“In other words, why is your interpretation any better than say, John Calvin’s, John Doe’s, or Augustine’s?

After all John Calvin is undoubtedly a greater scholar than you are, and he was ordained to teach. Augustine is undoubtedly more esteemed as a teacher even within the Roman Catholic Church. Finally, John Doe has all the same credentials that you have.

And then, of course, if the answer is that there is no reason that your interpretation is better, then why should we listen to what you have to say?”

1) Theological “knowledge” has been kept from the “wise” and, instead, has been given to the “pure of heart” (Matt. 5:8); even unto “babes” (Matt. 11:25).

Therefore:

“‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent’.

Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of the age? Has God not made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God….” (1 Cor. 1:19-21)

2) The same question that you pose to Orthodox believers is the same question that illustrates the incoherence of Protestant “hermeneutics”. Since you reject communal or ecumenical “authority”, questions about the meaning of certain scriptures is left to the whims of personal imagination. There is no “hermeneutic spiral” for Protestants…instead, there exists a “hermeneutic pit with no bottom”.

3) I have offered a defense of the Orthodox position on “authority” elsewhere. Feel free to peruse my responses in Part 2 or 3 of these blogs on Eastern Orthodoxy. But let me summarize:

The issue of “authority” was settled by the fact that Christ bestowed His authority on the Church. You already mentioned Matt. 16:17-19. But here’s some more to think about:

“As you sent Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they also may be sanctified by the truth….And the glory which You gave Me, I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one.” (John 17:18-19,22)

“All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go, therefore…” (Matt. 28:18,19)

“To me, who am less than the least of all the saints, this grace was given, that I should preach among the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ, and to make all see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the ages has been hidden in God who created all things through Jesus Christ; to the intent that now the manifold wisdom of Go might be made known by the church….” (Eph. 3:8-10)

“I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.” (1 Tim. 3:15)

That is why I had said this:

God gave his “authority” to people, not parchments. It is also why I pointed out that the Church did, in fact, use her authority to make known the “truth” via writing and preserving scripture, binding mankind with the New Testament canon, giving and clear and unambiguous “interpretation” of that canon (i.e. Nicene Creed, or just The Creed), a plethora of commentaries from the Church Fathers, as well as the miraculous lives and testimonies of the Saints down through the ages.

The Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches are Johnny-Come-Lately pretenders to the Apostolic throne.

And so, all doubts about the “authority” of the Orthodox Church are really doubts about the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. Therefore, attacks to the lower extremities of the Body are, likewise, also attacks against the Head.

I am, however, able to defend the Catholic Faith from the Holy Scriptures. I have not given up that ability because of my eklessiology.

Brother Ed

Might I ask you, good Fr., which is more important:

Charity

or

Doctrinal Correctness?

I have a reason for asking.

Brother Ed

I could just throw “Fr. John+” into the mix for good measure. He appears to be an ordained teacher of the EOC. I doubt (though perhaps I am wrong) that he would share your interpretation of Matthew 16:18. Why should we accept your interpretation over his.

John,

I have much the same question for you. Who decided that the filioque is heresy? The twice-deposed Photius? The “Orthodox” are not bound to accept Photius’ teaching on the subject, and neither are Western Christians.

What Orthodox Father ever objected in the days when Tertullian, Ambrose of Milan, and Augustine were teaching the doctrine?

And both Ambrose of Milan and Augustine are considered Saints of the Orthodox Church.

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=103485

http://ocafs.oca.org/FeastSaintsViewer.asp?FSID=101736

So, please clarify why we should take Photius’ word over that of Ambrose and Augustine, and charge the latter two bishops with heresy at the accusation of the former?

Of course, the most expedient solution would be to appeal to Scripture for the answer (both for John and Ed) but both have given up that ability in their ecclesiology.

-Turretinfan

That appears to be a quotation from here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08748a.htm

And the New Advent “Catholic Encyclopedia” neither cites authority for the proposition you quoted, nor does it possess intrinsic authority to confer permission to engage in public comment-box debates with Reformed Christians on the Internet.

To put in another way, while the encyclopedia may be a useful reference guide, it is not an oracle of the church.

In contrast, I have clear authority to teach (whether or not I am ordained as an elder or deacon), which authority is found in the Bible. And that authority does not limit me to private discourses, but permits me to teach publicly on the Internet.

Let’s leave the issue of authority to teach in general aside for a moment, though, in order to make the issue of authority more specific.

With regard to Matthew 16:18, you claim to be presenting “what the Church teaches.” In contrast, though, in my own studies of what your church teaches, I have found only one ecumenical council that has addressed the verse, and the interpretation provided in that council was NOT that the rock was Peter.

