Authority in Catholicism and Protestantism..

[pablope]

Pablope, hope you’re well.

I think to save utterly overloading this thread, as ive already posted loads in one big go, i justbwant to focus on this bit of your comments in the last thread:

As I’ve said before, on this question of authority and me using my own interpretation of things, this argument works just as well against your own position; for tradition does not authoritatively guide your position, your interpretation picks out what counts as tradition and picks out verses in scripture that support your interpretation that Rome is the ultimate authority on matters of faith over other bodies who claim something similar…

Kind regards

Lincs

Thanks…I am well…just a long day of travel today. Hope you are well too.

I will repost the article…I hope you find time to read it…and it will explain that further…calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

And I will repost Mark Shea’s Sacred Tradition…mark-shea.com/tradition.html

I will post this part to give you an understanding of how Catholics read and and understand the Bible…for the Bible came from the CC…so how could it contradict the CC?

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church…It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church…The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority…The Church does not sit down and derive the dogma from the tortured reading of a few isolated texts of Scripture. Rather, it places the Scripture in the context of the Tradition handed down by the apostles and the interpretive office of the bishops they appointed.

In short…the Teachings of the CC are reflected in Scripture.

Let me give you an example:

In the other thread…you said this…"Paul is not so much ensuring he submits to a supreme Peter, for he does not view him this way, hence his rebuke of Peter in chapter 2. Instead he goes to ensure church unity.

About Paul’s rebuke of Peter…your immediate conclusion is that Peter is not a leader becaues he is rebuked by Paul.

That is what you have been taught…you reject the traditional knowledge of authority of Peter with that one incident and come to your conclusion. You picked and chose what you want to believe in…yes? And disregard other actions of Peter to show his authority.

There are some who even cite the passage in Matt where Jesus says…get behind me Satan… to Peter.

This is how we, Catholics see the incident…we take into account, the meeting of Paul and Peter in Jerusalem, the revelation to Paul to go to Jerusalem to present his gospel (already discussed)…the changing of name from Simon to Peter (taking the cultural importance of the change)…actions of Peter the early part of Acts, etc…

And my take on it…(catholics see the same thing too)…*Remember the account of the tension between the Gentiles and the Jews. Paul could not ease the tension…but recognizes somebody with the right stature who could…Peter. And he sees Peter’s moral failing. As a leader, Peter is the one who could ease the tension between the two groups. It is precisely because of Peter’s stature as leader…that could bring this about.

What this also shows is that a leader should not be beyond reproach. This is a fraternal correction of Paul to Peter…this shows that having authority does not mean one is above reproof…he acknowledges Peter’s authority as we have seen but also respects Peter enough as a man to speak with him directly and clearly, to his face, and not behind his back.

Does Peter lash out at Paul after this incident? Paul is silent…most obviously is that Peter sees his failing and corrects his behaviour. *

WE see it as the Humility of a leader…to accept correction.

 

[Lincoln7]

Pablope,

for the Bible came from the CC…so how could it contradict the CC?

Do you support the notion that is often presented to me here that there was no bible until the fourth or fifth century? Honest question.

Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church

I’ve read Mr.Sheas post, and something doesn’t quite click with it. Seems apparently doctrine can develop over the ages, I find it hard to see Tradition as actually apostolic in origin, there is no way too actually test this tradition due to this development… Hence as I said earlier, the magisterium claims to be its sole interpreter, this is where what I see as sola eclessia comes to the surface again. How are we to test tradition that develops? It is also apparent mr Shea holds to the material sufficiency viewpoint, why do some Catholics hold to the partim partim view? It seems Rome is not so clear on Tradition, it seems as I’ve said before, that she is the only one who claims to be able to interpret it. This is why I adhere to sola scriptura, it’s not that we don’t hold any form of tradition, rather that we test it to the scriptures.

About Paul’s rebuke of Peter…your immediate conclusion is that Peter is not a leader becaues he is rebuked by Paul.

I think the manner of the rebuke indicates Paul’s view he is just as equal as Peter in terms of authority. Again, I happily and readily see Peters primacy of honour in the NT, just not one of authority.

