Roman Catholic verses Orthodox Church - which is correct?

[polonius]

This question has arisen elsewhere and I'd be interested in readers views of this issue.

The (Western) Roman Catholic Church claims apostolic succession through the Apostle Peter. It claims infallibility (no errors) by way of ecumenical (general) councils and all ex cathedra papal teachings.

The (Eastern) Orthodox churches claim apostolic succession through one of the other Apostles and only the infallibility of their first 10 ecumenical councils and no infallibility of their reigning senior bishop.

Since the Eastern Churchs claims apostolic succession, their sacraments are considered valid by the Roman Catholic church, but Catholics are advised to seek out one of their own clergy and only use the Orthodox clergy when it is not possible to use Catholic clergy.

Interestingly, some of the Eastern Church have reunited with Rome in which case they are known as Eastern Rite Catholics. In doing so thy have had to agree to accept certain teaching not regarded as valid in the Orthodox Chuch such as the "stain theory" of original sin and the Immaculate Conception of Mary.

Question: Am I in error here or are there other major differences in beliefs?

[onewithhim]

You are familiar with the Bible, aren't you? Just post a couple of Scriptures that answer my questions.

Perhaps I can assist here.

(1) Does the Bible say that we should worship Mary?

No. Also, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches do not worship Mary.

(2) Does the Bible say that she is "immaculate"?

Catholic theologians point to a number of passages from which this can be inferred. This article from Catholic Magazine provides a useful summary of those:

1. Mary is revealed to be "full of grace" in Luke 1:28.
2. Mary is revealed to be the fulfillment of the prophetic "Daughter of Zion" of Isaiah 12:1-6; Zephaniah 3:14-16; Zechariah 2:10; etc.
3. Mary is revealed to be "the beginning of the new creation" in fulfillment of the prophecy of Jeremiah 31:22.
4. Mary is revealed to possess a "blessed state" parallel with Christ’s in Luke 1:42.
5. Mary is called not just "blessed" among women, but "more blessed than all women" (including Eve) in Luke 1:42.
6. Mary is revealed to be the spotless "Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1.
7. Mary is revealed to be the "New Eve" in Luke 1:37-38; John 2:4, 19:26-27; Revelation 12; and elsewhere.
8. Mary is revealed to be free from the pangs of labor in fulfillment of Isaiah 66:7-8.

But this is also part of sacred tradition and so can be established on that ground. The Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches hold to a not dissimilar idea about Mary.

The Church is way off on the "Daughter of Zion." Isaiah 12:1-6 says nothing about her and only elevates YHWH, the true God. Zephaniah 3:14-16 shows again what the imagination of the Church persons has done in its tradition. Those verses call upon all of Jerusalem's women to "joyfully cry out." "YHWH has removed the judgments upon you." (verse 15) If it was Mary it is talking about, what "judgments" did she have upon her? So you see, it wasn't Mary who is referred to in this passage.

Jeremiah does not refer to Mary either, in no stretch of the imagination. It refer to the "unfaithful daughter." Is that Mary? Or is it the women of Jerusalem in general? And how do you account for the "all" before "women" in that verse? It is added. It says, Mary is "blessed among women," not all women. "Including Eve" is someone's addition as well. There is nothing to show that in the verse.

I don't see any reference to Mary being "the spotless Ark of the Covenant" in Luke 1. Have you really looked these scriptures up?

I also don't see any reference to "the new Eve" in Luke 1:37-38 or John 2:4. The Church would like to think that it is Mary who is spoken about in Revelation 12, but it is not. It is quite symbolic for God's heavenly organization which produces, eventually, a literal son that will shepherd all the nations. And if it's about Mary, when did Mary "flee into the wilderness"? There's no mention of that in the scriptures about her.

Now where in Luke 1:42 does it compare being in a blessed state with Christ? That is an addition to the verse, just like all the other verses that are cited in the article.

