Catholic/Protestant/Anabaptist

[Miss Friendship]

So my point is that things like the Apostolic Tradition, as not commanded directly by scripture, should be a choice of belief to your members. As I am aware of, its probably not.

BTW, does your church require membership?

[Eleventh Doctor]

You are correct, if you want to be Orthodox or Catholic you must accept Apostolic Tradition. But then again no one is forcing anyone to be either so it is still a choice.

What do you mean by require membership? If you want to be Orthodox you must become part of the Church. We also practice closed communion, is that what you meant?

[Miss Friendship]

Yes that is what I meant. We have membership and closed communion as well, and have had some opposition as some believe membership is not biblical but a man-made rule. Which I half way agree. Membership would make an interesting debate, come to think of it.

[jehoshaphat]

Tradition is mentioned in the Bible multiple times. 2 Thess. 2:15, 2 Tim. 3:14–15, 2 Tim. 2:2, ect. And yes I am genuinely interested in how the books in your Bible were decided upon and if this affects how you should read it. I agree with Doctor in that Apostolic Tradition holds equal weight as Sacred Scripture and Scripture should be interpreted in the light of tradition.

@Eleventh, would you consider the Roman Catholic Church to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church as well?

[Eleventh Doctor]

I would not, sorry, there can't be two One Church. And to answer your follow up question no I don't buy into the two lungs theory.

[Miss Friendship]

I believe God inspired each and every book in my Bible, and beyond that I really don't know...and don't think its necessary to know.

Excuse me if I am interfering between your obvious disagreement of the one true Church, but what really is the difference between Roman Catholism and Eastern Orthodox? I know of only one difference. It seems both of you claim to be the true right Church, and yet wouldn't you also agree one of you is wrong or decieved? Does this make all members in the "wrong" church have less of a chance at salvation? Yes I am confused, and pardon my ignorance. I was always taught the Church is not in a building, or in one denomination, but the Church is universal--all those who have been truly saved and turned their lives over to Jesus have entered into baptism, thus becoming part of Christ's bride. Does the Bible really support the idea that they have to be part of a certain Church? There are many denominations which call themselves the "one true church" But Jesus has not limited His grace and salvation to one specific group of individuals who claim to have it all figured out.
Does RC or EO really teach they are the Only Way To God?

I know very little about this so it does raise a lot of questions in my mind.

[jehoshaphat]

The main difference is the authority of the pope. Roman Catholics accept the pope as the vicar of Christ and has authority over the entire church. EO reject the authority of the pope and place emphasis on individual bishops and councils. I believe that the RCC teaches that we are both part of the same One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. I personally believe that there are others ways to salvation besides through the RCC or EOC but those imo have the easiest and surest way. I would say that the Bible never addressed whether or not you have to be a part of a specific church because there was no different denominations there was only the one Catholic Church in the beginning. Ultimately the Church is what Christ has given us and I am simply staying with the one he started.

[Miss Friendship]

Can you clarify what you mean by Christ starting a one particular church? In Revelation it mentions multiple churches scattered around.

[Mr. Yorp]

Just a quick note, the Catholics were not teaching that Salvation came through works, common mistake so no worries.

Really? There was at least one pope that promised salvation from participating in the crusades.

[jehoshaphat]

I mean Christ started the one church. In Revelation it is talking about the various locations of the churches. Like the Church in Corinth or Athens ect. They were all part of the one Church.

I believe I know what you are talking Mr. Yorp, and he did not promise salvation. He promised a plenary indulgence. Which is a pardon of all temporal punishment for sins. In order to gain an indulgence your had to also go to confession, recieve communion, pray for the Holy Father, and complete the work associated with it.

He wasn't promising salvation he was promising the removal of temporal punishment.

[Miss Friendship]

Which I really don't see was the right for him to give. Besides commanding his men to sin by killing, Jesus forgives sins alone, no one else can do that.

Why can't it be the same today? There are many churches spread around who do their best to obey everything the Bible teaches without the name "Catholic" attached to it. So you are saying because they don't adopt the name, they aren't part of the first Church? And is the RCC exactly the way the churches in Revelation were?

[Eleventh Doctor]

Here is something I would disagree with jehoshaphat about, I would say that what the pope did during the crusades was wrong, it undermines the nature of confession as a pastoral act and is a prime example of why there shouldn't be a pope.

Actually Miss Friendship Christ Himself gave the power of forgivness of sins to the Apostles, and by extension their successors, in John 20.

So Jesus said to them again, “Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

So it says pretty clearly in the Bible, from Jesus own mouth, that others can forgive sins.