And my take on it…(catholics see the same thing too)…Remember the account of the tension between the Gentiles and the Jews. Paul could not ease the tension…but recognizes somebody with the right stature who could…Peter. And he sees Peter’s moral failing. As a leader, Peter is the one who could ease the tension between the two groups. It is precisely because of Peter’s stature as leader…that could bring this about.

Has the table dispute passage been infallibly defined? I don’t think it has. My interpretation of this passage was heavily influenced by an excellent lecture by DA Carson, which is available here: ligonier.org/learn/collections/doctrine-of-justification-and-new-perspectives-paul/ I post the link so as to give my source I will paraphrase it as follows:

Vs 12 - “For before certain men came from James, he was eating with the Gentiles; but when they came he drew back and separated himself, fearing the circumcision party.”
Carson puts it as follows: That men come from James with news, rather bleak news “Peter, you’re so high profile, youre Apostle to the Jews after all and your eating with Gentiles is causing quite a stir… When word of it gets back to Jerusalem, the circumsicion party hits us hard, using your eating with the Gentiles as proof were not good.”
Peter fears this party and what they are doing, so, he withdraws.
Vs 13 - “And the rest of the Jews acted hypocritically along with him, so that even Barnabas was led astray by their hypocrisy.”
They follow the apostle to the Jews, even Barnabas, and wonder into hypocrisy.
Vs 14 - "But when I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, “If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?”
I don’t think Paul here views Peter as the only one capable of easing the tension, rather, he sees him as the source of the tension! Its a gosepl issue! Paul sees they are out of line with the Gospel! For the Gentiles, now feel as second class citizens in the church, and what gets Paul; feel they too must now begin to observe Jewish law in order to be justified! This goes against everything Paul teaches; "For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Gal 3:10.
So he rebukes Peter, publicly. It’s a matter of the Gospel. I’m sure you could be ok with such an interpretation, the difference is, I don’t see your first point of Paul not being able to ease the tension… He is preaching the gospel he received from Jesus Christ, and people were out of step with it, when someone as big as peter is, you have to act…

WE see it as the Humility of a leader…to accept correction.

As do it. Peter is a leader in the early church, but not in the same way as the modern papacy. He is Apostle to the Jews, just as Paul is equal as Apostle to the Gentiles.

Kind regards

Lincs

 

[PRmerger]

Do you support the notion that is often presented to me here that there was no bible until the fourth or fifth century? Honest question.

There was no codex, no canon of Scripture, but the inspired writings were proclaimed at our liturgies,instructed on by our bishops from the earliest days of the Church.

I find it hard to see Tradition as actually apostolic in origin, there is no way too actually test this tradition due to this development…

And yet you submit to this Tradition when you acknowledge the canon of the NT, yes? And how do you “test” that Hebrews is correctly discerned to be theopneustos but the Gospel of Thomas is not?

 

[GaryTaylor]

Infallibly defined, we make to much of this in light if history.

First we should take a good hard look at infallible for this always seems to be such an obstacle as to its meaning. The dogma was defined at the first Vatican Council in 1870, and has been a topic of much misunderstnding. Lets simplify that it means that the Church will never invoke her full authority to require anyone to believe what is false.

It will simply never tell you 2+2=7.

The Church also teachs infallibly that nothing that she teachs infallibly about faith and morals is incompatible with Gods good gift of reason.

Now of course we could extend to “what ifs” as we discussed in the prior thread. However, history and continuity is a reality and a fact.

When we say Peter was the leader of the early church but not in accord with the modern Papacy. Ah, but here we come right back the argument of continuity in History and the definition of Doctrine as proposed through the Councils.

First Jesus builds His Church in Matthew 16:18 on Peter. Mind you Jesus does not speak the word anywhere else in person…“church”. St. Ignatius of Antioch quotes Matthew and only Matthew not once but 3X in His 107 letters before martyrdom. Matthew is the oldest fragments of scripture I believe we have to date.

Now of recent we see the rise of this rival tradition theory between Catholic’s and Protestants in conflict. The promise of Jesus is that He would send the Holy Spirit to guide His disciples into all truth, that is a promise made to the “Church”. That promise is fulfilled, in part, in the gift of the Spirits inspired writings of the NT. Nevertheless the guidence of the Spirit did not end there. The promise is clearly stated in 16;18, that the Spirit would guide the “Church” until the end time, whenever the Lord be so pleased that it be.

