The unwritten mysteries of the church.

[MoreCoffee]

Some of you will reject what the early church fathers wrote as having any authority for you and your beliefs. Some of you will not. I thought this was an interesting passage from saint Basil the Great.

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;--no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.

...

Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptised, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on "the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;--which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;--a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery? ​

(source)​

 

[pinacled]

Some of you will reject what the early church fathers wrote as having any authority for you and your beliefs. Some of you will not. I thought this was an interesting passage from saint Basil the Great.

Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church some we possess derived from written teaching; others we have received delivered to us "in a mystery" by the tradition of the apostles; and both of these in relation to true religion have the same force. And these no one will gainsay;--no one, at all events, who is even moderately versed in the institutions of the Church. For were we to attempt to reject such customs as have no written authority, on the ground that the importance they possess is small, we should unintentionally injure the Gospel in its very vitals; or, rather, should make our public definition a mere phrase and nothing more. For instance, to take the first and most general example, who is there who has taught us in writing to sign with the sign of the cross those who have trusted in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ? Which of the saints has left us in writing the words of the invocation at the displaying of the bread of the Eucharist and the cup of blessing? For we are not, as is well known, content with what the apostle or the Gospel has recorded, but both in preface and conclusion we add other words as being of great importance to the validity of the ministry, and these we derive from unwritten teaching.




...

Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing; but of the very confession of our faith in Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, what is the written source? If it be granted that, as we are baptised, so also under the obligation to believe, we make our confession in like terms as our baptism, in accordance with the tradition of our baptism and in conformity with the principles of true religion, let our opponents grant us too the right to be as consistent in our ascription of glory as in our confession of faith. If they deprecate our doxology on the ground that it lacks written authority, let them give us the written evidence for the confession of our faith and the other matters which we have enumerated. While the unwritten traditions are so many, and their bearing on "the mystery of godliness is so important, can they refuse to allow us a single word which has come down to us from the Fathers;--which we found, derived from untutored custom, abiding in unperverted churches;--a word for which the arguments are strong, and which contributes in no small degree to the completeness of the force of the mystery? ​

(source)​

Forgive me More Coffee. And to other poster and readers.

Who exactly is the letter addressed to? For instance the sentence below.

"What writing has taught us to turn to the East at the prayer?"


Unwritten mysteries in tradition and ritual?

The letter has no bearings in the area of Greco/Roman tradition and ritual.
The Roman traditions and rituals are well known throughout history as having there own Astronomers and Priest. Thus they are not an unwritten mystery. Let alone a mystery. The greco/roman pantheon is one that used to be taught in English 1.
I am not to sure how sharp the students are these days. But these pantheons collaborate with a calendar.

 

[MoreCoffee]

[MENTION=201]pinacled[/MENTION], it is addressed to Christians and written by a Christian. I gave his name, saint Basil the Great.

 

[Josiah]

Tradition: Catholic and Protestant.


Roman Catholic Definition:


1. It's the RC Denomination alone, individually, that determines what Tradition is:


"It is the Authoritative Voice of The Catholic Church alone which determines what is to be accepted and rejected as Tradition." The Handbook of the Catholic Faith, page 151



2. It's the RCC itself alone that determines the meaning of this Tradition it itself alone chose.

The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the [Catholic] Church alone. This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the bishop of Rome." Catholic Catechism # 85



3. This "Tradition" as the RCC has chosen and as the RCC itself has interpreted, is not accountable to God's Scriptures but is EQUAL and SUPPLIMENTAL to it.

The [Catholic] Church does not derive its certainty about truth from the holy Scriptures alone. But both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments." Catholic Catechism # 82

Sacred Tradition, Sacred Scripture and the Magisterium of the [Catholic] Church are so connected and associated that one of them cannot stand without the other. Working together, they all contribute...." Catholic Catechism # 95


Realize, too, that this Holy Scripture which is equal to the Tradition as the RCC itself alone as chosen as it itself alone interprets, is....