I think it is safe to say that the Church has added quite a bit to the Scriptures, according to a man-made tradition. They "have made the Word of God invalid because of [their] tradition." (Matthew 15:6; Mark 7:13)

[historia]

The Church is way off on the "Daughter of Zion." Isaiah 12:1-6 says nothing about her and only elevates YHWH, the true God. Zephaniah 3:14-16 shows again what the imagination of the Church persons has done in its tradition. Those verses call upon all of Jerusalem's women to "joyfully cry out." "YHWH has removed the judgments upon you." (verse 15) If it was Mary it is talking about, what "judgments" did she have upon her? So you see, it wasn't Mary who is referred to in this passage.

Jeremiah does not refer to Mary either, in no stretch of the imagination.

Christians have always understood that verses of Scripture can have multiple meanings, including meanings beyond what the original context indicates or what the original author intended.

Consider Isaiah 7:10-17 as an obvious example here. In that text, Isaiah promises that God will destroy king Ahaz's enemies before a child born to a young woman is weaned. It says nothing about the Messiah or anything like that. And yet Matthew saw in verse 14 (as it appears in a Greek translation no less!) a prophecy of Jesus' birth (Matt. 1:22-23).

If we were to take the same approach to Scripture you are using above and apply that to Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14, we'd have to conclude that he, too, is citing a text that in "no stretch of the imagination" supports his belief. If you aren't willing to say that about Matthew, then your whole argument is nothing more than special pleading.

I think it is safe to say that the Church has added quite a bit to the Scriptures

The Church isn't "adding" anything to Scripture. Tradition existed before Scripture, and has historically had equal authority to it within Christianity. Pauls says to "hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

[2timothy316]

The Church is way off on the "Daughter of Zion." Isaiah 12:1-6 says nothing about her and only elevates YHWH, the true God. Zephaniah 3:14-16 shows again what the imagination of the Church persons has done in its tradition. Those verses call upon all of Jerusalem's women to "joyfully cry out." "YHWH has removed the judgments upon you." (verse 15) If it was Mary it is talking about, what "judgments" did she have upon her? So you see, it wasn't Mary who is referred to in this passage.

Jeremiah does not refer to Mary either, in no stretch of the imagination.

Christians have always understood that verses of Scripture can have multiple meanings, including meanings beyond what the original context indicates or what the original author intended.

Consider Isaiah 7:10-17 as an obvious example here. In that text, Isaiah promises that God will destroy king Ahaz's enemies before a child born to a young woman is weaned. It says nothing about the Messiah or anything like that. And yet Matthew saw in verse 14 (as it appears in a Greek translation no less!) a prophecy of Jesus' birth (Matt. 1:22-23).

If we were to take the same approach to Scripture you are using above and apply that to Matthew's use of Isaiah 7:14, we'd have to conclude that he, too, is citing a text that in "no stretch of the imagination" supports his belief. If you aren't willing to say that about Matthew, then your whole argument is nothing more than special pleading.

This is an example of the 'if this then that fallacy'. While there are scriptures that do reference prophecy such as the above. It doesn't mean that every scripture has multiple meanings and only the Bible itself explains itself. Not the traditions of men.

Tradition existed before Scripture, and has historically had equal authority to it within Christianity.

Yup and here is what Jesus has to say on the matter.

"Then there came to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes,saying: “Why do your disciples overstep the tradition of the men of former times? For example, they do not wash their hands when about to eat a meal.” In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:1-3)

Why do those that call themselves 'Christians' hold man's traditions as high as God's Word? To say that man's traditions are equal to God's Word is blasphemy. To trust something that can't be verified by the Bible is one of the reasons the world isn't united in worship today.

Also, just because something is old doesn't make it correct. This is called the 'appeal to tradition' fallacy.

[historia]

This is an example of the 'if this then that fallacy'.

There is no formal or informal fallacy called the "if this then that" fallacy, so it's not clear what you're trying to claim here.

While there are scriptures that do reference prophecy such as the above. It doesn't mean that every scripture has multiple meanings

I didn't say that every verse of Scripture has multiple meanings. I said, "verses of Scripture can have multiple meanings."

only the Bible itself explains itself.

