Early Church Fathers and Sola Scriptura

[Algo1]

I haven’t been following this aspect of the thread very closely, but are you suggesting that the Catholic Church fell into a state of apostasy at Trent in its statements concerning transubstantiation?

This was from a discussion on another thread.

If that is the case then maybe the “audience of crickets” stems from the fact that this may be getting off-topic.

The “audience of crickets” was regarding my question in that same thread.

No, actually I presented my third point which was profoundly received by an audience of crickets:

Then you should have no trouble finding an early writer that describes Mary’s “Immaculate Conception” in the way described by Ineffabilis Deus. In fact, since this was “constantly believed” by the Church:

If you want to discuss the idea of apostasy within the context of the Doctrine of Transubstantiation then I invite you to start a new thread discussion and I will be glad to participate. Or, if you believe that it is, indeed, relevant to this thread’s discussion then make a case for it, and I will consider discussing the topic herein.

I only brought this up because paulc mistakenly thought that a quote from Guanophore was actually mine. And also concluded that I had no arguments that the Roman church apostatized.

This likewise may be getting off-topic. But Orthodox Christians, Old Catholics, certain groups within Anglicanism and even Muslims have historically taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary in some form or fashion. For example, note what is listed within Wikipedia under “Other Churches.”

I have already interacted on that topic here.
However since it is a claim to “Sacred Tradition” and not found in Scripture or in the ECFs **in the “form” alleged by “ineffabilis deus” as “constantly believed” **I think it would be pertinent to a Sola Scriptura ECF discussion. Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form.

 

[Algo1]

Let’s compare - we can’t find the word “trinity” in the Bible, but we can find “one God” and proof that each of the three persons is God, and that they aren’t each other.
Now, can we find something similar regarding papal infallibility? No … we always find something less than the whole doctrine. There’s always something “more” to be added.

I challenge you to use the Bible to prove that the Holy Spirit is a divine person distinct from the Father and the Son. Note that certain groups such as the SDAs categorically deny that the Holy Spirit is a distinct divine person for the fact that it is not in the Bible.
Also, I challenge you to use the Bible to demonstrate that the divine persons are specifically limited to three and only three. If you are unable to succeed in both these challenges then you will have to conclude that the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity is derived from Sacred Tradition.

I will attempt to answer both at once.
Assuming you are willing to acknowledge that the Father and the Son are distinct persons, you must understand that the Spirit is spoken of together with the Lord in precisely the same manner in which the Son is spoken of with the Father.
“The name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19) provides a co-ordination of words delivered by Christ’s appointment in the sacrament of baptism.
Thus, the relation of the Spirit to the Son is the same as that of the Son to the Father.
Also, consider that the angels of God ceaselessly call out praising God: “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty.” (Isaiah 6:3)
They say it not just once, or even twice (in which case you might exclude the Spirit) but thrice.
At the same time, they say “holy” not “holies” so that you can see there is a unity of the persons despite the distinction amongst them.
"Note that the angels say “holy, holy, holy” not “holy, holy, holy, holy.”
And we baptize … “in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit,” not “in the name of the father, the son, the holy spirit, and the others.”
Perhaps you will allow me to quote the comma Johannaem: “There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” (1 John 5:7)
This shows us that there are only three persons in God.

Moreover, I am still waiting for you to respond to Post #146

Please see my previous post.

 

[Ignatius33]

And since Augustine does not consider the Bishops of Rome to be “God” {although later in history they began calling themselves ‘Vicar of Christ’} from Augustine’s quotes above he did not consider them or the church to be infallible.

Hmm, who said anything about Augustine (or any other Catholic for that matter) referring to the Bishop of Rome as “God?”

You say that Augustine’s quotes (and others like them) are only “complimentary” to Rome? Are you serious? He says, over and over again, that when Rome has spoken the case is closed. That is not a mere compliment, or some kind of glad-handing of the Pope for being on the right side of things. He obviously recognized that the Bishop of Rome has God-given authority to resolve matters of faith once and for all – e.g. in the Pelagian controversy. Necessarily implicit in such authority is that God would preserve the head of the Church from resolving a matter of faith erroneously.

 

[EricFilmer]

Algo, first of all, thanks for clarifying my questions concerning apostasy.

EricFilmer;7828090:

This likewise may be getting off-topic. But Orthodox Christians, Old Catholics, certain groups within Anglicanism and even Muslims have historically taught the Immaculate Conception of Mary in some form or fashion. For example, note what is listed within Wikipedia under “Other Churches.”

I have already interacted on that topic here.

Nowhere in that thread you linked did you discuss the history of belief in the Immaculate Conception within the non-Catholic religions, churches and denominations I mentioned in Post #146. None of these people would support such a belief if it was, indeed, a papal fabrication.

However since it is a claim to “Sacred Tradition” and not found in Scripture or in the ECFs **in the “form” alleged by “ineffabilis deus” as “constantly believed” **I think it would be pertinent to a Sola Scriptura ECF discussion. Not interested in “some form or fashion”. Just the “official” form.

Ok, here is the official form (i.e., the summary near the end of the document):
“We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.”

