More for a Divine Institution

Why Tradition Must Submit to Scripture
The Based Lutheran | 8 Nov. 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jt62goLffIg

0:45 Thank you for this, both Churches have "Catholic" in official descriptions of the Church and "Orthodox" in official descriptions of the Faith, and use the adjectives also interchanged of Faith and Church.

A Russian Orthodox would describe his own Church as "kafolik" (Russian pronunciation of katholikos) and consider a Roman Catholic as "katolik" (imitating Latin and German and Polish pronunciations of the word).

1:03 I agree that the primacy of St. Peter is not sufficient to determine the effective primacy of Old Rome in the present day, since Palamas taught that each local bishop is the successor of St. Peter.

Plus the Orthodox would also say "we obeyed the Popes as long as they were Orthodox" (Pope St. Leo III is honoured as a saint and seen as a subtle opponent of Charlemagne, whom some of them credit to being the founder of Roman Catholicism).

1:14 Saying the Bible derives its authority from the Church is somewhat of a shortcut.

The Bible derives its authority from God as author, and from the Church as recognising the divine authorship of each Bible book.

Btw, for the 73 books of a Roman Catholic Bible, all are canonic in the Eastern Orthodox Church as well. Not vice versa.

What we Catholics call I and II Esdras = Ezra and Nehemia. But they would call these II and III Esdras, and their I Esdras is not canonic in the RCC.
The EO also have III and IV Maccabees.

So, to use the Bible between RC and EO, one way is actually to see two localities that St. Paul praises for the faith.

To this, it should be noted, the RCC is not decided on whether Baruch is a part of Jeremiah or a separate book. So, we have an OT of 45 or 46 book, an overall Bible of 72 or 73 books.

Thessalonica and Berea are both very highly praised, and they are 73 km or 45 miles apart.

1:53 Apostolic Succession narrows down the choices to between:

• Roman Catholic
• Eastern Orthodox
• Copt
• Armenian
• Assyrian

The last of these is also known as Nestorian, and the two before that are often lumped together as Monophysites, while they prefer Miaphysites as a more polite term. I chose the national labels among other things to avoid the question on which of these labels is more correct.

Now, Lutheran, Anglican, Methodist, Moravian, and even worse Presbyterian and Congregationalist are not on the list. These are choices you should already narrow out from. Including if you are yourself a Lutheran.

2:23 "other source than your own magisterial tradition"

Church Fathers.

St. Augustine died before the Council of Ephesus was held. I e, before the list of five Churches previously alluded to split.

Not just the Bible, but everything in the Church Fathers prior to 430 can help decide chosing between the five Churches.

Not just the Bible and those Church Fathers, but everything in even more Church Fathers prior to 1054 can help decide chosing between the remaining two Churches, if you rule out Copt, Armenian and Assyrian.

2:30 "external to [your] tradition"

Er, external to tradition after the Church splits.

You cannot invalidate tradition prior to 1054 as tainted by the schism of 1054.

And my pro tip, if I may say so, is to go to the Bible. Matthew 26:17 shows that the Last Supper was indeed a Seder according to the law of Moses, with azymes.

The pretended martyrdom of "Saint Peter the Aleut" is a good confirmation that the schism was from Michael Caerularius considering the azyme hosts as invalid matter, pretending John 19:14 proved that Good Friday was the day when Jews were getting rid of leavened breads, so Jesus could not have eaten unleavened ones the day before. "Peter the Aleut" is said to have been martyred by Spanish Jesuits for refusing to communicate in azymes. Highly unlikely, but shows that azymes are more important or at least as important to understanding 1054 as filioque.

Which by the way I can trace to I Council of Toledo, in 400 AD, when it condemned Priscillianism. Yes, there is a document in Latin and Spanish online, from a site external to me, and I have myself done an English translation, mainly from the Latin with some help of the Spanish.

Concilio de Toledo I
año 397-400
https://www.filosofia.org/cod/c0397t01.htm

Filioque far older than III Council of Toledo
https://trentophilaret.blogspot.com/p/filioque-far-older-than-iii-council-of.html

2:43 The Council of Jerusalem claimed to be Theopneust.

Acts 15:28.

The Apostles were Theopneust, God in the flesh literally breathed on them.

John 20:22.

So, yes, OT Scripture is God-breathed, as you mention. Apostles and therefore Apostolic succession is God-breathed. Councils of the Church are God-breathed.

2:55 Let's first prove from the Bible there is a one true Church.

Matthew 16 has Jesus saying I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This is not the debated point whether Jesus, Peter or his Faith are the rock, good Catholicism says "all three of above" (St. Augustine, for instance), this is about what Christ builds on the rock. The Church.

Given that the primary meaning in pre-Christian Greek of ekklesia is "legislative or deliberative assembly of a city state" we can take that Church has city as synonym. Rock obviously also has mountain as synonym, a mountain is a very big rock. A rock big enough for a city or Church to stand on it would be a mountain.

Matthew 5 has Jesus saying A city seated on a mountain cannot be hid.

