Tuesday, May 08, 2007

The Unity And Clarity Brought About By The One True Church

In another thread, Orthodox writes:

"Our canon could have been always believed. It may not have been. It could be somewhere in between. I don't care I have an infallible church."

Isn't Eastern Orthodoxy supposed to always hold the same Traditions? Didn't Orthodox tell us that his denomination clarifies issues when a dispute arises? There have been disagreements about the Old Testament canon for many centuries. Where has Eastern Orthodoxy infallibly settled those disputes? List your Old Testament canon for us, Orthodox. And tell us where Eastern Orthodoxy has infallibly taught that canon.

13 comments:

  1. >Isn't Eastern Orthodoxy supposed to always hold
    >the same Traditions?

    Yes, but the canon is not one tradition, it is many traditions concerning many books. I don't need everyone to have always held the current tradition about every book. All I need is some people to have always held the current tradition about each book. From there on, the church is led into truth. This is called canon in formation.

    Matters of the faith that all Orthodoxy agree on are considered to be infallibly settled. We don't need a council or a pope to publish some pronouncement. This is called the Christian Tradition. It is passed on in the Church. I'm sure you are quite capable of looking up what books that all of Orthodoxy agree on as canonical.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Matters of the faith that all Orthodoxy agree on are considered to be infallibly settled. We don't need a council or a pope to publish some pronouncement.

    But Orthodoxy prides itself in part on its adherence to the Seven Ecumenical Councils. In addition, prior to the 3rd and 4th Councils, the Christological disputes lay within Orthodoxy. It took those councils to settle them. So, no, you DO require councils in order to settle something infallibly in your own tradition, because not all in Orthodoxy have agreed about Christology in the past.

    A. How do you know if ALL Orthodoxy has agreed on something? By your own admission, some people have always held to some traditions, per your statement that you don't need everyone to have always agreed, but this also means others within Orthodoxy have disagreed. So, which is it? If the canon is settled, then how do you know it is infallibly settled. Tomorrow, could the Church agree with Ethiopian Orthodoxy about the Book of Enoch? If so, then, the canon is not settled, and what you hold to be infallibly true today is not true, because tomorrow it could change.

    ReplyDelete
  3. AnnoyedPinoy5/09/2007 2:42 AM

    If Eastern Orthodoxy does not have a perfect consensus on the precisely correct canon of Scriptures (ie. 1. ALL of the books which belong, and 2. ONLY the books which belong), then isn't it possible that "Eastern Orthodoxy" is wrong when it comes to which groups that consider themselves Christians belong or don't belong? How do the Eastern Orthodoxy know that the local Jehovah's Witnesses' Kingdom Hall don't have a say in what the Church should teach? Eastern Orthodoxy sometimes seems to function like an elitist country club.

    James (AnnoyedPinoy)

    ReplyDelete
  4. >So, no, you DO require councils in order to settle
    >something infallibly in your own tradition

    Just because we can use councils doesn't mean we must use councils. And even when we do have councils they are only authoritative when the church consents to it.

    >but this also means others within Orthodoxy have
    >disagreed

    But at a point in time dissidents disappear, then there is consensus.

    >Tomorrow, could the Church agree with
    >Ethiopian Orthodoxy about the Book of Enoch? If
    >so, then, the canon is not settled, and what you
    >hold to be infallibly true today is not true,
    >because tomorrow it could change.

    I don't think the book of Enoch can be added because we have consensus that it is NOT in the canon. There is no way something infallibly true today might not be tomorrow.

    >then isn't it possible that "Eastern Orthodoxy" is
    >wrong when it comes to which groups that
    >consider themselves Christians belong or don't
    >belong?

    a) Who is in the Church is of an entirely different nature to what the church believes.

    b) Questions about one book of scripture doesn't mean it is open slather to either add or subtract anything.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Orthodox still isn't giving us his canon, and he isn't telling us where we can find Eastern Orthodoxy infallibly teaching that canon. He keeps contradicting himself. The claims he makes about the canon in one place make no sense in light of the claims he makes about the canon elsewhere. People are left trying to sort through a long series of inconsistent claims, wondering if the problem is with them or with Orthodox. If he wanted to, Orthodox could clarify these matters easily. He could list his Old Testament canon. He could tell us specifically where to find Eastern Orthodoxy infallibly teaching that canon. But he chooses not to do such things, even when asked. Instead, he keeps making vague references to "Tradition", tells us that "Questions about one book of scripture doesn't mean it is open slather to either add or subtract anything", etc.

    As I said in the title of this thread, this is the sort of unity and clarity you get from Orthodox's brand of Eastern Orthodoxy.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Again, exhibiting a very poor understanding of Orthodoxy. Everything Orthodoxy knows is in the Tradition. Even if I pointed you to some council discussing the canon, I would have to point you to the Tradition so that you know what the authority of that council is. You don't know the Tradition because you are not in the church who is passing down the Tradition. There's nothing inconsistent about what I've told you, I'm just telling you what Christians have always believed. That you don't understand these things that Christians have always understood, is hardly my problem.

    'Some things we have from written teaching,' said St. Basil the Great, 'others we have received from the Apostolic Tradition handed down to us in a mystery; and both these things have the same force for piety.' [On the Holy Spirit, xvii, 66]

    ReplyDelete
  7. Orthodox writes:

    "Even if I pointed you to some council discussing the canon, I would have to point you to the Tradition so that you know what the authority of that council is."

    If you think you have such a council ruling, then tell us what it is. And list your canon for us.

    If Eastern Orthodox disagree with each other about what is Tradition and what isn't, and if individual Eastern Orthodox are fallible, and if you're just an anonymous layman, why should we accept whatever you tell us about Tradition? Give us documentation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I would like to be given more than just the canon. I would like the exact words in the original languages. Tell me which words are the correct ones from among all the variants! An infallible church should be able to this easily. We have been waiting for about 2000 years already.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you want to receive the Tradition, join the Church.

    ReplyDelete
  10. At the moment I do not have enough proofs (fallible or infallible) that your Tradition or Church is true. One place I want to check is your bible/ scripture - without any words at all in any doubt; with all the wrong variants identified and rejected.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Strange? I was just following your example of checking things out in the fallible way before receiving (believing) the infallible Traditions and Church. Now you are advising me to to just join the Church inorder to receive the Traditions. Would you accept an unbeliever as a member of your Church?
    Strange indeed! Was this what you actually did?
    Join the Church as an unbeliver, so that I can check it out. What will happen when I become a believer? Get excommunicated?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The first step is to become a catechumin and receive the traditions. Later on you can become a full member.

    ReplyDelete