First of all, let me point out an error in your interpretation of this document. Contrary to what you seem to be saying in your critique, Ineffabilis Deus does not say that all the nuances of this definition have been “constantly believed” throughout the history of Christianity. The term is used in the future tense: “…to be believed and constantly”. In other words, this definition is to be held as doctrine forever more. But what the document does say is that the core belief of the sinless nature of Mary is something that has been historically believed.

Moving on…

When I said that other religions, churches and denominations taught the Immaculate Conception “in some form or fashion” I simply meant that there are different ways of expressing the same core belief that Mary, through the power of God, was sinless.

For example, although Islam teaches about the existence of sin, it does not believe in the Catholic concept of Original Sin. Therefore, when describing the Immaculate Conception of Mary, Islam obviously does not express this as her being preserved from Original Sin. Moreover, Islam does not say that Mary was granted such a special grace “in view of the merits of Jesus Christ.” But Islam does teach the following:

“And (mention) when the angels said, ‘O Mary! Indeed God has chosen you, and purified you, and has chosen you above all other women of the worlds. O Mary! Be devoutly obedient to your Lord and prostrate and bow with those bow (in prayer).’” (Quran 3:42-43)

“None are born except that Satan touches them upon their birth, due to which it comes out screaming from its touch, except Mary and her son (Jesus).” (Ahmed)

“So her Lord accepted her with gracious acceptance, and reared her in purity and beauty, and entrusted her to the care of Zachary.” (Quran 3:37)

The Quran was completed by the year 632, and therefore its descriptions of the sinless nature of Mary predates Ineffabilis Deus by over twelve hundred years.

In terms of the Orthodox Christians, consider the following exert from The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom by Casimir A. Kucharek (Allendale, NJ: Alleluia Press, 1971), pp. 354 ff (I will add underlining for emphasis):

Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as achrantos, “the immaculate, spotless one”, no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: “This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary …” (From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast); “She is conceived … the only immaculate one” (From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast); or “Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled …” (From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast). No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God’s creation. For hundreds of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title. Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it.* Two of Thomas Aquinas’ most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas’ works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas’ views on the immaculate conception.

 

[paul_c]

If Mary was still living when Paul taught the Corinthians and Thessalonians then it could not have been something he had ‘delivered’ (1 Cor. 11:2), ‘taught’ (2 Thess. 2:15), or ‘commanded’ (2 Thess. 3:6). Furthermore, since it is not even mentioned in Scripture then it can not be defended from a ‘material sufficiency’ interpretation.

So you are trying to trap us by claiming the Catholic’s are sola scriptura followers. You know that we believe in Tradtion and that scripture is simply a subset of that. There is nothing in scripture that contradicts the assumption of Mary. The fact that she was assumed is part of the collective memory of the Church. Of all the Saints, there are no rellics and no grave site for Mary. There is a reason for that. - The assumption is the truth. If Enoch and Elijah can be assumed, why not Mary, the mother of our Lord?

Yes, the papacy was indeed a myth totally unknown to him.

The papacy is clearly not a myth. It is fully scriptural. not only was Peter commissioned in Matthew 16 and his position reenforced by Jesus in Luke 20 and John 21, but we see him carrying out all the roles of the modern pope throughout Acts. And who did Paul say he visited at the start of his mission - Peter (Galatians). In fact the entire letter of Galatians speaks to the point that Peter is not just one of the Apostles, but someone much more. Read it in this context and you will understand.

Let’s compare - we can’t find the word “trinity” in the Bible, but we can find “one God” and proof that each of the three persons is God, and that they aren’t each other.
Now, can we find something similar regarding papal infallibility? No … we always find something less than the whole doctrine. There’s always something “more” to be added.

That implies that papal infallibility isn’t something that Paul taught them, whether under that name or any other name. Unlike the Trinity, the concept itself wasn’t there.

Doctrine clarification has happened consistently happened as the Church clarifies its understanding in the face of Critics. Remember, even the divinity of Christ was debated (Arianism), despite Thomas’ scriptural statement " My Lord and My God". The result was the nicene creed. Paul recognized the authority of Peter - this is clear from Galatians - even though he felt compelled to correct him, he recognized that Peter had authority. Peter acted with that authority throughout Acts, always speaking for the Church. If the Church teaching is to be believed, then the Pope who speaks for it has to be believable. Thats the essence of Papal infallability.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
(John 16:13 ESV)
Well, Jesus made that promise to the Apostles. It doesn’t say to the church or their successors. He was speaking to the apostles regarding the future inscripturated revelation.
And according to :
Augustine (354-430): God alone swears securely, ** because He alone is infallible. **
NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 89, § 4.
Latin text: Deus solus securus jurat, quia falli non potest.
See In Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio, Sermo I, PL 37:1122.

Augustine (354-430): But human authority is very often deceiving. FC, Vol. 5, Saint Augustine On Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil, Book 2, Chapter 9, §27 (New York: CIMA Publishing Co., Inc., 1948), p. 305.
Latin text: Humana vero auctoritas plerumque fallit. De Ordine, Liber Secundus, Caput IX, §27, PL 32:1008.

Note his use of the Latin words ‘falli and fallit’ to mean ‘fallible’ or ‘deceiving’.

you are using phrases from Augustine very selectively. He was a strong supporter of the infallibility and athority of the Pope and the Church. its what Augustine was all about. your intepretation seeks to have his say just opposite and that’s not credible. Oh, and by the way, in his commission of Peter as the rock on which he will built his chruch, Jesus said he would be with the Church until the end of the age, which completely contradicts your statement above.