So, not only will the Church Jesus founded not vanish, it will not even vanish from sight.

Again, could it not have branched out into several ones?

And if he will not hear the church, let him be to thee as the heathen and publican. Matthew 18, again it is Our Lord speaking. Next verse Jesus tells the Apostles what authority He gives them collectively, as also individually to St. Peter: Amen I say to you, whatsoever you shall bind upon earth, shall be bound also in heaven; and whatsoever you shall loose upon earth, shall be loosed also in heaven.

For a man to be able to hear the Church and know he is not a heathen and publican, for a man to know in what he is bound even before heaven, as before the Church on earth, he has to know where the Church is. If five candidates all claim to be the Church, and disagree, he needs to know which of them is the true one.

So, going from all Protestantism to this list:

• Roman Catholic
• Eastern Orthodox
• Copt
• Armenian
• Assyrian

= is a step in the right direction, and where all five agree (there are seven sacraments, Mary is body and soul in heaven, She never ever sinned ...) take that as a first correction of your errors.

But you would need to take out four of the five, before you could actually fully live a Christian life.

Again, this is not the proverbial needle in the haystack, it's a not too difficult task. Copts, Armenians, Assyrians are named each after a single nation, and each apostolic succession is making one nation disciples (or two for Copts : Egyptians and Ethiopians). Matthew 28 has Jesus saying teach ye all nations; and Catholics and Orthodox have better claims than the last three, but Catholics an even better one than Orthodox. Cuzco and Congo are more different than Greece and Ukraine (and there are actually RC in Greece and Ukraine too, they are called Uniates).

Plus, what I said about azymes being definitely a very proper matter for the Blessed Sacrament.

3:06 While mere institutional continuity is insufficient for the reason that you mention, constitutional continuity is needed because of the Biblical reason I gave.

Btw, if you had real problems with constitutional Church continuity after 1054, how come you don't have one with it up to Pope St. Damasus giving the canon of the NT in full and exclusively those books?

The problem you find with constitutional church is one that has a mirror. Is the real NT canon the Muratorian one which includes Pastor Hermas? Or the one of Laodicea, 361, which does not include the Apocalypse? The difference between the canons is not unimportant. If Pastor Hermas is true, what does that say about those who sin after baptism? If Apocalypse is not true Scripture, how do we tell who the Antichrist is? No one says a gematria of 666 is sufficient, but with the Apocalypse, it is at least necessary.

However, either way you will know the Our Father, since the Four Gospels are canon.

So, like there are differences between how long Mary was sinless (correct and Catholic answer : since as long as She was in existence at all, and even before, since that's how God planned Her, incorrect typical EO answer, shared historically by some RC, like Sts Augustine and Thomas Aquinas, "since just a moment later" ...), which ever is the true one, there is a takeaway. Mary was sinless on earth and is in heaven body and soul. The price for rejecting this is not having the Bible and not the true Church, its having not even the Bible, if you are consistent.

3:22 The Catholic teaching does not say Scripture has no authority of its own.
The Catholic teaching does say, it has its divine authority before God because of His act of inspiration, but before our conscience, because of the recognition of the Church.

Now, the problem is, and it shows in your choice of pictures, you presume that if all Scripture is authoritative, if a Catholic admits to be truly bound by it, and if he is honest, he'll become for instance Lutheran, or at least admit only Scripture is the Apostolic deposit we now have access to. But the Lutheran doctrine on more than one item (like simul justus et peccator) is against Scripture, and your argument is also against Scripture.

The true consistency is either to admit to how the solution of where the one true Church is, is not insoluble, or to quit Christianity altogether.

You have not shown "sola scriptura" is consistent.

You have not shown that any tradition shared by:

• Roman Catholic
• Eastern Orthodox
• Copt
• Armenian
• Assyrian

could ever be discarded for contradicting Scripture, nor that every Church on the list has traditions universal and seen as binding in that Church, which needs to be discarded, since contradicting Scripture. There is at least one (and very probably only one) on this list which has no internally universal or otherwise binding tradition that needs such discarding.

4:10 I paused the video to get the transscript, I love this quote too:

third session of the first Vatican Council these books the church holds to be sacred and canonical not because she subsequently approved them by her Authority after they had been composed by aned human skill nor simply because they contain Revelation without error but because being written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit they have God as their author and were as such committed to the church committed to the church

My one quibble would be your term "first" Vatican council. Were there more than one? (Btw, I have some problem with your pictorial choice of illustration of the papacy, as I don't hold Bergoglio to be Pope, even if Fiducia Supplicans, like Humani Generis, permits a perfectly orthodox and orthoprax interpretational choice : Adam being created directly by God, and two persons of sinful couples being blessed if showing a willingness to repent).

4:22 The Church was the vessel

Can you show it has been broken?

Can you show Seraphim of Sarov has an equal claim with St. Ignatius of Loyola or St. Simon Stock to represent the one true Church, or that Bergoglio has an equal claim with Michael II?