The Spirit guided the Church in the writing of the inspired texts, guided the church in recognizing “which texts” of the many claiming inspiration at the time were truly inspired. guided the Church in determining what would be the Canon of the NT; and guided the Church is declaring the unique authority of the canonical texts for all time.

In sum, it is the Spirit guiding the Church from begining to end, and as we see, the end is not here, and the Church still is and in continuity has evolved to exactly what it has become today. And this a result of both Sacred Tradition oral/written. Without the Divine assistance could we have by “chance” arrived at where we are today? I find that perposterous in light of the martrydom which took place and does to this moment for 2000 years. When souls such as St Athanasius suffered exile not once but five times. This is not “chance” it is Divine Providence. The weeds which grow among the wheat are the reality which Jesus so clearly spoke on, then and now, and right through this history. However here we are.

Whatever was in Acts at St Peters first speech and is now today as Benedict XVI speaks is a line through time. We debate many things as to what God may have meant to be, however what “is” leads me to believe it is exactly as God intended it to be. Now the weight of the debate os certainly a reality from East to West which is yet to defined by Rome as of 2010. However these Souls in prudence and wisdom move at their own pace.

Or however one chose’s to interpret the dialogue of Peter/Paul or the Council of J is not of consequence. The history of the Pope from Peter foward could be read in depth in “Heirs of the Fisherman” by John-Peter Pham, a diplomat at the Vatican for 40-years. And the historical evidence of Peters succession in fact the first two following does exist. And strong evidence of the third also. As does the history of the Anti-Popes and all the chaos which became very much a part of that line in history.

Doctrine doesn’t become created over time it becomes defined over time. And the Tradition is apostolic in origin. As we see with the teachings of the Apostles students such as St Irenaus or Athanasius. They make no direct appeal to thier own personal recollections, but fall back, rather, on tradition. This becomes self evident in 325 at Nicaea with the injection of “homoousion” which thus becomes used to express Christs character and is not scripure. Thus not just an overview of the existing Trinity but to further define exactly what the Trinity is by which it hoped to safeguard this more explicit profession of the ancient Faith thus Tradition.

“By the official promulgation to the term homoöusion, theological speculation received a fresh but subtle impetus which made itself felt long after Athanasius and his supporters had passed away; while the appeal to the secular arm inaugurated a policy which endured practically without change of scope down to the publication of the Vatican decrees in our own time.” New Advent which I also slightly paraphrase from above.

Nevertheless, we get back to the point of Tradition and Scripture which do and have existed side by side since the magnitude of this event in 33-AD and the Human/Divine Life which preceeded this event in 33, which too is defined by the efforts of the Hypostatic Union. Doctrine and its contiued clarity in definition is very much part of the history of the church from day one when those Apostles found themselves alone, after witness to Christ on the Cross, the immediate response was “OK now how do we proceed from here to accurately provide this truth”. Well, refection was no doubt in need and brain storming, so too was the Divine assistance of the Lord.

So too as we see with the Apostles who never wrote a Biblical Canon, so too we see Tradition in their teachings which coincide with todays church through time in the Apostolic Churchs.

Satan sends a heresy, the Lord sends a Saint. That has been a fact in time.

Peace, I have to run out for awhile, catch you on the rebound! Just some passing throughts really.

 

[PRmerger]

It is also apparent mr Shea holds to the material sufficiency viewpoint, why do some Catholics hold to the partim partim view? It seems Rome is not so clear on Tradition,

The CC does not hold to the partim-partim view of Scripture. It neither rejects nor upholds it.

While the question (partim-partim vs material sufficiency) is an interesting exercise in theology, it is really a moot question…

for Catholics do not have to choose between ONLY Scripture or ONLY Tradition. We have the charism of both, thanks be to God, so any discussion about this is only theoretical, and has no basis in practicality.

 

[Lincoln7]

There was no codex, no canon of Scripture, but the inspired writings were proclaimed at our liturgies,instructed on by our bishops from the earliest days of the Church.

