as a distinct title.
• Augustine (late 4th-5th c.) in On the Shepherds (sermon 46) comments on Ezekiel 34, rebuking negligent Bishops as “false shepherds” and calling faithful Bishops the true “pastors” of God’s flock.
• All the Holy Fathers who use “pastor” (shepherd) do so as a metaphor for Bishops/Presbyters fulfilling their duty.
• There is no evidence in the Holy Fathers of a separate, formal office called “pastor”.

Ignatius and Irenaeus explicitly connect the Bishop to the preservation of the faith and the unity of the Eucharist; that is theology, not mere administration.

Take care & God bless.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Ignatius, a disciple of John, taught the mono-episcopate. Rejecting it means rejecting the teaching of those who learned directly from the Apostles.

Why does Ignatius single-handedly outweigh the Apostles, Clement of Rome (a disciple of Paul), the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas on this issue?

“Shepherd” is a description of what Bishops and Presbyters do, not the creation of a new office called “pastor”. The early Church never recognized such an office.

You're shadowboxing here. No one is claiming the Pastor is a new office. I just showed you the text where Bishops are called to be Pastors in Acts.

 

[Servant of Christ]

Why does Ignatius single-handedly outweigh the Apostles, Clement of Rome (a disciple of Paul), the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas on this issue?

I kept bringing him up because you claimed he somehow proved the validity of protestantism vs Orthodoxy. So I am showing you that he in fact proves the opposite.

You're shadowboxing here. No one is claiming the Pastor is a new office. I just showed you the text where Bishops are called to be Pastors in Acts.

That's fine, but as a protestant you don't (and can't ever) have a Bishop. I'm glad we agree on this point.

In Christ,

SoC

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I kept bringing him up because you claimed he somehow proved the validity of protestantism vs Orthodoxy. So I am showing you that he in fact proves the opposite.

Again I will ask: Why does Ignatius single-handedly outweigh the Apostles, Clement of Rome (a disciple of Paul), the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas on this issue?

Out of all these sources (which are the earliest), only Ignatius teaches a monoepiscopacy. The rest teach a plurality of elders. Outside of confirmation bias, why would anyone accept Ignatius and neglect the others?

 

[KomnenAl]

 

[Northumber]

I predict more protestants trickling into Orthodoxy. There was that "deconstructing" trend for the last couple decades that has burned many churches completely out. People are realizing the only direction left after all the deconstruction is in the other direction, the direction of tradition.

I think it's easier, in a way, for the deconstructed types to move into something like Orthodoxy, they have no culture to leave.

I'm also wondering if we might see protestants simply remain in place in their churches, more or less, but start adopting more traditional beliefs like reverence to Mary, prayer to the Saints, Body and Blood is True, etc.

I've observed some of the more traditional protestants in Churches like Lutherans and Anglicans make these kinds of moves already (although both have had some of those elements already in place). I've also seen essentially unaffiliated Christians take on quite ancient interpretations of scripture and the world that seems to map to something like traditional Catholicism or Orthodoxy as well.

 

[Servant of Christ]

I dedicate this song to @GodfatherPartTwo and all of my heterodox brothers (and sisters) in Christ.

Take care & God bless my friends.

 

[Wutang]

The discussion here was good. I'm glad people could talk freely and clearly state their points without things getting heated

 

[Iakobos]

I have a question for proponents of Sola Scriptura: did the Apostles teach and practice anything in their years of evangelizing that is not contained in the Scripture we possess today?

If yes, what happened to those teachings and practices?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

I have a question for proponents of Sola Scriptura: did the Apostles teach and practice anything in their years of evangelizing that is not contained in the Scripture we possess today?

If they did, it would be next to impossible to prove what they were.

I think people underestimate the centrality of Christ as the Son of God. We take that for granted these days, and would rather spend our time talking about tertiary issues, dogmas, traditions, whatever, but in the Apostle's day, the Gospel was the bread and butter.

When people hear words like "tradition" or "teaching", the kerygma, they import more into that than what would've been the focus of the Apostles in their own context. Keep in mind that they did not have this Platonic mindset where you rationalize your way up and stack metaphysics upon metaphysics, endlessly crafting a theology. For them, the faith was once for all delivered. Jesus is the full revelation of God and the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

 

[Northumber]

I have a question for proponents of Sola Scriptura: did the Apostles teach and practice anything in their years of evangelizing that is not contained in the Scripture we possess today?