They're doing their best to obey the Bible without any accountability. That has always been the issue throughout history. The Church is about keeping us true to correct doctrine. It's not that they aren't adopting the name but that they aren't staying true to the Apostolic Tradition. I don't see any evidence for an invisible Church but at the same time St. Augustine said we know where the Church is not where it isn't, the normative is the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church but there can be salvation outside it.

[Miss Friendship]

So, Eleventh, if you were a "successor" or a "priest" or whatever you have to be, you could forgive my sins without me going to God at all? I am not sure what Jesus exactly meant by that verse, but I don't think He meant that all random church leaders throughout history could go around forgiving sins.

And how do we know the Church is supposed to have successor? I know Christ chose Peter as the rock from which to build His church, but I don't remember the Bible mentioning Peter passing the role on? Obviously Jesus knew the gospel was going to go around the world and He chose Peter to lay a good foundation in teaching, in writing what we now have as scripture, and instructing others, and we still have that foundation. But after many years, the tendency of leaders would be to gradually change away from the original? So I am not seeing the need for a visible Church.

And can you clarify what exactly the "Apostolic Tradition" is?

I would hold to the belief that while the Church has a role, the Bible is meant to be our guidance for keeping us on the straight and narrow path. The Church is made up of people--people who fail...and change. So I believe the Bible should be our primary weapon against compromise.

[Eleventh Doctor]

I agree, random church leaders throughout history cannot go around forgiving sins; that's where Apostolic Succession comes in. But I would be interested to hear what you think Jesus meant in that verse, cause it seems pretty clear to me.

I don't see in Scripture this idea that the need for leadership would gradually change away from the original model. In any case Scripture as you have it today, minus a couple books, was finalized until 300 years after Peter. Are you saying the Church was leaderless and adrift until then? Also the Bible makes it quite clear that the Apostles passed on Christ's teaching by word of mouth and by writings, those oral traditions are the Apostolic Traditions.

The Bible by itself without Apostolic Tradition doesn't have a very good record.

[jehoshaphat]

Eleventh, the pope did not grant forgiveness of sins for solely going on the Crusades. He granted remission of temporal punishment for sins, which is different than forgiveness for. I believe what the pope did was justified. In our day and age it would not be, but back then it was OK. For two reasons, the Patriarch of Constantinople asked for help in fighting the invading Muslims. Second, he was protecting the whole west from the Muslims. If he had not done that it would have been very likely that the Turks would have taken over most of Europe and virtually wiped out Christianity.

@Miss Friendship, I don't believe all killing is wrong. Murder is always wrong, killing is not. And also Christ forgives sins through the confessional. Through the authority he vested in his priests and bishops. In confession the priests sits in the place of Christ and Christ works through him to forgive sins.

[Eleventh Doctor]

Well I obviously disagree, as I said I don't think any one bishop has that kind of authority. Yeah if he hadn't done it then Constantinople might have been sacked.... oh wait.

Let me also clarify that EO does not agree with RC on how confession works. In EO the priest is not sitting in the place of Christ, the priest is simply there as a witness it is not the priest but to God that we are confessing our sins. After we have confessed our sins to God the priest, in line with the John 20 verse, forgives our sins.

[Miss Friendship]

So the Apstolic Tridition was in a sense the Teachings of Jesus passed down through word of mouth from the apostles? The Bible we have today has those important Teachings, so what does the Apostolic Tradition mean today?

jehoshaphat, well that's a point where we would differ. I believe Jesus taught against violence and the use of the sword. The world will fight, but Jesus never intended that His church would. We would be killing the very ones He came to save. I can't see how the Crusades was right in any light...shouldn't they have rather gone and witnessed to the infidels and been martyred as the apostles had done before them?

Eleventh, yes I guess I would agree with you on John 20. That does seem to be saying that.

[Eleventh Doctor]

The Bible doesn't contain all of the Apostolic Tradition. Even in the Bible itself says this. So then, brothers, stand firm and hold to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by our spoken word or by our letter. (2 Thes 2.15) There were two means of teaching the message of Christ, one without the other is incomplete. In John we are told that Jesus said and did many things that are not written in Scripture, so no I disagree that the Bible has all those teachings today, it itself says it doesn't.

[Pound Foolish]

Indulgences were a misstep in the Catholic church, who I disagree with on many things just to be clear, one corrected by the Catholic church in due time.

If you mean selling indulgences was a misstep, yes, of course.

Catholics do not still do this.

We most certainly do and proud we are of it.

[Eleventh Doctor]

True you still have indulgences but you do not sell them.