No but I do acknowledge that Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage claimed that he and all other bishops sat on the ‘cathedra petri’. If you look at Ignatius33’s list above you might find something.

As we pointed out to you in the other thread, Cyprian estranged himself from the pope and the church when he disagreed with the pope’s ruling on baptism by heretics. The pope, being infallible, got it right, Cyprian got it wrong. As for Cyprians statement that the bishops site on the chair of Peter, well they do for their dioceses, but they are subject to the Pope, who has universal jurisdiction.

It appears that many of the quotes used by Ignatius33 above are in fact " complimentary things about Rome, or about her bishops,". And since Augustine does not consider the Bishops of Rome to be “God” {although later in history they began calling themselves ‘Vicar of Christ’} from Augustine’s quotes above he did not consider them or the church to be infallible.

Again, you are using Augustine’s quotes out of context to try to make him say the opposite of what he said clearly that the authority of scripture comes form the church. When he was talking about men being fallible, was he talking about the Pope or the heretics? I think you will find its the latter.

I am not interested in ‘convincing the Orthodox’ of anything at the moment.
I think I used the term ‘myth’ above but “Roman invention” works too.

Well, you can use any words you like, but that doesn’t make you right.

 

[EricFilmer]

I will attempt to answer both at once.
Assuming you are willing to acknowledge that the Father and the Son are distinct persons, you must understand that the Spirit is spoken of together with the Lord in precisely the same manner in which the Son is spoken of with the Father.
“The name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost” (Matthew 28:19) provides a co-ordination of words delivered by Christ’s appointment in the sacrament of baptism.
Thus, the relation of the Spirit to the Son is the same as that of the Son to the Father.

First of all, let me make a slight correction. Earlier I said that the SDAs reject the concept of the Holy Spirit as being a divine person. I meant the Jehovah Witnesses. Now let us move on to your above quote. As a side note, of course I believe in the Doctrine of the Holy Trinity, but I’ll just be playing devil’s advocate when examining whether or not this doctrine is clearly taught in Scripture.

In the above quote you’re calling it a relation. Objectively speaking, the text invokes God, and the reference to the Holy Ghost can be argued to simply be an expression of the Spirit of God which pours forth from the Father and Son. As such, it can be simply considered as “God’s power in action.” For example, this is what we see being expressed by God’s Spirit in Genesis 1:2. Therefore, the statement “The name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” can simply be a poetic way in invoking the power of God in the name of God. Just because something is recognized as having a name does not mean that it is a person. For example, in the old police dramas a cop would often yell, “Halt, in the name of the law!” The law is not a person.

I should also point out that the wisdom books of the Old Testament repeatedly refer to wisdom as a person. The anthropomorphic terminology therein is just as strong, if not stronger, than that used in the New Testament for the Holy Spirit. And yet the Jews never saw this as anything more than a poetic expression for the gift of wisdom the Father makes available to people. Based on this, someone could argue that the same thing is at work in descriptions of the Holy Spirit in the New Testament (i.e., the NT writers were simply carrying on this scriptural tradition).

Also, consider that the angels of God ceaselessly call out praising God: “Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty.” (Isaiah 6:3)
They say it not just once, or even twice (in which case you might exclude the Spirit) but thrice.
At the same time, they say “holy” not “holies” so that you can see there is a unity of the persons despite the distinction amongst them.
"Note that the angels say “holy, holy, holy” not “holy, holy, holy, holy.”

In Hebrew there is no way of saying “holiest”. To express this idea, Hebrew uses the triple “holy” format. Nothing more is being implied here in Isaiah and you will find that Protestant Bible commentaries concur. I should also point out that the Jews have been reading Isaiah for centuries and they have never gleaned from this that God is more than one person.

And we baptize … “in the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit,” not “in the name of the father, the son, the holy spirit, and the others.”

The reference to the Holy Spirit can simply be a reference to the power of God which is working the grace of baptism. Also, let us suppose (for the sake of the argument) that God exists in, say, seven distinct persons, but most of them are not involved in human affairs (for whatever reason). Why is it a rule that a baptismal formula would have to invoke all their names rather than just the names of the persons who are active in the sacrament of baptism? In other words, why does it logically follow that the biblical formula for baptism also has to serve as the all-encompassing list for all the persons of God?

Perhaps you will allow me to quote the comma Johannaem: “There are three who bear witness in heaven, the father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost” (1 John 5:7)
This shows us that there are only three persons in God.

And in quoting the Comma Johannaem you are not quoting the Bible, which is what I challenged you to do. Consider these critiques of the Comma Johannaem:

“These extra words are generally absent from the Greek manuscripts. In fact, they only appear in the text of four late medieval manuscripts. They seem to have originated as a marginal note added to certain Latin manuscripts during the middle ages, which was eventually incorporated into the text of most of the later Vulgate manuscripts.” [1]

“The passage is absent from every known Greek manuscript except eight, and these contain the passage in what appears to be a translation from a late recension of the Latin Vulgate. Four of the eight manuscripts contain the passage as a variant reading written in the margin as a later addition to the manuscript.” [2]
Greek fathers

“The passage is quoted by none of the Greek Fathers, who, had they known it, would most certainly have employed it in the Trinitarian controversies (Sabellian and Arian). Its first appearance in Greek is in a Greek version of the (Latin) Acts of the Lateran Council in 1215.”