If yes, what happened to those teachings and practices?

would rather spend our time talking about tertiary issues, dogmas, traditions, whatever, but in the Apostle's day, the Gospel was the bread and butter.

When people hear words like "tradition" or "teaching", the kerygma, they import more into that than what would've been the focus of the Apostles in their own context.

I import the idea of interpretation into the word "tradition". Tradition, to me, is the frame, or, the lens used to interpret Scripture.

I've come to the conclusion that people essentially went to Sola Scriptura because they lost trust in the interpreters - the hierarchy of the Church of Rome. Trust was lost because of their actions - lots of immortality.

The question below Sola Scriptura is: how much can I trust my own reading? Does the Holy Spirit allow you, enlighten you, by yourself, a correct lens.

 

[Iakobos]

If they did, it would be next to impossible to prove what they were.

I think people underestimate the centrality of Christ as the Son of God. We take that for granted these days, and would rather spend our time talking about tertiary issues, dogmas, traditions, whatever, but in the Apostle's day, the Gospel was the bread and butter.

When people hear words like "tradition" or "teaching", the kerygma, they import more into that than what would've been the focus of the Apostles in their own context. Keep in mind that they did not have this Platonic mindset where you rationalize your way up and stack metaphysics upon metaphysics, endlessly crafting a theology. For them, the faith was once for all delivered. Jesus is the full revelation of God and the fulfillment of the Old Testament.

Wanna try again and answer my questions this time?

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Wanna try again and answer my questions this time?

If you're asking, "Did the Apostles teach anything new or different that they did not write down in Scripture?" Then the answer is no. The Scriptures contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith.

If you're asking, "Did the Apostles say other words that aren't contained in Scripture?" then the answer is yes, and the follow up answer is that these words went unrecorded.

I've come to the conclusion that people essentially went to Sola Scriptura because they lost trust in the interpreters - the hierarchy of the Church of Rome. Trust was lost because of their actions - lots of immortality.

There's a lot of truth to this. There were also textual reasons:
https://www.1517.org/articles/the-mistranslation-that-sparked-the-reformation

The question below Sola Scriptura is: how much can I trust my own reading? Does the Holy Spirit allow you, enlighten you, by yourself, a correct lens.

I think you should make a historically informed reading, as well as a grammatically correct, hermeneutically consistent reading. But you can never dispense with the fact that you are interpreting, even if you pawn off interpretation to someone else. You are then interpreting their interpretation of the text.

 

[Iakobos]

If you're asking, "Did the Apostles teach anything new or different that they did not write down in Scripture?" Then the answer is no. The Scriptures contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith.

Cheers for the follow up

"The Scriptures contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith" - okay can you point me to the right verse that states this?

 

[Northumber]

I think you should make a historically informed reading, as well as a grammatically correct, hermeneutically consistent reading.

I'm pretty sure everyone who is earnest is trying to do what you say.

But you can never dispense with the fact that you are interpreting, even if you pawn off interpretation to someone else. You are then interpreting their interpretation of the text.

Yes, the tension remains though, because someone else's interpretation is affecting mine.

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

Cheers for the follow up

"The Scriptures contain the fullness of the Apostolic faith" - okay can you point me to the right verse that states this?

The standard verse for this is 2 Timothy 3:16-17: All Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be complete, having been thoroughly equipped for every good work.

The idea that Scripture is able to fully equip the man of God, make him complete, regarding teaching, reproof, and correction is especially potent.

A rebuttal to this goes, "well Paul was only talking about the Old Testament." First, that's debatable. Paul quotes the Gospel of Luke in his first letter to Timothy, and Luke is not even the first Gospel to be written. Second, this would make the argument for Scriptural sufficiency even stronger. If the Old Testament already was sufficient for these things, how much more with the New?

 

[Iakobos]

That's a cool interpretation of that verse that you got from your tradition, it doesn't say what you said though

 

[GodfatherPartTwo]

That's a cool interpretation of that verse that you got from your tradition, it doesn't say what you said though

I didn't interpet anything. I just posted what the verse says.