Says who? This is simply an assumption you've made -- or, more precisely, a tradition of men you've adopted.

Also, if only the Bible can explain the Bible, then that's another reason to reject onewithhim's interpretation of the text. Not only is her argument fallacious, since it commits special pleading, but, according to you, she can't explain these passages in the first place.

Tradition existed before Scripture, and has historically had equal authority to it within Christianity.

Yup

Glad we agree.

here is what Jesus has to say on the matter.

"Then there came to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes,saying: “Why do your disciples overstep the tradition of the men of former times? For example, they do not wash their hands when about to eat a meal.” In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:1-3)

This verse simply shows that Jesus rejected some of the traditions of the Pharisees. It doesn't say he rejected all tradition.

At any rate, Christians don't follow the traditions of the Pharisees or their successors, the rabbis. They follow the traditions of the apostles and their successors, the bishops. As Paul himself commanded them to do: "hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Also, just because something is old doesn't make it correct.

Nobody said the Immaculate Conception was correct simply because it's old. Also, there are all kinds of old, heretical beliefs and practices that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches reject, so age alone has never been the deciding factor. Here, as above, you are attacking a straw man argument.

[onewithhim]

This is an example of the 'if this then that fallacy'.

There is no formal or informal fallacy called the "if this then that" fallacy, so it's not clear what you're trying to claim here.

While there are scriptures that do reference prophecy such as the above. It doesn't mean that every scripture has multiple meanings

I didn't say that every verse of Scripture has multiple meanings. I said, "verses of Scripture can have multiple meanings."

only the Bible itself explains itself.

Says who? This is simply an assumption you've made -- or, more precisely, a tradition of men you've adopted.

Also, if only the Bible can explain the Bible, then that's another reason to reject onewithhim's interpretation of the text. Not only is her argument fallacious, since it commits special pleading, but, according to you, she can't explain these passages in the first place.

Tradition existed before Scripture, and has historically had equal authority to it within Christianity.

Yup

Glad we agree.

here is what Jesus has to say on the matter.

"Then there came to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes,saying: “Why do your disciples overstep the tradition of the men of former times? For example, they do not wash their hands when about to eat a meal.” In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:1-3)

This verse simply shows that Jesus rejected some of the traditions of the Pharisees. It doesn't say he rejected all tradition.

Jesus rejected ALL of the traditions of the Pharisees. That is clear at Matthew chapter 23, if you'll kindly read that. When Paul said to follow the traditions that his fellow Christians knew, he was referring to what they learned from Christ himself. That is the "tradition" they knew and were to continue to follow.

[2timothy316]

This is an example of the 'if this then that fallacy'.

There is no formal or informal fallacy called the "if this then that" fallacy, so it's not clear what you're trying to claim here.

While there are scriptures that do reference prophecy such as the above. It doesn't mean that every scripture has multiple meanings

I didn't say that every verse of Scripture has multiple meanings. I said, "verses of Scripture can have multiple meanings."
[/quote]The scripture you're trying to say has multiple a meaning about Mary doesn't have the scriptural basis for a multiple meaning.

only the Bible itself explains itself.

Says who? This is simply an assumption you've made -- or, more precisely, a tradition of men you've adopted.

Says the Bible. Daniel 2:22 says of Jehovah, "He reveals the deep things and the hidden things." It is not because of the traditions of men that the God's Word comes to us and/or explained to us. Daniel also says were he got the understanding for some of his prophecies, not for some tradition of men but from the God inspired writing of Jeremiah. "in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of years mentioned in the word of Jehovah to Jeremiah the prophet to fulfill the desolation of Jerusalem, namely, 70 years." - Dan 9:2.

There is no mention that I know of the Bible interpretation comes from the traditions of men. The Bible says the exact opposite. 2 Peter 1:20 says, "For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation."