 

[Ignatius33]

If Mary was still living… Furthermore, since it is not even mentioned in Scripture then it can not be defended from a ‘material sufficiency’ interpretation.

Actually, I think a case can be made that Mary’s Assumption is Scriptural.

On the Assumption of Mary, it is helpful to distinguish between different types of Tradition.

1. Things the Apostles taught clearly (i.e., explicitly) in Scripture and clearly in oral preaching.
2. Things the Apostles taught clearly in Scripture but unclearly (i.e., implicitly) in oral preaching.
3. Things the Apostles taught unclearly in Scripture but clearly in oral preaching.
4. Things the Apostles taught unclearly in Scripture and unclearly in oral preaching.

Examples of type 1 include disapproval of divorce and remarriage; the Real Presence in the Eucharist; baptismal regeneration; Confession, etc. Oddly, many Protestants today reject all of these core teachings, which seem to be quite clearly laid out in Scripture and the ECFs.

An example of type 2 might include original sin, which seems pretty clear in Romans 5:12. Yet its details were not really worked out fully until St. Augustine, when the doctrine became directly implicated in the Pelagian controversy.

Type 3 could include contraception and abortion. They are unclear (i.e., implicit) in Scripture but explicit in the ECFs. Purgatory is another example that would probably fall into this category.

The Assumption of Mary (and other Marian dogmas) fall into category 4. Given its vagueness, it is no surprise that the few doctrines falling into category 4 include the ones to which Protestants are the most hostile.

Now, just because a doctrine falls into category 4, or that it takes X number of years before a ECF explicitly mentions a doctrine, this does not mean that it should be simply disregarded. It is only logical that Christians would take centuries to work out what Scripture means/implies on certain matters, particularly where Scripture is unclear. Even Protestants must grant this – in their view, it took 1,500 years for Christians to realize that St. Paul taught justification by faith alone (a concept found nowhere in the ECFs).

Getting back to the Assumption, Catholics believe that the Assumption is implied in both Scripture and Tradition, but indirectly. For example, William Lane Craig – an excellent modern defender of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ – argues that the absence of any veneration of Christ’s relics in the early Church is a strong proof in favor of his Resurrection. After all, early Christians venerated (honored) the bones of the Apostles and the martyrs (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch – my namesake – and Polycarp). But Craig’s argument carries equal force in favor of the bodily Assumption of Mary, the Mother of God, for it is a fact that nobody ever claimed to possess or venerate her relics either. This is indirect early evidence of her bodily Assumption.

More substantially, there is the book of Revelation, which speaks mysteriously about a woman giving birth to Christ, being taken up into heaven, and existing in heaven during the time of John (Rev 12). The Assumption can also be seen as a necessary corollary to Mary’s sinlessness, which doctrine is more firmly evident in Scripture and the New Even parallel made by John (Gen. 3:15/Jn. 2:5-11; 19:26-27/Rev 12), as well as the ECFs, who venerated her as “all holy” and many of whom explicitly held Mary to be sinless.

 

[guanophore]

I would beg to differ because Augustine never made that claim.

No, but neither did most of the writers of Sacred Scripture. But the Word of God is inspired, whether it is found in the writings of the Fathers, or the parchments. One of the ways the Church recognized which books belonged in the canon was by reading the Fathers. They were quoting scripture from the time it was written, and it was easily recognizeable in their works.

Yes because it's not an authoritative form of Scripture i.e., functioning as the word of God.

This is an absurd position, Parker. How is the Word of God less inspired and less “functioning” if you are reading it off an index card, a sermon note, or an epistle from one of the Fathers? It is the inerrant, inspired, Word of God everywhere it is found. As such, it “functions” just as God intended it to function.

Heb 4:12-13
12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and spirit, of joints and marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And before him no creature is hidden, but all are open and laid bare to the eyes of him with whom we have to do.

If I take this little verse and enter it in my iphone so that I can reflect upon it frequently, does the fact that it is not surrounded by the rest of the epistle from which it comes make it less a scripture verse?

2 Peter 3:15-16, although it's not explicit in mentioning Paul's writings as official scripture, we can draw a conclusion that it was by implication.

No, Parker. You are not using the quote feature correctly, so it is not possible to use the little blue square to go back in the thread to where you made your first statement, but I was able to locate it :

Then why would Peter/Paul consider Luke’s writings scripture?

Parker

I am asking you to show us a source that shows Peter or Paul considered anything Luke wrote as scripture.

I am not looking for something scientific here; I’m asking for documented proof from either an explicit or implicit source.

Why? What need is there for you to know why the Catholic Church decided that the 27 books were the ones that belonged in the canon? Don’t you accept this Sacred Tradition without question?

I don’t think it was issued at that point. The first five books were written by Moses.

You don’t think the Word of God was “issued” until Moses wrote the Pentateuch?!?

How did the story of God’s interaction with mankind get preserved from Adam to Moses?

Because your line of logic falls along the fallacy of attacks ad hominem. In other words, instead of providing counter evidence, proving what I’ve said as false or done so out of ignorance, you have only called me a liar or ignorant where the truth of the matter is that you cannot prove it.

