Jesus's tomb

[Nearly Sane]

Both the Orthodox Church and the RCC are Catholic in origin aren't they?

Yes, (though in that sense all Christianity is from the same origin)  but Ad_o would argue that much of the tradition has been lost in the RCC and that is part of its problems. Talking of them as if they are one church makes no sense.

[Stranger]

Because Protestantism is full of things not in the scriptures and many of its doctrines, such as the Trinity, which relies on the traditions it rejects.

How do you know these 'traditions' and the scriptures are true? In addition, the scriptures aren't exactly clear - people disagree - so how do you decide what to believe?

[floo]

The Orthodox Church does claim to be the Catholic Church.

It would, wouldn't it!

[Nearly Sane]

It would, wouldn't it!

What traditions do you think it should get rid of?

[ad_orientem]

How do you know these 'traditions' and the scriptures are true? In addition, the scriptures aren't exactly clear - people disagree - so how do you decide what to believe?

Ultimately it is a matter of faith, of course, but what I have looked for always is continuity, the golden thread which goes back all the way to the Apostles. This is because the Church is visible.

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Ultimately it is a matter of faith, of course, but what I have looked for always is continuity, the golden thread which goes back all the way to the Apostles. This is because the Church is visible.

Not sure about the "ultimately", but that's more honest than most here who claim reason or evidence for their beliefs. "Faith" seems to me to be a legitimate way to "true for me only" beliefs if that gives you comfort or provides a narrative that makes sense to you, though you seem to be dismissive of the different faiths of others that (presumably) have the same function for them. How so?

[Anchorman]

Just because something is tradition doesn't mean it is right or good. Much of the Catholic tradition should be scrapped, imo.

-
RC, I take it - since all mainstream churches regard ourselves as part of the 'one holy catholic church'.

[ad_orientem]

ad,

Not sure about the "ultimately", but that's more honest than most here who claim reason or evidence for their beliefs. "Faith" seems to me to be a legitimate way to "true for me only" beliefs if that gives you comfort or provides a narrative that makes sense to you, though you seem to be dismissive of the different faiths of others that (presumably) have the same function for them. How so?

But if there is no continuity how can they claim to hold the apostolic faith? And how can someone who believes in sola scriptura, rejecting the tradition of the Church, use that same tradition in their understanding of the holy Trinity, for example? It makes no sense and it shows Protestantism to be false, impostors and an exercise in arbitrarianism.

[Anchorman]

Oh, look! The 'they're all heretics but me!" approach. Thank God niether Christ - nor the New Terstament - is so choosy!

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

But if there is no continuity how can they claim to hold the apostolic faith? And how can someone who believes in sola scriptura, rejecting the tradition of the Church, use that same tradition in their understanding of the holy Trinity, for example? It makes no sense and it shows Protestantism to be false, imposters.

A quote from Peter Ustinov (from memory): "Best friends are not always the ones you like the best; they're the ones who got there first". Why would they need to hold the apostolic faith when any other faith that they find meaningful would do just a well? Indeed why not faiths from different traditions entirely if they perform the same functions for those who have them?

I can see (just) that you might look askance at someone claiming the "true" apostolic faith when they jumped on the train part way along the journey, though they presumably would argue that their interpretation of it was closer to the intended truth of it than your own. That's the problem with mixing terms like "faith" and "true" - they're oil and water. Who's to say that one man's take on his faith belief has any better claim to objective truth than anyone else's?   

That seems to me to be the contradiction here: "faith" is just, well, faith. You can have as many of those as there people to have them, and they're no-one's business but their own but there's no logical path to take you from that to "true" in any objective sense of the term. None in other words are more or less "true" than any of the others except in the heads of those who hold them, which is why incidentally theocracies pretty much always fail.

[ad_orientem]

ad,

A quote from Peter Ustinov (from memory): "Best friends are not always the ones you like the best; they're the ones who got there first". Why would they need to hold the apostolic faith when any other faith that they find meaningful would do just a well? Indeed why not faiths from different traditions entirely if they perform the same functions for those who have them?

I can see (just) that you might look askance at someone claiming the "true" apostolic faith when they jumped on the train part way along the journey, though they presumably would argue that their interpretation of it was closer to the intended truth of it than your own. That's the problem with mixing terms like "faith" and "true" - they're oil and water. Who's to say that one man's take on his faith belief has any better claim to objective truth than anyone else's?   

That seems to me to be the contradiction here: "faith" is just, well, faith. You can have as many of those as there people to have them, and they're no-one's business but their own but there's no logical path to take you from that to "true" in any objective sense of the term. None in other words are more or less "true" than any of the others except in the heads of those who hold them, which is why incidentally theocracies pretty much always fail.

Relativism. God help us! A sure path to hell, if ever there was one.

[ad_orientem]

Oh, look! The 'they're all heretics but me!" approach. Thank God niether Christ - nor the New Terstament - is so choosy!

Narrow is the path.

[floo]

What traditions do you think it should get rid of?

Its crazy attitude to contraception should be done away with, as should its attitude to abortion. Women having an equal status to that of the male of the species would be a big step forward. Forced celibacy should be done away with. If serious crimes are revealed in the confessional, a priest should be obliged to inform the police. That will do for starters.

[Dicky Underpants]

The Orthodox Church does claim to be the Catholic Church.

But not Roman Catholic. Careful, you'll confuse Sassy all over again (though I doubt she was ever unconfused).

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Relativism. God help us!

But faith beliefs are relativistic! That's the "faith" bit. If you want to demonstrate some kind of epistemic value for your faith over that of anyone else you'll need to break out of the straightjacket it gives you and into something that's investigable. "But that's my faith" isn't investigable - it's just an opinion, albeit often a strongly held or expressed one.

A sure path to hell, if ever there was one.

"Hell" being a conjecture from your personal faith that you want to over-privilege with meaning for other people too.

Do you see the problem here? You can have as much faith as you like about anything you like, but as soon as you assert someone else to be wrong for not agreeing with it you're stepping onto turf you're not equipped to engage with. What tools or methods would you suggest to demonstrate your rightness and their wrongness? Reason and logic are out because they negate the faith bit - so what else is there? 

[bluehillside Retd.]

ad,

Narrow is the path.

...and strait is the gate.

[ekim]

AdO
Have you washed in the Holy Fire yet?  ....... http://www.holyfire.org/eng/