Scripture is written principally in the heart of the [Catholic] Church rather than in documents or records, for the [Catholic] Church carries in its Tradition the living memory... Catholic Catechism # 113




Protestant Definition:


Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodist and often Reformed Protestants speak of "tradition" in several way:

1. It refers to the historic, ecumenical, consensus of God's people, especially regarding the interpretation and application of Scriptures. This if often held in very high esteem, but at least a tad under God's Word (as indeed Protestants tend to regard the words of men as under the Word of God). Examples would be the Apostles and Nicene Creeds.

2. The historic, consensus and generally official teachings of the specific theological community. In Lutheranism, we call this type of Tradition, "Confessions." This is not ecumenical since it may be distinctive to a denomination. For example, the "Lutheran Confessions" (the Book of Concord), the Reformed Confessions. The Lutheran Book of Concord (unchanged since 1580 - with no additions, revisions, developments or expansions) begins with the 3 ecumenical creeds - in a category unto themselves, then addresses the Lutheran Confessions.

3. The historic and broadly accepted customs and practices of God's people - which may be ecumenical or perhaps more limited in terms of time or community. Examples: Worshiping especially on Sunday, celebrating the Nativity on December 25.



.

 

[visionary]

379 AD, He was a Greek bishop. Already too late to be tied to the original faith of the Jews of Jerusalem who believed in Yeshua as their Jewish Messiah... Roman and Greek mythologies were mixed in by that time...

 

[Josiah]

There is a very, very foundational claim in the LDS and additionally in every "cult" I know of.....

The CLAIM is that Jesus taught a whole lot of Dogmas that - for unknown reasons - God in His divine wisdom chose to keep out of the NT. BUT, nonetheless, some folks knew about these and continued to share them, orally, kind of like the "telephone game" we all played as kids. And eventually (maybe centuries later) ONE person, denomination, church, cult.... somehow.... LEARNED these (all at once or very slowly and partly). WOW! All these ancient secrets suddenly KNOWN by the one who alone claims to have come to KNOW them! The LDS calls these "second testimony" but different cults and denominations have different names for this corpus.

Now, EVENTUALLY (maybe centuries after "learning" these hidden dogmas the Holy Spirit in His infinite wisdom chose not to disclose in Scripture), eventually this person or cult or denomination decided to do the opposite of the Holy Spirit and disclose it (usually because something it alone is saying is being challenged) - although not usually in full and with a LOT, just a whole LOT of "interpretation" added by it itself. Somehow, these always seem to uphold some unique (and at times weird) dogma that it itself alone has. "See JESUS taught this!!!!!!" it alone says about secrets it alone somehow "learned."


I'd be cautious about that.



- Josiah

 

[pinacled]

[MENTION=201]pinacled[/MENTION], it is addressed to Christians and written by a Christian. I gave his name, saint Basil the Great.

Thankyou.

Would you help to understand what this turning to the East for prayers is?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Thankyou.

Would you help to understand what this turning to the East for prayers is?

Christians prayed facing East because the Lord said "as the lightning flashes out of the east ... so shall the coming of the Son of Man be" similar imagery is used elsewhere in sacred scripture to describe the rising of God to save his people in the last days. And the sun rises in the east which probably played a role in the biblical language about God and the return of Christ.

Matthew 24:27 For just as lightning goes out from the east, and appears even in the west, so shall it be also at the advent of the Son of man.

 

[Josiah]

There is a very, very foundational claim in the LDS and additionally in every "cult" I know of.....

The CLAIM is that Jesus taught a whole lot of Dogmas that - for unknown reasons - God in His divine wisdom chose to keep out of the NT. BUT, nonetheless, some folks knew about these and continued to share them, orally, kind of like the "telephone game" we all played as kids. And eventually (maybe centuries later) ONE person, denomination, church, cult.... somehow.... LEARNED these (all at once or very slowly and partly). WOW! All these ancient secrets suddenly KNOWN by the one who alone claims to have come to KNOW them! The LDS calls these "second testimony" but different cults and denominations have different names for this corpus.

Now, EVENTUALLY (maybe centuries after "learning" these hidden dogmas the Holy Spirit in His infinite wisdom chose not to disclose in Scripture), eventually this person or cult or denomination decided to do the opposite of the Holy Spirit and disclose it (usually because something it alone is saying is being challenged) - although not usually in full and with a LOT, just a whole LOT of "interpretation" added by it itself. Somehow, these always seem to uphold some unique (and at times weird) dogma that it itself alone has. "See JESUS taught this!!!!!!" it alone says about secrets it alone somehow "learned."