Also, if only the Bible can explain the Bible, then that's another reason to reject onewithhim's interpretation of the text. Not only is her argument fallacious, since it commits special pleading, but, according to you, she can't explain these passages in the first place.

What OWH is trying to show is that there is no connection in what you're trying to present. I do not read anywhere she is trying to explain the scriptures to say anything other than what they plainly say. From what I see you're trying to add to scripture using men's traditions and OWH is pointing out you have no bases to change what the scriptures plainly say.

Tradition existed before Scripture, and has historically had equal authority to it within Christianity.

Yup

Glad we agree.

It is wrong to use tradition to interpret the Bible just because a tradition is old. This is a logical fallacy. Because Christendom has made their traditions equal to the word of God, there is no unity in Christendom. Because in acutally, the traditions has become greater than the Word of God. Just as Jesus said the Jews had done in his time. Christendom has continued that bad tradition.

here is what Jesus has to say on the matter.

"Then there came to Jesus from Jerusalem Pharisees and scribes,saying: “Why do your disciples overstep the tradition of the men of former times? For example, they do not wash their hands when about to eat a meal.” In reply he said to them: “Why do you overstep the commandment of God because of your tradition?” (Matthew 15:1-3)

This verse simply shows that Jesus rejected some of the traditions of the Pharisees. It doesn't say he rejected all tradition.

At any rate, Christians don't follow the traditions of the Pharisees or their successors, the rabbis. They follow the traditions of the apostles and their successors, the bishops. As Paul himself commanded them to do: "hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Tradition not established by God's Word is not a tradition a true Christian should be following is the point. There is nowhere in the Bible that tradition not written in the Bible should be view as equal to God's word. The Bible actually supports the exact opposite. “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll." - Rev 22:18.

Those that are adding to the Bible by means of something not established in the Bible, such as traditional teachings passed off as 'God's Word' yet not in the Bible, the scriptures are clear, it will not go well for them.

Adding all this worship to Mary is not seated in the Bible and just because it's an old tradition doesn't make it equal to God's Word.

Also, just because something is old doesn't make it correct.

Nobody said the Immaculate Conception was correct simply because it's old. Also, there are all kinds of old, heretical beliefs and practices that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches reject, so age alone has never been the deciding factor. Here, as above, you are attacking a straw man argument.

Then I don't know why you're defending traditions not mentioned in the Bible so fiercely. Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:​12 are scriptures that go direction against the tradition of the Immaculate Conception. The Bible says only one person was born sinless and that was Jesus Christ.

[historia]

This verse simply shows that Jesus rejected some of the traditions of the Pharisees. It doesn't say he rejected all tradition.

Jesus rejected ALL of the traditions of the Pharisees. That is clear at Matthew chapter 23, if you'll kindly read that.

I just reread it. It doesn't say that Jesus rejected all the traditions of the Pharisees.

In fact, that chapter begins with Jesus telling his followers that "the scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses's seat" -- a position of authority that was established by Jewish tradition rather than Scripture -- "therefore, do whatever they teach you and follow it, but do not do as they do, for they do not practice what they teach" -- a rather odd thing for Jesus to say if he rejected Pharisaic tradition entirely.

But, again, Christians don't follow the traditions of the Pharisees or their successors, the rabbis. They follow the traditions of the apostles and their successors, the bishops. So Jesus' critique of some (or, in theory, even all) of the traditions of the Pharisees does nothing to establish the claim that we should discount or ignore the oral traditions of the apostles.

When Paul said to follow the traditions that his fellow Christians knew, he was referring to what they learned from Christ himself.

Paul doesn't say that the Thessalonians should follow the traditions they learned from Jesus. He says they are to "hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us," that is, by Paul and his companions, "either by word of mouth or by our letter." Even if Paul was in some instances passing along some traditions that originated with Jesus, the point he is making here is that it doesn't matter whether the tradition has been handed on orally or in writing, Christians are to follow both kinds.

[historia]

The scripture you're trying to say has multiple a meaning about Mary doesn't have the scriptural basis for a multiple meaning.

