re: Catholic bishops approve drafting of Communion document that could lead to rebuke of Biden

Foo, do this in memory of me does not mean it is/is not really his body. "This is my body....". "My flesh is real food...." "This is a hard teaching....". Jesus had many chance to say that's not what it meant, but he didn't.

I know. Many Protestants want us to take the Bible literally, and when we do they say "Well not that verse...".

quote:

---

I think Orhodox / Roman Catholics differences are on a total different level than Protestants / Roman Catholics.

---

I agree on this 100%. The only reason the Protestants don't attack and slander us like they do the Catholics is because most of them don't even know we exist.

quote:

---

Primacy of the Pope and Assumption of Mary seem to be the 2 biggest points.

---

Yes, primacy of honor versus primacy of jurisdiction and yes the Dormition versus the Assumption.

quote:

---

The filioque doesn't seems theologocal difference to me. It seems like a different expression of the same thing. I think it was added in the west to counter a hearsay.

---

I think over time it has become better understood, however there is no denying that it was the spark back in the 11th century.

quote:

---

I think that the Orthodox Churches in communion with Rome omit it from the Creed.

---

Are you talking about Eastern Rite Catholics? There are no Orthodox churches in communion with Rome. The Eastern Rite Catholics also have a married clergy.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 4:6 has Paul chiding the church of Corinth for developing sides or parties where the ministers were celebrities or representatives of the people. Some were siding with Paul while others with Apollos. Paul was telling the church not to become puffed up with pride for belonging to one faction or another but sticking to what was written, either by Paul in his letters or by the Old Testament scriptures, depending on how you look at it. Paul was telling the people to stick to what was written, not to build their faith upon a man but on the word of God.

---

The phrase is "not to go beyond what is written" and from that sentence fragment, you spin the entire doctrine of sola scriptura? That doesn't make sense. Paul was referring to the Holy Scripture, which at the time he wrote, was the Old Testament. You think Paul was telling the folks that his letters were Holy Scripture?

quote:

---

Dormition

---

Had to google this. So the EO church believes Mary died physically and was then assumed into Heaven? Just making sure I understood the google article correctly

quote:

---

Lastly, in Mark 7:6-9 (actually following to vs. 13), we find the Pharisees and Scribes questioning Jesus and His disciples for not adhering to the traditions of the Jewish elders by washing their hands before eating. Jesus confronts them about their hypocrisy by doing what seems good for the sake of appearances while ignoring the word of God. Jesus condemns them specifically for their adherence to the traditions of men while trampling on God's holy word. He specifically called out their practice allowance for refusing to give monetary support to poor parents--thus allowing them to starve--while claiming that their money was dedicated to God, in direct violation of the 5th commandment. Jesus thrashed the "holy" Scribes and Pharisees for rejecting the authority of scripture for the authority of their own traditions that they had passed down.

---

This doesn't make any sense at all. You think that this passage is an argument for sola scriptura? This passage is totally unrelated to our discussion. Jesus wrote down nothing and everything he handed down to the Apostles was by word and deed.

You know darn well that the New Testament clearly states in more than one place that NOT everything that Jesus handed down to the Apostles by word and deed is in the Bible. The NT clearly states that. I read it myself, Foo.

If it's not all written down, then, how did Jesus intend for it to be learned by us? He left good men, the Apostles, to teach us by word and the deed, as they learned from the words and deeds of Jesus.

There weren't enough written Bibles to go around for sola scriptura to be feasible, Foo, and most people couldn't read back then anyway.

The most logical approach is that the Word of God is both Holy Scripture AND Sacred Tradition. Sacred Tradition is what Jesus Himself handed down to the Apostles by word and deed.

quote:

---

I wonder if the hostility to Rome amongst many is due to their constant desire to define by what they are not and their desire to argue aboht anything other than the major flaws (or omissions) in their moral teachings.

---

That is certainly a possibility. As a Christian of the Reformed persuasion, I don't feel that I can adequately speak on their behalf, but I can only say what I've seen and heard in my limited experience, growing up in the South surrounded by Southern Baptists and Methodists (I've got relatives that are members of both denominations). I think a big part of it is about identity. Some of it could be drawing attention away from their own moral failings, but I doubt that plays much of a role since all Christians suffer from that mortal disease of sin and no denomination or individual is exempt from it.

quote:

---

Specifically, the reluctance to condemn divorce, stiff arming any meaningful conversation on contraception/theology of the body, extreme deference/love of the nation of Israel, and perverse identification of faith within the founding and development of the American ideal (belief in America as divenly inspired/instituted).

---

I believe a lot of that is rooted firmly in the topic at hand right now: Sola Scriptura. I believe that much of Evangelical Protestantism has strayed from its Reformed roots and its focus on living and breathing the scriptures as their authority for faith and life--especially life, in this context.

Many Christians of all stripes use the Bible as a prostitute instead of a faithful wife or mother, going to them to fulfill some desire or craving and then moving on to something else rather than seeking to know them intimately in loving affection. Going to church or identifying as a Christian is more of a tradition or a need for identity in something bigger than themselves rather than an expression of their true identity in Christ.

I also believe the doctrines of grace as emphasized by the Reformers has been bastardized by many as an excuse to sin and live lives contrary to the image of Christ. "I'm not under law, but grace" is a commonly used expression, signifying an antinomian perspective towards God and His word. Instead of realizing that, by grace, we are free from sin unto righteousness, many believe that they can act as they please and that God will forgive them anyway. That isn't the attitude of someone truly resting in Christ's sacrifice and exhibiting thankfulness for it.

quote:

---

to be the ground and pillar of our faith” -Irenaeus (130 AD - 202 AD)

---

Once again, you focus on one phrase of one sentence, and from that sentence fragment, you claim that this proves Sola Scriptura. From one sentence fragment!

That makes no sense.

You took this sentence fragment from Irenaeus's essay called "Against Heresies". You've taken it out of the context of his entire essay. His essay was not addressing the debate over Sola Scriptura, so, it's hardly logical to lift a sentence fragment from the essay and proclaim it to be proof of Sola Scriptura.

I know from reading this and other early Church writers that their writings support the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology, not the Protestant Reformer theology.

Peter and Paul ? That Icon is in almost all Orthodox Churches, right ?

quote:

---

Peter and Paul ? That Icon is in almost all Orthodox Churches, right ?

---

Paul and Andrew, who were biological brothers.

That being said, icons of Peter and Paul are pretty popular in Orthodox churches - interestingly it's extremely rare to see icons of either Peter or Paul by themselves, they are almost always depicted together.