I think you have me confused with another poster?

I have not called you a liar, or ignorant.

What I said was that you are IGNORING PART OF THE SCRIPTURE! You must do this in order to cling to your views.

Besides, you did not answer my question. You want me to “prove” that you are ignoring part of the scriptures (specifically those related to Sacred Tradition and the authority of the Church). How can I “prove” that you are will not examine or admit the evidence? All I have to go on is your own posts, which have demonstrated significant hostility and sarcasm toward the Catholic faith.

 

[guanophore]

In terms of the Orthodox Christians, consider the following exert from The Byzantine-Slav Liturgy of St John Chrysostom by Casimir A. Kucharek (Allendale, NJ: Alleluia Press, 1971), pp. 354 ff (I will add underlining for emphasis):

Also, from end to end of the Byzantine world, both Catholic and Orthodox greet the Mother of God as achrantos, “the immaculate, spotless one”, no less than eight times in the Divine Liturgy alone. But especially on the feast of her conception (December 9 in the Byzantine Church) is her immaculateness stressed: “This day, O faithful, from saintly parents begins to take being the spotless lamb, the most pure tabernacle, Mary …” (From the Office of Matins, the Third Ode of the Canon for the feast); “She is conceived … the only immaculate one” (From the Office of Matins, the Stanzas during the Seating, for the same feast); or “Having conceived the most pure dove, Anne filled …” (From the Office of Matins, the Sixth Ode of the Canon for the same feast). No sin, no fault, not even the slightest, ever marred the perfect sanctity of this masterpiece of God’s creation. For hundreds of years, the Byzantine Church has believed this, prayed and honored Mary in this way. Centuries of sacred tradition stand behind this title. Even during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, when some Western theologians doubted or denied the truth of her immaculate conception, Byzantine Catholic and Orthodox theologians unanimously taught it.* Two of Thomas Aquinas’ most ardent disciples among the Greeks disagreed with him on one point only, his failure to admit the immaculate conception of the Mother of God. Demetrios Kydonios (fourteenth century) translated some of Aquinas’ works into Greek, but vehemently opposed Thomas’ views on the immaculate conception.

I don’t think Algo wants to admit (allow to be examined) evidence such as this, just like he does not want to examine evidence in Scripture that may cast doubts upon his preconceived notions.

Clearly, if the Church in the East (non-Roman) Christians also received this from the Apostles without any dependence upon Rome, then it cannot very well be a " Roman myth". You have cited many sources that also support this view, independent of “Rome”.

 

[guanophore]

Then do you agree with [paulc's comment:](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7754933&postcount=221)

Yes.

If Mary was still living when Paul taught the Corinthians and Thessalonians then it could **not** have been something he had **'delivered' (1 Cor. 11:2), 'taught' (2 Thess. 2:15), or 'commanded' (2 Thess. 3:6).**

This is not true. All of the Apostles knew that Mary never had any other children. As we dont’ have the date of her passing, it is likely lthat most of the NT was written while she was still alive, and therefore, no one is likely to have referenced the Assumption.

No reasonable person could possible believe that all of what the Apostles believed and taught is found in scripture. Nevertheless, I am earnestly in search of an MP3 of Paul’s two years of lectures at the hall of Tyrannus.

Furthermore, since it is not even mentioned in Scripture then it can not be defended from a ‘material sufficiency’ interpretation.

Well, we read Scripture differently, do we not? Catholics are not “Paulists” as many of our separated brethren who are steeped in Calvanism. We understand doctrine through the fullness of ALL the scriptures and through the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit. Just because Paul did not happen to mention a certain doctrine in one of his letters does not mean that it is “not even mentioned in Scripture”.

Yes, the papacy was indeed a myth totally unknown to him.

Algo, I can accept your opinion that the papacy is a “myth”. However, you cannot project your opinion back into history onto Paul. Paul called Peter “Cephas”, demonstrating that he accepted Jesus’ renaming of him, and making Cephas a foundation rock upon which the Church was built. Paul makes reference to his understanding of this foundation in his epistle. Peter is the head of the Apostolic college, and the visible sign of unity in the church. As time progressed, and the Church grew, this role grew in importance. Jesus promised this would happen. The small mustard seed has grown into a the largest tree.

Let's compare - we can't find the word "trinity" in the Bible, but we can find "one God" and proof that each of the three persons is God, and that they aren't each other.

Clearly not, Algo, or there would not be so many people who read it differently.
Some deny that Jesus is God, some deny He has two natures. They use the same scriptures we do…

Now, can we find something similar regarding papal infallibility?  No ... we always find something less than the whole doctrine.  There's always something "more" to be added.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

What do you think Jesus meant when He commanded Peter to feed and care for His flock?

That implies that papal infallibility isn't something that Paul taught them, whether under that name or any other name.

No, I don’t think it does. The fact that an essential doctrine is not found in one of Paul’s letters does not imply that he did not believe it, or that he did not teach it.

Unlike the Trinity, the concept itself wasn’t there.

I am sure it is important for you to believe this. But the Early Church understood differently.

When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
(John 16:13 ESV)

This is a promise made by Jesus to His fledgling Church. It does not protect those who depart from her.

Well, Jesus made that promise to the Apostles. It doesn't say to the church or their successors. He was speaking to the apostles regarding the future inscripturated revelation.