I'd be cautious about that.



- Josiah

I need to ADD something, so as to not be misunderstood.....


I realize the first KNOWN written statement of doctrines comes a bit after Jesus' death/resurrection - about a dozen years later. And that the last of the NT books was perhaps penned as much as 60 or 70 years later (max). And so certainly, the teachings of Christianity were either all oral (or recorded in written materials now lost or a combination thereof). This is at times referred to as a "Kerygma" ("the proclaimation"). We simply cannot know EXACTLY the full content of this - what exactly WAS and WAS NOT included in this - for one very basic unavoidable reason: its very nature means we no longer have it.

Now.... is it THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that some dogma (such as Golden Plates in North New York..... or the Infallible Bishop of the RC Denomination in the City of Rome..... or .......) MIGHT have been a part of this "Kergyma?" Yes - darn near anything is theoretically possible - but we have ZERO evidence of that: none, nada, zero. Any claim to such is PURE unsubstantiation. And if such was dogma, we DO need to at least consider why the Holy Spirit chose to exclude those supposed essential dogmas from the NT record. I think we also have to wonder why - usually - we have NO mention of such a teaching for CENTURIES later.

I think the very foundational claims of the "cults" (and beyond) that some lost Dogmas from the Kergyma have been "found" by it itself (centuries later) is...... baseless. From a PURELY theoretical standpoint, possible (the Holy Spirit may have just wrongly forgotten to record them in the NT) but falls far short from the credibility needed for such a foundational affirmation: this constant talk about Dogmas Jesus taught but simply aren't in Scripture.


I hope that helps!


Pax Christi


- Josiah

 

[Pedrito]

If “saint Basil the Great” wrote those words in 379AD as reported by visionary in Post #5 on Page 1, then he wrote at a very interesting time, and probably for a very interesting reason. He was writing between 325AD and 381AD, just before the latter.

In 325AD the Council of Nicea (Nicaea) added Jesus to God, forming a binity (two in one).

In 381AD The First Council of Constantinople added the Holy Spirit to God, forming a trinity (three in one).

For reasons that should become obvious with a little thought, the fact that the trinity was the result of progressive addition to God, has been kept secret from rank-and-file Christians for centuries by their leaders.

Christians have been told both directly and indirectly (e.g. by the name “Nicene Creed” being applied to a creed that was developed as a result of a later Constantinople council in 381AD) that the trinity was defined by the Council of Nicea in 325AD.

Why the long-term deception?

The answer is as revealing as it is profound.

We are commonly taught that the Council of Nicea was convened to defend existing doctrine from attack by someone called Arius. But if we look carefully at church history we find that that is not the case.

The fact that the triplex nature of God (trinity) was defined progressively in 325AD and 381AD, totally destroys any pretence that the trinity was pre-existing doctrine.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Am I saying that the doctrine of the trinity is wrong?

All I am pointing out is that both the Holy Scriptures and church history show that Jesus and the apostles demonstrably knew nothing about it. The question is: Why has the need been felt to be dishonest about it – so strongly and for so long?

All that Protestant churches have to do – the ones that hold to that doctrine – is admit that, as “saint Basil the Great” indicated, the God-Inspired Writings (the Bible) are not the only source on which they have based their beliefs and teachings. (Despite any and all protestations they may issue to the contrary.)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The crux of the matter for individual Protestant churches represented in this forum is simple – which post-apostolic church councils are considered authoritative (Josiah has mentioned a few elsewhere) – and are all the proclamations from all those particular councils actually accepted? (If not, then which proclamations are accepted, and which proclamations are not?)

Meaningful, pointed and precise feedback about those two particular issues, from regular Protestant (including Orthodox) contributors to this forum (and other Readers from the Protestant arena), is requested and will be appreciated. (Josiah may be in a strong position to present the Lutheran perspective.)

 

[visionary]

Christians prayed facing East because the Lord said "as the lightning flashes out of the east ... so shall the coming of the Son of Man be" similar imagery is used elsewhere in sacred scripture to describe the rising of God to save his people in the last days. And the sun rises in the east which probably played a role in the biblical language about God and the return of Christ.

