M
mcq72
Guest
I suppose for same reasons she believes others are wrong.
Last edited:
- Status
W
Wannano
Guest
Very interesting article. I had to read it once through and then when I re-read it the terms used in the article itself became understandable. As I understand it then, sola scriptura within the confines of Tradition 1 is the position where Christianity should have stayed. The Catholic Churchs straying into Tradition 2 is the beginning of accepting oral tradition as equal to or in addition to what was written but not defined in Scripture. Solo scriptura becomes a result of over reaction to the error of the Church becoming the definer of acceptable tradition rather than Scripture.OrbisNonSufficit:
This is a pretty good article on the topic.JonNC:
What does that mean in comparison to other two? I never encountered the term (or maybe I did and thought it just meant “Sola Scriptura”).
Solo Scriptura: The Difference a Vowel Makes, by Keith A. Mathison
Feel free to point out any misunderstanding I may have . This is all very intriguing to me.
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
Pretty hard to reform or ecumenicize with CC when she views her teachings as inspired and God breathed as Scripture itself. I mean we are all tenacious not to change or drop any Scripture, some not one iota, so…why would Catholics change one papal or council decree article of faith…they wouldn’t and haven’t…no backtracking.
Last edited:
L
lanman87
Guest
Mathison has a good book I recommend that goes much deeper than that article. It is called The Shape of Sola Scriptura. Link is to Amazon.
In the book he gives many early church fathers writings that support “Tradition 1” and then gives historical context of how the church changed to “Tradition 2”. Also, in the book he says that Rome is now in “Tradition 3”, that is Tradition is whatever Rome says it is. Basically, that neither Scripture or Tradition are no longer authoritative to Rome as the magisterium and Pope now have the ability to go beyond both Scripture and Tradition. Another book I read gave that concept the label Sola Roma. Rome Alone. That is, Rome alone determines what is “truth” as they are no longer bound by Scripture or Tradition. Basically, in modern Roman Catholicism, the Bible means whatever Rome says it means and tradition is whatever Rome determines it to be.
I think this is a consequence of the development of the idea that Rome cannot error. If you are protected from error then why do you even need a Bible? Why do you even need Tradition?
In the book he gives many early church fathers writings that support “Tradition 1” and then gives historical context of how the church changed to “Tradition 2”. Also, in the book he says that Rome is now in “Tradition 3”, that is Tradition is whatever Rome says it is. Basically, that neither Scripture or Tradition are no longer authoritative to Rome as the magisterium and Pope now have the ability to go beyond both Scripture and Tradition. Another book I read gave that concept the label Sola Roma. Rome Alone. That is, Rome alone determines what is “truth” as they are no longer bound by Scripture or Tradition. Basically, in modern Roman Catholicism, the Bible means whatever Rome says it means and tradition is whatever Rome determines it to be.
I think this is a consequence of the development of the idea that Rome cannot error. If you are protected from error then why do you even need a Bible? Why do you even need Tradition?
M
mcq72
Guest
I am glad you put this in there, to be true to their teaching of 3 legged stool. That is they are somewhat bound to Scripture and their Tradition. They can not contradict it. That is why they pretty much justify their dogma with some support from scripture and tradition . They also don’t decree too much anymore (like do we need anymore after 2000 years), 1954 the last time? (the Assumption). I hear the next one might be another Marion doctrine ( mediatrix) if they can overcome division on matter…I think current pope said it would be “silly”, to dismay of other Catholics
Last edited:
W
Wannano
Guest
There is something comfortably appealing to be able to live and think like that. Our world is increasingly complex and our society wants to be spoon fed.
H
Horton
Guest
It may be good to look back to those who actually did so before around the 400 AD. Before there was a book called the bible. Do the research yourself.
The question I asked was pretty clear. Why do you, mcq72, believe the Catholic Church is wrong? By the way, what makes you believe the Catholic Church believes any church is wrong?