Says who? Again, this is simply an unsupported assertion you are making. Assertions are not arguments.

only the Bible itself explains itself.

Says who? This is simply an assumption you've made -- or, more precisely, a tradition of men you've adopted.

Says the Bible. Daniel 2:22 says of Jehovah, "He reveals the deep things and the hidden things."

That passage doesn't say that only the Bible can explain the Bible. Surely, God can use whatever mechanism he chooses -- including Scripture, Tradition, or the teaching authority of the Church -- to reveal the deep and hidden things.

It is not because of the traditions of men that the God's Word comes to us and/or explained to us.

That is obviously false. What books are deemed to be part of the Bible and which ones aren't is established solely through Tradition. In accepting the New Testament canon you are implicitly accepting the authority of the Church and its Tradition.

Daniel also says were he got the understanding for some of his prophecies, not for some tradition of men but from the God inspired writing of Jeremiah.

Nobody is saying that Scripture isn't also a source of authority.

There is no mention that I know of the Bible interpretation comes from the traditions of men.

Jesus and the apostles interpreted the Scriptures and passed on their teachings through oral tradition. So the earliest Christian interptreation of the Bible comes from Tradition. It's not like the early Christians didn't consider what Jesus or the apostles had to say to be authoritative until someone wrote it down!

2 Peter 1:20 says, "For you know this first, that no prophecy of Scripture springs from any private interpretation."

Nobody is saying that prophecies in Scriptures were the result of the private interpretation of the prophet, so this is a non sequiter.

Also, if only the Bible can explain the Bible, then that's another reason to reject onewithhim's interpretation of the text. Not only is her argument fallacious, since it commits special pleading, but, according to you, she can't explain these passages in the first place.

What OWH is trying to show is that there is no connection in what you're trying to present.

Right, she's trying to explain what these various biblical passages mean, in the same way you are trying to explain what other passages mean. All texts require interpretation, and so must be explained when used in an argument.

But, if "only the Bible itself explains itself," as you previously claimed, then I have no good reason to accept your or onewithhim's interpretation of the Bible. You've constructed a self-defeating argument!

At any rate, onewithhim's argument is misplaced: nobody is arguing that the above passages in their original context literally refer to Mary. Rather, the Church approaches these passages using a metaphorical or allegorical interpretation. That is the same approach that Matthew took when interpreting Isaiah 7:14, as we saw above. And how Luke, Paul, and pretty much every other ancient Jewish and Christian author approached Scripture.

Again, Christians have always held that passages of Scripture can have multiple levels of meaning, and so have always interpreted some passages metaphorically or allegorically. To simply assert (without any real argument) that these particular passages cited above can't have additional levels of meaning, then, is special pleading. This is simply a fallacious argument.

Psalm 51:5; Romans 5:12 are scriptures that go direction against the tradition of the Immaculate Conception.

You're trying to explain the Bible again, when you've previously argued that only the Bible can explain the Bible.

It is wrong to use tradition to interpret the Bible just because a tradition is old. This is a logical fallacy.

Again, nobody is arguing that the tradition of the Immaculate Conception is true simply because it is old. You're continuing to attack a straw man argument.

Because in acutally, the traditions has become greater than the Word of God.

Assertions are not arguments.

Christians don't follow the traditions of the Pharisees or their successors, the rabbis. They follow the traditions of the apostles and their successors, the bishops. As Paul himself commanded them to do: "hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter" (2 Thess. 2:15).

Tradition not established by God's Word is not a tradition a true Christian should be following is the point. There is nowhere in the Bible that tradition not written in the Bible should be view as equal to God's word.

Paul disagrees. As we can see above, he says that Christians are to follow the traditions taught by the apostles, whether they are written or oral. If you only follow the traditions that have been written down in the New Testament, you're not doing what Paul instructed.

The Bible actually supports the exact opposite. “I am bearing witness to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone makes an addition to these things, God will add to him the plagues that are written in this scroll." - Rev 22:18.