Dear one, the Apostles were the foundation of hte Church, and they passed the authority given to them by Christ to their successors, the bishops.

There is nothing in that passage, or anywhere else, that indicates the only Truth that will be given to the Church is found in the Scriptures. At that point, none of them even knew there would be such a thing as a New Testament, yet they all believed the HS would lead them into all Truth.

And according to :

Augustine (354-430): God alone swears securely, ** because He alone is infallible. **

This is why infalliblity is a divine gift of God to the Church. Humans cannot attain infallibilty of themselves, but only when acting under the guidance and empowerment of the Divine. As when Peter declared the identity of Christ, because it was revelealed to him by the Father. This ability to act infallibly lies in the power and perogative of God
not Peter. In the same way, each writer of the NT was moved by the Spirit and wrote “from God”. This infallible act of writing Scripture was effected through men by the power of God, not themselves.

 

[guanophore]

Augustine (354-430): But human authority is very often deceiving.

This is very true. Fortunately, the Church founded by Christ rests on divine authority, not human. The infallibility and the authority of the One Church rests in Jesus as Head, and
the Holy Spirit as her soul. It is the divine elements of the Church that enable infallibility, not the human.

Note his use of the Latin words ‘falli and fallit’ to mean ‘fallible’ or ‘deceiving’.

Of course! If man were not prone to faliliblity and deception, then a divine protection of the Church would not be necessary.

No but I do acknowledge that Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage claimed that he and all other bishops sat on the 'cathedra petri'. If you look at Ignatius33's list above you might find something.

Peter never acted separately from the Apostolic college, just as his successor does not to this day. The “cathedra petri” (apostolic authority) is shared by all the bishops around the world. That is why it is called “collegial” or the “college of bishops”.

It appears that many of the quotes used by Ignatius33 above are in fact " complimentary things about Rome, or about her bishops,". And since Augustine does not consider the Bishops of Rome to be "God" {although later in history they began calling themselves 'Vicar of Christ'} from Augustine's quotes above he did not consider them or the church to be infallible.

I think you misunderstand Augustine’s attitude about the Catholic Church and her infallibility.

For in the Catholic Church, not to speak of the purest wisdom, to the knowledge of which a few spiritual, men attain in this life, so as to know it, in the scantiest measure, deed, because they are but men, still without any uncertainty (since the rest of the multitude derive their entire security not from acuteness of intellect, but from simplicity of faith,)–not to speak of this wisdom, which you do not believe to be in the Catholic Church, there are many other things which most justly keep me in her bosom. The consent of peoples and nations keeps me in the Church; so does her **authority, **inaugurated by miracles, nourished by hope, enlarged by love, established by age. The **succession of priests **keeps me, beginning from the very seat of the Apostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate. And so, lastly, does the name itself of Catholic, which, not without reason, amid so many heresies, the Church has thus retained; so that, though all heretics wish to be called Catholics, yet when a stranger asks where the Catholic Church meets, no heretic will venture to point to his own chapel or house. Such then in number and importance are the precious ties belonging to the Christian name which keep a believer in the Catholic Church, as it is right they should, though from the slowness of our understanding, or the small attainment of our life, the truth may not yet fully disclose itself. But with you, where there is none of these things to attract or keep me, the promise of truth is the only thing that comes into play. Now if the truth is so clearly proved as to leave no possibility of doubt, it must be set before all the things that keep me in the Catholic Church; but if there is only a promise without any fulfillment, no one shall move me from the faith which binds my mind with ties so many and so strong to the Christian religion.AGAINST THE EPISTLE OF MANICHAEUS CALLED FUNDAMENTAL. [CONTRA EPISTOLAM MANICHAEI QUAM VACANT FUNDAMENTI.] A.D. 397.

I am not interested in ‘convincing the Orthodox’ of anything at the moment.
I think I used the term ‘myth’ above but “Roman invention” works too.

That’s my point, Algo. If it were a myth of “Roman Invention”, then the Orthodox would not also embrace it. They have no love lost on “Rome”, and much resistance to “innovations”.

 

[haparker321]

But I would agree with you that the writings of the Early church fathers don’t carry the same weight as scripture.

Good, and that means how they interpret Scripture can either be taken as flawed or factual. The rub here is this: in totality, none of the ECF’s unanimously agreed or everything the Church teaches, especially the bodily assumption of Mary.

And why was he qualified to do so? Because he was Pope.

Absent in scripture, absent in history.

Parker, you have been given reams of ECF quotes by Igatius33, more than I’m sure you were willing to read, that demonstrate their belief in Catholic Tradition and the authority of the Pope to definethe truths of the faith.

Well if I had to post a litany of quotes more so than the Scriptures make them out to be, then I would be writing another book. BTW have you checked out my blog yet?

However, you have separated yourself from the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the point that the only proof you will accept is a truncated form of the Bible.

I believe I have separated myself from institutional apostasy, especially in regards to its faith and practice. I am not arguing for sole proof just from the Bible, I’m looking for evidence that supports the cause. I’ll accept any explicit or implicit scriptural and historical evidence that supports how the Church defines tradition i.e., the unwritten teachings that could sometimes be found in (or sometimes absent from) the word of God.

The simple fact is that the Bible can’t interpret itself.