So the early church did know what books were scripture without an infallible pronouncement? I again recommend here: crossway.org/books/the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-tpb/ I’m not debating the early church recognising the canon, just debating if there is a need for an infallible authority to do this, or if this infallible church even exits.

And yet you submit to this Tradition when you acknowledge the canon of the NT, yes? And how do you “test” that Hebrews is correctly discerned to be theopneustos but the Gospel of Thomas is not?

I phrased that ratehr poorly, but did not see it until editing time had already expired… Rather I should have said: "I find it hard to see modern roman catholic extra biblical dogma as having a basis in apostolic tradition… As it develops through the ages.

How do I test that Hebrews is? Well it was handed down by the Apostles to the church, it comes from amongst them during the first century, Thomas on the other hand does not…
How do you know that Rome is the true church and Eastern Orthodoxy for example is not? Is there an infallible guide that can point you to the right one?
I think we’ve established the private interpretation argument doesn’t really work, just ends all form of discussion.

The CC does not hold to the partim-partim view of Scripture. It neither rejects nor upholds it.

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The Council [Trent], as is evident, held that there are Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, revelations made to the Apostles either orally by Jesus Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and transmitted by the Apostles to the Church.”(1). I think this best fits with Trents comments on; “and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles…” (2). As such I think it’s clear the CC held to a partim partim view until very recently…

for Catholics do not have to choose between ONLY Scripture or ONLY Tradition. We have the charism of both, thanks be to God, so any discussion about this is only theoretical, and has no basis in practicality.

Indeed, Catholics do not have to chose between only one or the other, for as has been established only the magisterium can do this interpreting, the individual must look for what the church says is there… With this partim partim view being so clearly expressed until very recently, we would expect when testing it to find ample and explicit evidence in the earliest church of dogmas such as papal infallibility or the immaculate conception, if they really are extra biblical and authoritative. The fact we don’t I think is why this view is often not held to anymore…

Kind regards

Lincs

(1) - newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
(2) - history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

Do you support the notion that is often presented to me here that there was no bible until the fourth or fifth century? Honest question.

 

[JustaServant]

Just a brief interruption to tell Lincoln7 I appreciate the maturity and respectfulness of your posts.

 

[KathleenGee]

Somehow, Linc, I read your posts and they appear to essentially see faith, church, Scripture more as symbolic than actual, concrete…my sweeping generalization, of course.

There are 22 rites, if I recall right number exactly, of different regions and local church charisms, some who had one time took on the title ‘Orthodox’, after the schism, but later returned to be in union with the Holy Father and bishops in communion with him…I am thinking in particular of the Ethiopian churches. There is a particular Ethiopian Orthodox Church that claims to also hold on to ancient Jewish practices, but its members look down on the Roman Catholic Ethiopians and also note that they have darker skin…

The rites are the ‘small t traditions’ that represent local practices and liturgical movements particular to their culture and geographical region.

The underlying charism of the Church in context to the different ECF’s – every single one of them did propose some heretical error – but always submitted their reflections to the Church to discern orthodoxy and fidelity to the witness of the Apostles…and when a teaching was discerned as authentic interpretation…it also coincided with the marks of the Church, – our parallel to the Four Square Gospel – the marks of the Holy Spirit – One, Holy, Apostolic, Universal/Catholic.

If a teaching did not bring forth this assent through the Holy Spirit in the Church, it was not orthodox.

The Church is not a symbol, invisible…but having in it contradictory movements that condemn the Church and its own universality…as another poster indicated on another thread…we will All be judged by our deeds and works, according to Christ.

I tend to find Protestants reactionary and oppositional…its construct…and based on individual men rather than working as Church.

We are Ecclesial Deists…We follow Christ in how He established His Church…not on the Bible, but on 12 living, carnal men. He chose them. Only them. And in one moment we witness Christ choosing Peter, and then moments later calling Peter Satan for advising our Lord not to go through with His Passion, and then later on, being rebuked by St. Paul by wavering before the Nazarene Jews in Israel in regards to circumcision, etc.

And it only reinforces us that when we look at our popes, our bishops and priests, we keep them in perspective. They stand in the place of Christ through the sacrament of Holy Orders…but we are looking at Christ Who is at work through them, – but not at them in themselves.