The full quote from Revelation is:

I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this book; if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away that person’s share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.

Nobody is arguing that words should be added to or taken away from the book of Revelation. Clearly, this passage says nothing about teachings -- either written or oral -- outside the book of Revelation.

Those that are adding to the Bible by means of something not established in the Bible, such as traditional teachings passed off as 'God's Word' yet not in the Bible, the scriptures are clear, it will not go well for them.

The New Testament authors themselves cited Jewish traditions -- not just Scripture -- in support of their beliefs (cf., Matt. 2:23, 1 Cor. 10:1-4, Jude 9, 2 Tim. 3:8, etc.)

Adding all this worship to Mary is not seated in the Bible

Again, the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches don't teach that Christians should worship Mary. If you're going to critique an idea, you should take care to accurately represent it, otherwise your argument looks foolish.

Nobody said the Immaculate Conception was correct simply because it's old. Also, there are all kinds of old, heretical beliefs and practices that the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches reject, so age alone has never been the deciding factor. Here, as above, you are attacking a straw man argument.

Then I don't know why you're defending traditions not mentioned in the Bible so fiercely.

My arguments here are hardly "fierce." I'm simply pointing out why you and onewithhim's unsolicited criticisms of this doctrine are weak and self-defeating.

Because Christendom has made their traditions equal to the word of God, there is no unity in Christendom.

Surely, this is backwards. The ancient churches that have always believed that Tradition has equal authority to Scripture -- i.e., the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches -- are in a great deal of agreement on matters of faith and practice.

It's those Christians who have abandoned Tradition thinking they can simply use Scripture alone as their sole authority -- i.e., most Protestants and sectarian groups -- who are all over the map in terms of their beliefs and practices. And it's not hard to see why: any serious student of the Bible and history can readily see that the Bible was never intended to be the sole source of authority within either Judaism or Christianity.

[2timothy316]

It is not because of the traditions of men that the God's Word comes to us and/or explained to us.

That is obviously false. What books are deemed to be part of the Bible and which ones aren't is established solely through Tradition. In accepting the New Testament canon you are implicitly accepting the authority of the Church and its Tradition.

"All Scripture is inspired of God and beneficial for teaching, for reproving, for setting things straight, for disciplining in righteousness, so that the man of God may be fully competent, completely equipped for every good work." - 2 Tim 3:16,17.

The Bible says that only scripture completely equips a person for every good work. Nowhere does it mention traditions of men.
Also, I don't accept scripture because of any church's tradition. The scriptures from the Greek scriptures were known as writings from God before the pagan 'church' came along and simply collected them together in one place. Tradition isn't necessary to believe the Greek Scriptures are from God as if the pagan church didn't exist there would still be people would the Greek scriptures as from God. The pagan church is not the source of anything from God and isn't the authority over anything but those that submit their traditions.

[2timothy316]

Because Christendom has made their traditions equal to the word of God, there is no unity in Christendom.

Surely, this is backwards. The ancient churches that have always believed that Tradition has equal authority to Scripture -- i.e., the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox churches -- are in a great deal of agreement on matters of faith and practice.

It's those Christians who have abandoned Tradition thinking they can simply use Scripture alone as their sole authority -- i.e., most Protestants and sectarian groups -- who are all over the map in terms of their beliefs and practices. And it's not hard to see why: any serious student of the Bible and history can readily see that the Bible was never intended to be the sole source of authority within either Judaism or Christianity.

People started reading the Bible for themselves and found that RCC's traditions are not Bible based. It is the RCC's own fault be presenting a God and rules that are not Bible based. Throughout history people have been trying to escape the brutality of the RCC's traditions. So, when they saw that these traditions were not found in the Bible of course they were going to break off from the RCC. I don't know if you know the history of the RCC but people were forced to be in it under pain of death if one didn't. The RCC had trampled the truth of the Bible long enough and Jehovah's word couldn't be kept away from people forever.