No, but it can self-authenticate. I think we’ve both got a misunderstanding here.

That it is not self-interpreting is proven every time two people read the same text and come to different doctrinal conclusions.

Well just because two people don’t come to the same conclusions does not mean the Bible alone is all sufficient. I thought someone taught you this logic.

Therefore, it is ABUNDANTLY clear that sola scriptura fails- without valid, authoritative interpretation, scripture is virtually worthless because it can so easily be twisted.

The Church functions like court judges (rather than lawyers like I mentioned earlier–sry) and the constitution. Just because judges ignore Scriptural command, does that mean the constitution would become insufficient?

The challenge to you is to demonstrate that any one other than the Magesterium of the Catholic Church is a credible interpreter of scripture.

Define credibility and qualifications.

What did Calvin have to demonstrate his credibility in comparison?

Just because the Church decided to ‘straighten’ itself out after the Reformation and using that as a pedigree does not make the ‘perfect church’. Besides, I think your whole statement is being done out of religious arrogance, not necessarily the truth.

This is because you think so narrowly - that the word of God must be in book form.

At this point, seeing other such groups who teach extra-biblical apostolic tradition (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, JW’s, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc.), I would confine almost every teaching to the boundaries about what has been said and ruled out in the written word of God. In your case, you got several different groups all claiming the same thing you are. So, how do you suppose your church fairs in regards to other ones? Are you going to tell me you’re the oldest church?

But the truth of the matter is that other than the stone tablets with the 10 commandments, God has never communicated with the people through writing.

This is quite silly because God issued the Law which consists of a total of:

[SIGN]613 COMMANDMENTS[/SIGN]
Those laws include but are not limited to:

• Proper Sacrifices
• Loan Making
• House Inspections
• Personal Hygiene
• Proper Eating Habits
• Sexual Conduct

You see, I think you forget the concept of the Old Testament. The laws themselves were written in a contractual style i.e., God set up his rules and ideas for us to obey. Don’t believe me, check it out sometime. If we don’t view the law in that view, there’s a problem.

Inspired authors wrote down what they had heard but God doesn’t publish books.

Right you are, but he expects us to write whatever he said on paper, for other people to remember and enforce his rules. He doesn’t need to speak more than once.

If someone misunderstands what a person says, the person can correct them and put them on the right track. Not so with a book.

Unless the book prescribes it. Quite different.

Parker

 

[ivebeenshown]

Right you are, but he expects us to write whatever he said on paper, for other people to remember and enforce his rules. He doesn’t need to speak more than once.

Unless the book prescribes it. Quite different.

Parker

It’s really too bad that the Scriptures don’t spell out clearly and entirely how to ordain bishops, or what the exact duties of bishops are. Yet we know that we are supposed to submit to them and they are like shepherds.

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
But I would agree with you that the writings of the Early church fathers don’t carry the same weight as scripture.

Harper, there is overwhelming concensus on Catholic doctrine by the ECFs. In fact, they are only categorized as Early Church Fathers if there teachings were held as Catholic in their lifetimes. That is why Tertullian, who became a Montanist, is not classified as a Father, although his earlier writings were recognized as Catholic by the Church. The fact that some of the Fathers diverged from Catholic teaching on some doctrine or another is simply proof that only the Popes are infallible. As for the bodily assumption of Mary, Ignatius33 covered that pretty well in post 292 at 10:07 yesterday

Quote:
And why was he qualified to do so? Because he was Pope.

Really? You haven’t understood scripture properly if you don’t see that Peter was the rock on which the church was built and to whom the keys were given (matthew 16), the Apostle who was callled to build up his brothers after Christ’s passion (Luke 22), the man who was charged with taking care of the Good Shepherd’s flock (John 21), The man who replaced Judas as an apostle with Matthias ( Acts 1), The man who interpreted the events of Pentacost for the people and who defined the method in which the first converts were to be brought into the church (Acts 2), The man who spoke for the Apostles to the Jewish Authorities, and the man to whom the revelation that Gentiles should be admitted to the church was given.

Quote:
Parker, you have been given reams of ECF quotes by Igatius33, more than I’m sure you were willing to read, that demonstrate their belief in Catholic Tradition and the authority of the Pope to definethe truths of the faith.

Is that why you are posting here, to get us to go to your blog? The point of the litany of quotesis to show the consensus of the fathers.

Quote:
However, you have separated yourself from the one, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church to the point that the only proof you will accept is a truncated form of the Bible.

Institutional apostasy? Pretty strong words to use on a Catholic Website without any support.When do you think the Church apostasized? What is your proof of this?

Quote:
The simple fact is that the Bible can’t interpret itself.

Which is completely meaningless if you don’t know what its really saying because your interpretation is flawed/

Quote:
That it is not self-interpreting is proven every time two people read the same text and come to different doctrinal conclusions.

. Really? The Bible alone is sufficient, even if no two people agree on what it says ? That’s your logic?

Quote:
Therefore, it is ABUNDANTLY clear that sola scriptura fails- without valid, authoritative interpretation, scripture is virtually worthless because it can so easily be twisted.

Define credibility and qualifications.
Credible means that they are believable. Qualifications means that they have been authorized by God.

[/QUOTE]
[/QUOTE]

 

[paul_c]

Quote:
What did Calvin have to demonstrate his credibility in comparison?