None of which is actual true Catholicism, just a non-Catholic, most likely a Protestant theory.
Why would the perfect Church created by God Himself, against which Jesus promised the gates of hell would not prevail need to be reformed? Do you believe God is incapable of creating an imperfect Church? Do you believe Jesus would lie?
The “articles of faith” are laid out in the Nicene Creed determined at the Council of Nicaea in 325 and what we believe has not changed so why would it change, reform, backtrack.
You seem to have the idea the doctrines and dogmas of the Catholic Church come about after a couple of hours of meeting of a few guys in a room. Some of these councils take years and none of them are taken lightly. The Council of Trent went for 18 years. In total Vatican 2 took 7 years.
H
Horton
Guest
Do you have an authentic Catholic source of this information? Because your Protestant source is in good company with other virulent anti-Catholic authors & speakers who base their knowledge on gross misunderstanding of what the Catholic Church teaches.
This shows me none of you are willing to have an open discussion of what the Catholic Church is and would rather spread the hate and myths of what you THINK the Catholic Church teaches.
I’m out.
M
Mishakel
Guest
I’ll try to give my statement as logically as I can. Both Catholicism and Protestantism believe all of scripture is theopneustos. That means the scriptures themselves are God-breathed. The prophets and apostles and disciples literally wrote the words that God himself inspired them to write down. In scripture we have the words spoken literally directly from God. This mentioned throughout both the new and old testaments. Paul confirms this in the passage we all know in 2 Timothy 16.
We all know Christ didn’t hand the apostles or disciples a book but we all accept the fact they did write down manuscripts personally and what they wrote down was inspired by God.
Another thing both sides agree on is that there are no more revelations and there hasn’t been any for close to 2000 years.
We also know, and Catholicism admits this openly, is their practicing traditions have in fact changed during that time. We all agree again, that God is incapable of changing his laws and (this is the really big one) changing how salvation is to be attained by humanity after the death and resurrection of Christ. Once Christ died and was resurrected the new testament was ushered in. The way to attain salvation was finished and there would be no modifying that until this world is ended.
Catholicism’s traditions are enforced by the Church and if you knowingly disagree with any of those Catholicism will consider you anathema. If that is the case Catholicism won’t say you’re going to hell but they will say you can’t attain salvation if you are outside of their Church.
Here’s my overall point strictly looking at this logically. Prior to 1950, a person who was a Catholic was free not to believe in the assumption of Mary and they were in good graces with Catholicism. After 1950 a Catholic must believe in the assumption of Mary or be anathema.
God simply doesn’t work that way. He doesn’t send his only Son to die on the cross so that the world might have a path to God’s grace and salvation only to have that path changed 1900 years later.
To add one more point onto this is also the fact Catholicism can not produce a list of traditions they consider to be theopneustos. It doesn’t exist. It has never existed and will never exist. This creates the problem like the 1950 dogma. Catholicism can claim practically any tradition is to be believed because it claims infallibility. This is a logical dilemma.
If RCC states they have always held the same traditions they also run into historical problems on two fronts. First if they always believed it, why wasn’t it always a dogma? Secondly we know factually nothing was even written about concerning the entire Maryology beliefs for the first 4 centuries and what’s even more problematic is the first ever writings were from the gnostics.
M
mcq72
Guest
What, did something drastic get left out of the bible?
Why did it take so long (over 300 years) for the apostles to write their stuff down?
Is there something I should read to go beyond being apostolic to be forefatherly (aligned with “church fathers”)?
Is such a descriptor of the church in Nicene Creed, “one, holy, catholic, apostolic, and of the fathers church”?
.
By the way, was Barnabus after 400 AD? Was he being merely prophetic, admonishing scripture to be normative 300 years down the road?
Ok, I use same sources and “tools” a Catholic uses in rejecting anything non Catholic.
I did not say Catholics say other churches are wrong, for you do not even acknowledge other churches. I merely said " others" for brevity, " infering"communities".