Matthew 24:27 For just as lightning goes out from the east, and appears even in the west, so shall it be also at the advent of the Son of man.

Jew turn to the east, towards Jerusalem, in that part of the country.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Jew turn to the east, towards Jerusalem, in that part of the country.

I live in Australia and Jerusalem would be north-west for me. Nevertheless the practise in Catholic Church buildings has been to have the Altar with the tabernacle on the east wall so that the congregation faces east during the liturgy. This practise is no longer strictly adhered to. My own parish Church building has the Altar wall on the south-east side.

 

[visionary]

I live in Australia and Jerusalem would be north-west for me. Nevertheless the practise in Catholic Church buildings has been to have the Altar with the tabernacle on the east wall so that the congregation faces east during the liturgy. This practise is no longer strictly adhered to. My own parish Church building has the Altar wall on the south-east side.

Ezekiel 8:16 And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

 

[amadeois]

Sun worship?

Worshipping the creation instead of the Creator?

And with their BACKS to the temple of the Lord.

There is your answer.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[amadeois]

But you did not say what happened to those 25 worshiping the sun towards the East.

They were quickly terminated by the six men.

Read Ezekiel 9:8
God had given a command to destroy those people: Ezekiel 9:6

God responded to Ezekiel on 9:9
(Wow, I like those numbers)
"Then said he unto me, The iniquity of the house of Israel and Judah (hard headed people) is exceedingly great, and the land is full of blood, and the city full of perverseness: for they say, The LORD hath forsaken the earth, and the LORD seething not.

If you do not follow God's Words, you should be ready to suffer the consequences.

So be it. And everybody answered: AMEN.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

 

[Alithis]

Sun worship?

Worshipping the creation instead of the Creator?

And with their BACKS to the temple of the Lord.

There is your answer.

Sent from my SM-N900T using Tapatalk

Im one you need not convince..the founder of the rcc was a highpriest in the worship of the sun. And its mother the moon. Her name was changed to "mary"

 

[psalms 91]

Im one you need not convince..the founder of the rcc was a highpriest in the worship of the sun. And its mother the moon. Her name was changed to "mary"

Never heard this before, source?

 

[MoreCoffee]

Ezekiel 8:16 And he brought me into the inner court of the Lord's house, and, behold, at the door of the temple of the Lord, between the porch and the altar, were about five and twenty men, with their backs toward the temple of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east.

I do not think that the pagan abuses in the temple bear any relationship to Jehovah's arrangements regarding worship in ancient Israel. Christ is called the Sun of Righteousness and his rising is connected to healing the faithful; it is significant that the sun of righteousness rises implying eastward orientation since the sun rises in the east. This is recorded in Malachi 4:2 "But for you who fear my name the sun of righteousness shall rise, with healing in its wings. You shall go forth leaping like calves from the stall." and Christ's return is described as flashing from the east to the west Matthew 24:27 "For just as the lightning comes from the east and flashes even to the west, so will the coming of the Son of Man be." And the east had significance for the encampment of Israel around the tabernacle of Jehovah Numbers 2:3-4 "Now those who camp on the east side toward the sunrise shall be of the standard of the camp of Judah, by their armies, and the leader of the sons of Judah: Nahshon the son of Amminadab, [4] and his army, even their numbered men, 74,600." The significance of eastward orientation is present in both testaments and this significance does not derive from pagan practises but from Jehovah's commands, signs, and symbols pointing to the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Im one you need not convince..the founder of the rcc was a highpriest in the worship of the sun. And its mother the moon. Her name was changed to "mary"

It may be a mistake to reply to the claims implied in your post but they are so profoundly unchristian and inaccurate as to make a reply useful for the edification of the faithful who read this thread.

