Which Church is closer to tradition

Thanks to the Church for compiling it, but the rest of the rites, dogmas, and liturgy, Papacy, Mariology, etc. isn't necessary.

What gives the Church the right to decide which books are Scripture? How did the Church know which books are Scripture?

As far as I know, discarding the ones whose authenticity was dubious. Luther did winnie the pooh up badly by discarding actual canon books just because they weren't in Hebrew.

Let's say someone believes himself inspired by the Spirit to start using the Epistle of Barnabas as Scripture, who are you to say that he is incorrect? From where does your authority derive?

Begome Western Rite Ordodox

The original canon as determined a couple of thousand of years ago. Scripture is unmodifiable as it has been established already, no books will be added or removed, except if some reformer decides to, but canon is canon.

If Joseph Smith added new verses or books to his custom KJV Bible for Mormons, it's still non-canonical.

Luther also removed some books, and those books are now missing as they were already established canon. So called Apocrypha should be taken into account in Protestantism. What was defined and has pervaded through time as Scripture millennia ago is established canon and it should remain as so.

Lol, Latinized disfigured Divine Liturgy is what you call the Ortho experience? Laughable.

Pathetic. There are like 30 WO parishes in the US, and barely any at all in the rest of the world. It's literally LARPing for Catholic and Anglican converts, or EO who want a shorter liturgy.

Defined by who? Why should time be a factor?

Jelly

Defined by the One Holy and Apostolic Church pre-schism and logically pre-reformation. These were Jewish scriptures and witness accounts of the good news, as well as events of spreading these. They're the base of our religion, things can't be modified.
Unless something extraordinary happened, something I can't really imagine, maybe Christ physically coming down from heaven and telling us that this book shouldn't be canon (lol).

In this case, lets say that tradition is quite important, but we're not having an entire set of rites that seem to make us deviate from the most important part of our religion, the Scriptures.

The LDS, for example, modified their own holy Scripture despite Smith's prophetic revelation to make it politically correct when it came to the topic of people with black skin.

Did the fathers of the Church have the authority to define what was Scripture? If so, what gave them that authority?
Why is tradition important in the aspect of defining what Scripture is, but not important to other aspects of the faith like church hierarchy and authority, prayers, and liturgy? What if it could be proven that Cathlodox practices traced their "lineage" to the early church or could be confirmed by Scripture?

The fathers of the Church had the scholarship and knowledge of the authenticity of the writings of what constitutes the Gospel to determine it, discarding forgeries and fake accounts regarding historical events. Which due to the historical period, might've been easier.
Because that same Scripture which constitutes Christ message as well as His apostles determines what is needed to be saved and to be a Christian. It already has all the necessary components, extrabiblical rites would just be elaborate ways of reinforcing that message, but giving it equal authority to Scripture would be wrong. Jesus' word, even if compiled by the Church fathers, is The Word, way more powerful than extrabiblical liturgy.

The exegesis regarding those verses in Matthew is another story, however, and I have no idea what would consist of a 'valid' interpretation. I find a lot of subjectivity in those.

Western Rite Ordodogs

As a question to 2f5545, would faith in Him, as He mentioned several times in the Bible 'suffice'? Or whatever was bound on Earth and the Heavens by St. Peter also a necessity? Can't both aspects, in a way, coexist through their own paths individual paths - one purely believing in Him and following his Word and one doing just the same but also believing on what was bound by St Peter?

If the fathers had enough knowledge of church history and theology to decide on Scripture, why did they go astray when it came to everything else?
What did the early Christians rely on if they didn't even have a Bible? How did they worship?

You'd have to ask a Catholic, I'm Orthodox and we have a different take on that verse.

I was going to mention that they maybe went astray afterwards through certain liturgies, however, I have no idea how to answer that question. The individual paths thing does make a bit of sense to me, though.

I can't limit the Holy Spirit only to the confines of the Orthodox Church, I can only say that the Orthodox Church is the genuine Church. I will say that individual paths are dangerous roads and may lead many people into heresies.
In Orthodoxy we have the understanding that we don't have the right to interpret the Bible on our own because the Scripture belongs to the whole Church past and present, therefore if we are not in line with the interpretation of the early Church then we're doing something wrong. This is why tradition is important like the Scripture says in 2 Thessalonians 2:15.

Ironically, I've got to go and study for my Religious Studies final this Thursday. Thank you for the conversation, Socratic dialogue and inquiry is quite fruitful fam.

I enjoyed it as well. Bless you, fam.

OP here. from what I've seen from the argument in the thread, either scripture should dictate tradition, or tradition is what dictated scripture. I believe that the orthodox church is actually pretty big on following both in an even way, more so then the Catholics (for instance, not so many visions of the Theotokos and thus she isn't elevated to the level of being second to Christ, and more of a focus on self-discovery in the mystical realm). Please correct me if I'm misinterpreting anything in either Orthodoxy or Catholicism

Ironically I think I've studied enough for my final, I've still got another day.

I've got a couple of questions,

1. If the apostolic lineage was broken during the schism, why would anyone become Orthodox?
2. Is the Church completely infallible, is it possible for the Church to go astray?
3. Lets say that the Church decides that LGBT ordinations, marriages, and unions are perfectly okay, as decided ex cathedra and in an official council. This is clearly against Scripture, but it's now considered as Tradition. Has the Church now gone astray?
4. Let's say that the Church already did this ex cathedra regarding (blessed) Virgin Mary. There is no disgust in this like in the above scenario (actually, it's beautiful and it's happened already!) but what if her exaltation is against Scripture and therefore led the Church astray?