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
As you know It didnt so now answer the harder question that follows - why did it take so long for the church recognize these writings above the other writings? And what was the cause to stop the growth of the non-inspired writings in the liturgy as “scripture”?
Last edited:
M
mcq72
Guest
It is a fallacy to say the church didn’t recognize apostolic writings, God breathed writings, apart from other writings, until 400 AD. That would be like saying we didn’t recognize the trinity, apart from say Arianisism, till Nicene council.
Of course there were a few exceptions, but thus making the rule, for a limited time.
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
And i dont think you are considering the gravity of the GROWTH and its implication - see below. To not consider this is closed mindedness in the least.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
Peace!!!
M
mcq72
Guest
yes was gonna reply to second part of your post but internet acting up. I was of understanding that for the most part the early church read some gospel and some epistles as part of mass,as per Martyr I think. Your graph shows this. I understood that some other writings were also read , such as Rome’s letter to Corinthians, or the Didache. I there anything wrong with reading these when assembled together ? when did the church dictate what could be read in assembly or mass? Could you read something from Augustin’es writings, or Ambrose, or your local bishops letter or something from the pope , during an assembly mass
Were individual assemblies lacking inspiration to know what was God breathed, even apostolic?
Is “liturgy” anything read at a mass as edifying ? When did church have first missal or breviary, prayer book , song book ?
Why does chart start stop at 400 ?
Were individual assemblies lacking inspiration to know what was God breathed, even apostolic?
Is “liturgy” anything read at a mass as edifying ? When did church have first missal or breviary, prayer book , song book ?
Why does chart start stop at 400 ?
Last edited:
A
adf417
Guest
W.A Jurgensens’s 3 volume series on The Faith of the Early Fathers shows the individual fathers “canon of scripture”. In their mind it was more than just any writing.
Book Details-COM_Shopp_Rare--naa-_-naa&gclid=Cj0KCQjw6_vzBRCIARIsAOs54z6oQ6EE7WYFTsz6bi0rOFAXiQluslHCo2ovv-izqjtzVbnmq-9GBaoaAj-YEALw_wcB
Book Details-COM_Shopp_Rare--naa-_-naa&gclid=Cj0KCQjw6_vzBRCIARIsAOs54z6oQ6EE7WYFTsz6bi0rOFAXiQluslHCo2ovv-izqjtzVbnmq-9GBaoaAj-YEALw_wcB
IDK but i did give the source.
J
Justin_Mary
Guest
I “liked” this because it’s logical & thought out. Not because I agree. Just wanted to get that out.
Now my question, if we’re going to say the Catholic Church went astray at some time, when? Was that prior to the Reformation? Prior to the Great Schism? Prior to 1954?
Who makes this decision? & in your opinion, what is the path to restore the Church to God’s intent?
W
Wannano
Guest
This would make an interesting thread.
I
Irishmadcatholic23
Guest
The Catholic Church is the true christian Church as christ body and blood is present in it. Luther in a sense was declaring himself greater than christ. Also I remember that most Protestants churches change the bible to suit them, such as divorces and so forth. Thus they are denying Christ’s word so hence how can ther church be true and holy since they do not acknowledge the truth that comes from jesus christ the Holy son of God and God the Father.
L
lanman87
Guest
I don’t see how someone (a well educated and scholarly someone) looking that what the early church meant by “Tradition” then looking at what the Roman church in the middle ages meant by “Tradition” and what the modern Roman Catholic church means by “Tradition” is anti-Catholic.
M
MichaelP3
Guest
Let me explain for the benifit of some clarity. Post #66 you seemed to question “which ones” of these non-Catholic ministers are academically educated? Why would you ask that? Any poster in a thread named “Catholic vs Protestant” should know referring to the years of study by a Catholic priest is rather irrelivant. Or maybe this poster thought its something to say for some reason. You tell me?
- Status