• Firstly your words imply that Emperor Constantine founded the Catholic Church. This is patently absurd for these reasons:
  1. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the Catholic Church in his letters dated before 110 AD and this is 200 years before there was any emperor Constantine this is sound historical evidence for the existence of the Catholic Church at least two centuries before Constantine became emperor thus showing that any claim that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is patently absurd and false.
  2. By RCC you appear to be claiming that the Roman Church was founded by emperor Constantine yet Paul in the 50s AD wrote a letter to the Church in Rome he wrote it 300 years before there was any emperor Constantine so any claim that Constantine founded the Roman Church is patently false and absurd.
• Secondly Emperor Constantine is said to have converted to Christ some time around 312 AD if he did convert to Christ then he was not a pagan sun worshipper as you claim.
• Thirdly Constantine's mother was not "the moon". Constantine's parents were Flavius Valerius Constantius (Constantine's father)and his wife Flavia Iulia Helena Augusta (Constantine's mother). His mother's name was Helena and never changed to "Mary" contrary to the spurious claim you make.
• Lastly your words imply that the Catholic Church is not a Christian Church. The very definition of orthodox Christian doctrine in this forum is the Nicene Creed written by the bishops of the Catholic Church. Catholic Christians today and throughout the ages since the Creed was written both approve and teach the Nicene Creed as the core profession of Christian faith. Thus by the forum's definition of Christian Catholics are Christians.

Any man who seeks to teach Christian truth by spreading inaccuracies, lies, and calumnies against Christians ought to feel deep shame for having done so and your post does exactly those things by

(1) making claims about the founder of the Catholic Church and the Roman Church which history shows to be false claims,
(2) lying about Constantine's mother being called Mary,
(3) and accusing Constantine of being a pagan after 312 AD - the date of his apparent conversion.​

You ought to retract your post's scurrilous claims.

 

[Alithis]

It may be a mistake to reply to the claims implied in your post but they are so profoundly unchristian and inaccurate as to make a reply useful for the edification of the faithful who read this thread.

• Firstly your words imply that Emperor Constantine founded the Catholic Church. This is patently absurd for these reasons:
  1. Ignatius of Antioch speaks of the Catholic Church in his letters dated before 110 AD and this is 200 years before there was any emperor Constantine this is sound historical evidence for the existence of the Catholic Church at least two centuries before Constantine became emperor thus showing that any claim that Constantine founded the Catholic Church is patently absurd and false.
  2. By RCC you appear to be claiming that the Roman Church was founded by emperor Constantine yet Paul in the 50s AD wrote a letter to the Church in Rome he wrote it 300 years before there was any emperor Constantine so any claim that Constantine founded the Roman Church is patently false and absurd.
• Secondly Emperor Constantine is said to have converted to Christ some time around 312 AD if he did convert to Christ then he was not a pagan sun worshipper as you claim.
• Thirdly Constantine's mother was not "the moon". Constantine's parents were Flavius Valerius Constantius (Constantine's father)and his wife Flavia Iulia Helena Augusta (Constantine's mother). His mother's name was Helena and never changed to "Mary" contrary to the spurious claim you make.
• Lastly your words imply that the Catholic Church is not a Christian Church. The very definition of orthodox Christian doctrine in this forum is a Nicene Creed written by the bishops of the Catholic Church. Catholic Christians today and throughout the ages since the Creed was written both approve and teach the Nicene Creed as the core profession of Christian faith. Thus by the forum's definition of Christian Catholics are Christians.

Any man who seeks to teach Christian truth by spreading inaccuracies, lies, and calumnies against Christians ought to feel deep shame for having done so and your post does exactly those things by

(1) making claims about the founder of the Catholic Church and the Roman Church which history shows to be false claims,
(2) lying about Constantine's mother being called Mary,
(3) and accusing Constantine of being a pagan after 312 AD - the date of his apparent conversion.​

You ought to retract your post's scurrilous claims.

Paul wrote to the assembly Of deciples in rome.. There was no man made institution at that time with its ownheadcalled a pope. He was not writing to the rcc lol.

You already know what i say. the mary of the rcc is not themary of the bible.. She is another being the rcc renamed.
Im not trying to sully romes reputation ,its done that all by itself .Let God be judge.
It put people to death intimes past saying it did so in christs name .. It will most likely do so again before long- we shall see i guess. it sure doesnt like its idols being spoken against though. Which is the very thing that proves they are idols.
By the way.. I never said constantines Mother ,,lol. Its actually a reference back to nimrods mother. Thats how ancient the image of the woman holding the child with the sun halo goes..a very ancient wickedness indeed..