I think Protestants look too much at man. And seek man’s interpretation, rather than the Holy Spirit.

We Catholic Christians look at the Old Testament in light of Christ crucified and risen. Furthermore, we see Sacred Scriptures as the Eternal Word which is Christ Himself…not understanding it from a perspective of single men re-interpreting.

We see Sacred Scriptures, subsequently, from the context of its whole, not individual parts and lines taken out of context, that remove one’s self from the communion with God and neighbor and … the cosmos…of which we are all called.

Only in the Holy Spirit, rather, do we come to understand what God is wanting us to know and reveal…and in the tradition of God’s revelation to us, it is continued in the universal church…God coming to reveal Himself to a gathering of people…with all its checks and balances vs dissenting, oppositional men who do not recognize and acknowledge reforms when they come.

If you want to follow individual men’s teachings, you reap their fruit – constant dissension, disputes, questioning.

True faith calls for certitude and living out. I find so much calling me in my own Catholic faith, I don’t have time to go out and work against other Christian believers or those of other faith.

 

[pablope]

So the early church did know what books were scripture without an infallible pronouncement? I again recommend here: crossway.org/books/the-heresy-of-orthodoxy-tpb/ I’m not debating the early church recognising the canon, just debating if there is a need for an infallible authority to do this, or if this infallible church even exits.

Kind regards

Lincs

(1) - newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
(2) - history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

Let me ask…for you to believe the bible as inerrant, free of error, someone has to declare it so, correct? And for that entity to declare it free from error, it has to be infallible, free of error in making the pronouncement, correct?

And to be infallible, it must have been given authority to do so, with the promise of the protection of the divine, in this case, the Holy Spirit, when making pronouncements on faith and morals…, in the case of the Bible, the final list of writings…correct also?

How do I test that Hebrews is? Well it was handed down by the Apostles to the church, it comes from amongst them during the first century, Thomas on the other hand does not…
How do you know that Rome is the true church and Eastern Orthodoxy for example is not? Is there an infallible guide that can point you to the right one?
I think we’ve established the private interpretation argument doesn’t really work, just ends all form of discussion.

But the Apostles did not not hand down a list, did they?

Let me ask another question…why do you accept the Gospel of Matthew, or Mark where actually authored by Matthew and Mark respectively?

Where is the chapter and verse where they claim authorship of their gospels? And when you find this chapter and verse, why do you now believe they are the authors? Why should both gospels be in Scripture, and not the gospel of Thomas, of Peter, of James, of Mary?

 

[PRmerger]

So the early church did know what books were scripture without an infallible pronouncement?

Yes! It was not the Church infallibly declaring something to be inspired that made it so.

But the only way YOU know what’s inspired is because the Catholic Church discerned this for you.

 

[pablope]

Just a brief interruption to tell Lincoln7 I appreciate the maturity and respectfulness of your posts.

Agreed wholeheartedly.

 

[PRmerger]

Just a brief interruption to tell Lincoln7 I appreciate the maturity and respectfulness of your posts.

:yup:

:clapping:

 

[pablope]

S

This is why I adhere to sola scriptura, it’s not that we don’t hold any form of tradition, rather that we test it to the scriptures.

I think we’ve established the private interpretation argument doesn’t really work, just ends all form of discussion.

Kind regards

Lincs

(1) - newadvent.org/cathen/15006b.htm
(2) - history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct04.html

This story might interest you…is a true story of a missionary couple who tried to apply SS in their mission…how they solved their catholic problem…

freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1858224/posts

 

[PRmerger]

How do I test that Hebrews is? Well it was handed down by the Apostles to the church, it comes from amongst them during the first century, Thomas on the other hand does not…

Well, then, Lincs, you have just given a great description of Sacred Tradition. And that you subscribe to it!

How do you know that Rome is the true church and Eastern Orthodoxy for example is not? Is there an infallible guide that can point you to the right one?

I find discussions regarding EO vs Catholicism to be rather troublesome, 'tis true. I think that were it not for that thorn in our side of disunity among these 2 churches, we (Catholicism) would indeed be a mighty fortress that no stone could fell.