These questions might help you, as I genuinely have doubts as well.

t. Prottie leaning for the Church of Christ denomination

I DID IT
I MADE IT TO CATHOLIC HEAVEN

Attached: Catholic Heaven.jpg (781x768, 226.06K)

You're right about Orthodoxy. I just want to say something about the Theotokos.
With every utterance of her proper title, the Mother of GOD, we affirm the divinity of Christ. Our veneration of her bolsters and enhances our worship of God and she acts as a safeguard against diminishing the glory of our Lord. God blesses and elevates her, therefore we pay her and all the other saints of the Church proper honor and respect.

Even patriarchs can fall into heresy, we don't claim human beings are perfect.
Any dogma proclaimed by an ecumenical council is infallible in the same way the council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 was infallible. The Holy Spirit guides the Church to the Truth in these councils, so no, it is not possible for the Church to be led astray.
Impossible, especially when you consider that decisions at a council must be made by consensus and then ratified by the local churches. But hypothetically if that ever happened I may reconsider my position.
See above.

Are you sure you're not in purgatory though?

Attached: Screenshot 2018-05-22 at 22.02.12.png (538x575, 94.18K)

Let's say that that hypothetical scenario did happen though…would LGBT be completely fine now and tradition? (I really hate putting this into a sentence, the sole idea makes me cringe)

Are you referring to the Catholic Church here? If human beings are the ones ultimately, in a way, running the Church unless there's protection by the Holy Spirit, would that make the Church partially fallible?

I can't even imagine a scenario where that would happen. I will say that there have been several instances in Orthodoxy where the clergy have made decisions… and the laity won.
But it's like saying when the Apostles gathered in Jerusalem and the issue was about LGBT and they decided that it was ok now. But we know that's not what happened because the Holy Spirit was with them all as they gathered together as a Church.
No, I'm Orthodox.
The Holy Spirit guides the Church now just as it did in Acts 15.

Another one: Do you think the Holy Spirit is guiding the Catholic Church too?

Maybe, I can't limit the Holy Spirit only to Orthodoxy, nor can I know God's mind or his plan for Rome. I can only say that the Holy Spirit is definitely with the Orthodox Church.

Holy Ghost

Even patriarchs can fall into heresy
Rome never fell into heresy during the first millennium (rlly makes u think)
except at Ephesus II in 499ad
The Church of the East never received Ephesus and The Oriental Orthodox never accepted Chalcedon, every ecumenical council had detractors. Florence had every sign of being ecumenical, every patriarchate was represented and was endorsed by the Byzantine Emperor.

There were popes who were heretics during the first millennium lad.
That's not a real council lad.
That's why they're schismatics lad.
How many bishops were present lad? Doesn't matter anyway if it's rejected by the Church lad.

Proof?
it was ecumenical but was latter rejected so a ecumenical council is not infallible by that virtue
it means there was never consensus

Pope Honorius I
Not even close.
There was always consensus among the Church, they just didn't want to be a part of the Church.

Sorry no one has attempted to answer your question and yet another thread is ruined by Orthodox vs Catholics posters

Visit both. All parishes are unique so I can't say which is more traditional. After visiting all but one parish in my area Greeks tend to be less traditional than all other diocese.

Not all OCA parishes are Russian influenced. It depends on the population of the parish and the priest. If they are, you hit the jackpot. My parish does everything 90% in English and keeps many Russian traditions, best of both worlds

plus Russian qts

I'm just trying to sneak you into heaven :(

Attached: 1502147240832.jpg (885x996, 132.14K)

lol thanks lad!

Latinisation has been condemned by the First Vatican Council, and it has been systematically expunged by Easterners for a long time already.

Honorius merely didn't fight back against the Monothelite heresy, there is no evidence he actually held or preached it.

Attached: kozar20122_0153.jpg (367x550, 83.24K)

Then why was he anathematized and included with the heretics at the Sixth Ecumenical Council at which Pope Agatho was present?

A curious case of one legitimate Pope declaring another legitimate Pope a heretic.

What did give Luther the authority?
This is what I don't get with Prots. Church fathers (living in that historical period, capable of determining what is fraud and what is important) - that's not ok. who gave them the authority.
Some priest changes canon - oh that's ok because the church was corrupt.
If you doubt the Church fathers had any authority to determine what scripture is then how can you possibly think Luther had any authority whatsoever to determine it? lol
that may be true however that does not give him an authority. Explain why Luther's opinion is more valuable than the early church. I'd like to know what your take on this is. Honestly I am curious because it seems like a nonsense to me.

Authority comes from scripture not Luther.
It's weird, and some what logical, members of the RCC treat him as a pope.

You wish.

He explicitly said he believed it in opposition to what others were trying to steer him into, in his letter to Patriarch Sergius. In fact he even supports Monophysitism in the same letter. Everybody was livid, even Maximus the Confessor didn't believe the news and thought somebody had made him sign a statement of faith he didn't understand, and it took until Pope Theodore excommunicating Patriarch Pyrrhus in 646 for people to trust Rome again.

Catholics are still right about the Papacy but don't distord history to fit your agenda.

embarrassing, what a memer you are. have some respect for tradition. also old believers are heretics. do a simple google search next time

Independent KJVonly Fundamental Baptist you mean

I don't see Luther getting any kind of authority in the Bible.

Attached: Hard boiled potato.jpg (620x827, 80.42K)

True/Genuine Orthodoxy

Russian Old Believers

Attached: boyarinamorozovadet1.jpg (640x448, 342.38K)

Attached: Στεφανος.jpg (640x960, 104.88K)

...

quit this larping and try to improve your spiritual life where you are, instead of looking for perfection into increasingly unknown and exotic denominations.

They're not necessarily exotic just may do things in a more antiquated manner, from the perspective of antiquity, large popular modern churches may be exotic.

so that fag bishop is in goc?
lol

Orthodoxy