From what Ecumenical Council or other infallible source of authority does your interpretation come?

In other words, why is your interpretation any better than say, John Calvin’s, John Doe’s, or Augustine’s?

After all John Calvin is undoubtedly a greater scholar than you are, and he was ordained to teach. Augustine is undoubtedly more esteemed as a teacher even within the Roman Catholic Church. Finally, John Doe has all the same credentials that you have.

And then, of course, if the answer is that there is no reason that your interpretation is better, then why should we listen to what you have to say?

In order to save a little time, let’s suppose that instead of being “brother Ed” a lay member of a church in communion with Rome, you are the Ben16, the head honcho of the whole operation.

Why should we even listen to what Ben16’s interpretation of Scripture is, unless he is speaking “ex cathedra”? Why is His fallible interpretation better than Calvin’s, Augustine’s, the authors’ of First Word, or mine?

To bring this back down to earth, leaving aside those issues on which an Ecumenical Council has spoken (and those elusive ex cathedra papal decrees), why is the teaching of the RCC any better than that of any protestant church, such as the Protestant Reformed Church?

-Turretinfan

First, there is not any ’so-called heresy of the Filioque’ – it is biblically, historically, canonically, and temperally aberrant. It IS a heresy, no if’s ands or buts, as the witness of Christ’s Church makes clear.

Bishop Photios Farrell made it even clearer to American Audiences in his massive tome, “God, History, and Dialectic.” IF you EVER find a copy, pay whatever you can for it!

The Second flows from the first: ALL discussion of faith, the Scriptures, the Church, EVERYTHING falls by the wayside, and NO understanding is even POSSIBLE, if one holds to the filioque!!! For in adopting the filioque, the WEST- as an organic whole – Rome and her illegitimate bastard children, the Protestants (as Ed Enochs proves himself to be- anathema sit!)- ALL partake of a FOUNDATIONAL ERROR, that cannot be resolved, and EVERY philosophical/theological movment from St. Alcuin of York and Aquinas, on down to Hegel,Marx, and Boas, arises from it.

This is the ‘great sticking point’ which NO ONE in the WEST ‘gets’ – even the Protestants, who maintain the ‘filioque’ (and the assumptions of the papal caesaropaganism that flowed from its’ adoption!) in their recitation of the creed!

Until and unless Prots (and heretical Uniates like ‘brother ed’) drop the filioque, and acknowledge the fact that all culture from the rise of the medieval papacy (which, coincidentally, did not occur until AFTER the era of the Schism [1053] and 1066- the latter, the date of the Normal [papal] Conquest) is psychically (incarnated as the ’soul’ of the ’second’ or ‘rationalist’ Europe of the West) ill, and in delirium, from which it has suffered for over a thousand years…..

Friends have helped me out!

“The body of the faithful is strictly speaking the Ecclesia docta (the Church taught), in contrast with the Ecclesia docens (the teaching Church), which consists of the pope and the bishops. When there is question, therefore, of the official teaching of religious doctrine, the laity is neither competent nor authorized to speak in the name of God and the Church (cap. xii et sq., lib. V, tit. vii, “de haereticis”). Consequently they are not allowed to preach in church, or to undertake to defend the Catholic doctrine in public discussions with heretics.”

I suppose this is what you are referring to.

HOWEVER –

“But in their private capacity, they may most lawfully defend and teach their religion by word and writing, while submitting themselves to the control and guidance of ecclesiastical authority. Moreover, they may be appointed to give doctrinal instruction more or less officially, or may even become the defenders of Catholic truth. Thus they give excellent help to the clergy in teaching catechism, the lay masters in our schools give religious instruction, and some laymen have received a missio canonica, or due ecclesiastical authorization, to teach the religious sciences in universities and seminaries; the important point in this, as in other matters, is for them to be submissive to the legitimate teaching authority”

Since I am acting in a private capacity on this board, and neither presenting myself as one who is teaching officially, nor speaking in the name of God or the Church, I am violating no law of the Church.

As I said before, I am only attempting to state what the Church teaches in my own words. Most all the apologia I have done online has been verified by other more competent Catholic people.

Brother Ed

I find nothing that states that I, as a layperson, cannot defend the Catholic Faith. My attempts, weak and feeble at best, are merely to defend the Faith and state what the Church is, what She teaches, and why She is correct. This understanding comes from my personal study of Church history, Holy Scripture, a very small smattering of Greek, and the covenant of God as the linchpin for it all.

I furthermore see nothing in the Catholic Catechism which prohibits a layperson from sharing and defending the Faith. Indeed, from the perspective of our Lord’s words in Matthew 28, I really ought to be compelled to do so, wouldn’t you agree?

Brother Ed