So I just have to chalk it up to the whispers of the One Who Revels in Disunity.

In the end, whether it’s Catholicism or EO that’s the One True Church, the bottom line is, either one is. There is no intelligible difference in dogma/doctrine save for the primacy of Peter, so if that’s what’s keeping you from coming back to the One True Church, come to us, or come to them, no matter to me.

 

[PRmerger]

The Bible is an example of the development of doctrine…it came from Sacred Tradition.

Excellent! I’m going to cut/paste this one for my “Apologetics” word document saved to my hard drive!

 

[PRmerger]

The Old Catholic Encyclopedia states: “The Council [Trent], as is evident, held that there are Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, revelations made to the Apostles either orally by Jesus Christ or by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost and transmitted by the Apostles to the Church.”

Yes, and an example of one of these “Divine traditions not contained in Holy Scripture, revelation made to the Apostles [and their successors]…by the inspiration of the Holy Ghost” is…

wait for it…

yep, the canon of Scripture.

(1). I think this best fits with Trents comments on; “and seeing clearly that this truth and discipline are contained in the written books, and the unwritten traditions which, received by the Apostles…” (2). As such I think it’s clear the CC held to a partim partim view until very recently…

Saying that there are Divine Traditions not contained in Holy Scripture is not inconsistent with the paradigm of Scripture being materially sufficient, Lincs, nor is it an affirmation of the partim-partim view.

 

[pablope]

Pablope,

I’ve read Mr.Sheas post, and something doesn’t quite click with it. Seems apparently doctrine can develop over the ages,** I find it hard to see Tradition as actually apostolic in origin, there is no way too actually test this tradition due to this development… Hence as I said earlier, the magisterium claims to be its sole interpreter, this is where what I see as sola eclessia comes to the surface again. **How are we to test tradition that develops? It is also apparent mr Shea holds to the material sufficiency viewpoint, why do some Catholics hold to the partim partim view? It seems Rome is not so clear on Tradition, it seems as I’ve said before, that she is the only one who claims to be able to interpret it. This is why I adhere to sola scriptura, it’s not that we don’t hold any form of tradition, rather that we test it to the scriptures.

Kind regards

Lincs

If you are not familiar, I will direct you to Against Heresies, by Ireneus, in writing against the Gnostics in AD 200 or so…

newadvent.org/fathers/0103303.htm

St. Irenaeus (d. AD 200) writes:

But, again, when we refer [the heretics] to that tradition which originates from the apostles, [and] which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the Churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but even than the apostles, because they have discovered the unadulterated truth. For [they maintain] that the apostles intermingled the things of the law with the words of the Saviour; . . . It comes to this, therefore, that these men do now consent neither to Scripture nor to tradition.10

It is within the power of all, therefore, in every Church, who may wish to see the truth, to contemplate clearly the tradition of the apostles manifested throughout the whole world; and we are in a position to reckon up those who were by the apostles instituted bishops in the Churches, and [to demonstrate] the succession of these men to our own times; those who neither taught nor knew of anything like what these [heretics] rave about. For if the apostles had known hidden mysteries, which they were in the habit of imparting to “the perfect” apart and privily from the rest, they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the Churches themselves.

by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.

 

[Lincoln7]

Just a brief interruption to tell Lincoln7 I appreciate the maturity and respectfulness of your posts.

Thank you, same to you all. You can probably see I’m not really a compromiser on what I see as essential truths of the Gospel, far from it. But that does not mean we can’t be civil in our discussions

It is also a historical fact. The Bible canon came out of the need to have a standard set of writings to read during the Mass.

Some of these early writings that did not make it to the canon…Clement epistle to Corinth, Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas…

Some bishops had different lists, and to have a standard…Pope Damasus, in the Council of Rome, AD382 issued a set canon and commissioned St. Jerome to come up with a Latin version…which would become the Latin Vulgate.

tertullian.org/decretum_eng.htm

This would later be affirmed by the Council of Hippo, Carthage (AD397), Florence…

But starting with Pope Damasus, the Canon would be the same, till the Protestant Reformers started tinkering with the Canon.

Have you asked why the Protestant Bible lacks 7 OT books?

Thanks for the clarification. However I don’t see this as being all that in accord with what we can examine in history; I find it hard to put down the entire of the book I posted a link to earlier in these boxes… If anyone is interested in seeing a Protestant view on canon development, I can’t recommend it highly enough.
Hippo and Carthage and Damasus however don’t settle the matter, after these events there are still differing lists being produced: aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3465
Hippo and Carthage are not ecumenical, as such their voices did not settle things, and neither did Damaus, which I see as evidence against him being recognised universally as having authority over all churches. There was no set canon for the Catholic Church until Trent… For example, Dr White has a video here detailing the numerous figures prior to the Reformation who also excluded the Apocrapha, including such giants of course as Jerome, and Cardinal Catejan: m.youtube.com/watch?v=IKGZfrZiYVU

The Bible is an example of the development of doctrine…it came from Sacred Tradition.

The doctrine of the Trinity was not fully developed until the Council of Chalcedon (I stand corrected on the council) AD 325…with no Bible in hand. Yet, you believe in the Trinity, I presume ().

So the bible is tradition in written form, I would not take issue with this. I would say though that being the case that it is tradition in written form, the inspired word of God, we’re are to test things to it… Again, see the book on how long the development takes, I argue for a late first century date…
Indeed Chalcedon provided a faithful witness to sacred scripture… Again; not a lack of tradition, but that it’s subservient to scripture.

And that is where we differ. Which is the point I had been trying to make…your view is colored by someone you learned from…that is separated from the Church where the Scriptures came from.

Is your view not also informed by who you have learned from; the church? This also assumes the early church is identical to Rome today, big claim, which I guess is the whole point of out thread

John gave his audience a guide to test what is from God and what is not…and it is very relevant today…given the different protestant denoms espousing their beliefs on what they think the Bible means

Yes, the truth, which is recorded for us in scripture. The appeal to Protestant disunity works just as well against churches who espouse a more ‘church alone’ position as opposed to a ‘scripture alone’ position… catholic, orthodox, JW, Mormon… Unless one can actually demonstrate the claims are true in history and scripture, all it will succeed in doing is getting a few Protestants to think “I need an infallible guide, I must now then use my private interpretation to pick the right one out from the bunch.” With respect, it doesn’t quite work.

Jesus said in a parable, our faith is like a mustard seed that would grow. Same with the Church…it has grown by leaps and bounds…do you honestly think the leadership, the papacy, will not grow with it and respond to the challenges of the time?

I am acquainted with Cardinal Newmans famous essay, but I see it more as an abandonment of the traditional catholic position as seen prior to him… Things can develop, but the development of tradition must be tested to scripture… “So for the sake of your tradition you have made void the word of God.” Matt 14:6. I think this passage is clear on scripture being that to which any tradition must be held.

Regards

Lincs.

 

[Lincoln7]

Let me ask…for you to believe the bible as inerrant, free of error, someone has to declare it so, correct? And for that entity to declare it free from error, it has to be infallible, free of error in making the pronouncement, correct?

And to be infallible, it must have been given authority to do so, with the promise of the protection of the divine, in this case, the Holy Spirit, when making pronouncements on faith and morals…, in the case of the Bible, the final list of writings…correct also?

No one need declare it so no, it’s inerrant and free from error because it is God breathed, Inhave faith that God providentially protects his word. So on your question of infallibility, we’re back to the same position of now having to privately interpret sources to choose which is the infallible authority.

But the Apostles did not not hand down a list, did they?

No. But as they were aware they were penning scripture, they knew it would serve to testify of covenental terms(1). They would also be aware of the authority that scripture carried.

Let me ask another question…why do you accept the Gospel of Matthew, or Mark where actually authored by Matthew and Mark respectively?

Well because thats what’s always been believed about them… I use history. Same question again I keep asking back; how do you know Rome is the right body to tell you they were penned by Matt, Mark etc?

Kind regards

Lincs.

(1) - The Heresy of Orthodoxy, how contemporary cultures fascination with diversity has reshaped our understanding of early Christianity, Andreas J Kostenburger and William J Kruger, Crossway, 2010, pg 114-121