The reason you have evaded this question is that Calvin had ZERO credibility - nothing to show that he was the true interpreter of God, No pedigree, No miracles. Nothing but his own words. The Catholic Church on the other hand can show it descended from St.Peter, who was appointed by Jesus to lead his church. And it can show untold Miracles as well.

Quote:
This is because you think so narrowly - that the word of God must be in book form.

I’m going to tell you that the Catholic Church was started by Jesus on the Rock of St. Peter… The mormons were started by Joseph Smith, Charles Taze Russell founded the JWs, William Miller founded the seventh day adventists and Mary Baker Eddy founded the Christian Scientists. I think that says as much as needs be said about the relative credibility of the religions.

Quote:
But the truth of the matter is that other than the stone tablets with the 10 commandments, God has never communicated with the people through writing.

You are distracted. My point was that God didn’t write the old testament. He spoke to Moses and Moses wrote it down. Likewise He appointed an entire clan to pass down the interpretation of these words. It was clearly not Sola Scriptura.

Quote:
Inspired authors wrote down what they had heard but God doesn’t publish books.

He expects us to teach others about the faith. The written word is just a teaching tool. It can not answer questions or clarify positions.

Quote:
If someone misunderstands what a person says, the person can correct them and put them on the right track. Not so with a book.

Give me a break. Parker. The book is only as good as your understanding of it. God communicates through people because they can object if you misinterpret what they say.

Parker, can you feel how far you are reaching here to try to prove that an error is in fact the truth. You can never, ever get around the fact that the Bible can be interpreted many ways without an authoritative interpreter. This thread is proof of that. You simple can’t win your argument because you don’t ave truth on your side.

 

[Algo1]

And since Augustine does not consider the Bishops of Rome to be “God” {although later in history they began calling themselves ‘Vicar of Christ’} from Augustine’s quotes above he did not consider them or the church to be infallible.

Hmm, who said anything about Augustine (or any other Catholic for that matter) referring to the Bishop of Rome as “God?”

I was quoting Augustine who said:

Augustine (354-430): God alone swears securely, ** because He alone is infallible. **
NPNF1: Vol. VIII, St. Augustin on the Psalms, Psalm 89, § 4.
Latin text: Deus solus securus jurat, quia falli non potest.
See In Psalmum LXXXVIII Enarratio, Sermo I, PL 37:1122.

And since the Pope is not God, then according to Augustine he (the Pope) is Not Infallible.

You say that Augustine’s quotes (and others like them) are only “complimentary” to Rome? Are you serious?

No, actually I said ‘many’ of them are.

He says, over and over again, that when Rome has spoken the case is closed.

Do you by chance have a source for that?

That is not a mere compliment, or some kind of glad-handing of the Pope for being on the right side of things. He obviously recognized that the Bishop of Rome has God-given authority to resolve matters of faith once and for all – e.g. in the Pelagian controversy. Necessarily implicit in such authority is that God would preserve the head of the Church from resolving a matter of faith erroneously.

Not according to one of your Church Historians:

“In the case of North Africa it is interesting to note the attitude of a self-confident and organizationally intact Church toward Rome. The saying of Bishop Augustine of Hippo (396-430), Roma locuta, causa finita (“Rome has spoken, the matter is settled”) was quoted repeatedly. However, the quotation is really a bold reshaping of the words of that Church Father taken quite out of context.

Concretely the issue was the teaching of Pelagius, an ascetic from Britain who lived in Rome. Pelagius took a stand against permissive and minimalist Christianity that shrank from the moral seriousness of Christian discipleship and used human incapacity and trust in grace alone to excuse personal sloth. He therefore emphasized an ethical Christianity of works and moral challenge for which grace was primarily an incentive to action; human beings remain capable of choosing between good and evil by their own power. This teaching was condemned by two North African councils in Carthage and Mileve in 416. But since Pelagius lived in Rome, and Rome was the center of the Pelagian movement, it seemed appropriate to inform Pope Innocent I of the decision. Ultimately, the struggle against Pelagianism could only be carried on with the cooperation of Rome. The Pope finally responded in 417, accepting the decisions of the two councils. Augustine then wrote: “In this matter, two councils have already sent letters to the apostolic see, and from thence rescripts have come back. the matter is settled (causa finita est); if only the heresy would cease!”

Both the context of this statement and its continuity with the rest of Augustine’s thought permit no interpretation other than that Rome’s verdict alone is not decisive; rather, it disposes of all doubt after all that has preceded it. This is because there remains no other ecclesiastical authority of any consequence to which the Pelagians can appeal, and in particular the very authority from which they could most readily have expected a favorable decision, namely Rome, has clearly ruled against them!

In general, Augustine attributes a relatively substantial weight of authority to the Roman church in questions of faith but does not consider that it has a superior teaching office. It has auctoritas, but not potestas over the Church in North Africa. The very councils mentioned above give a clear picture of the way the Africans, including Augustine, regarded Rome’s teaching authority. They sent their records to Rome not to obtain formal confirmation, but because they acknowledged that the Roman church, with its tradition, had a greated auctoritas in matters of faith; therefore they desired to have a Roman decision united with their own. This is especially obvious in a letter from Augustine writing for five bishops; we are not, he said, pouring our little trickle back into your ample fountain to increase it, but. . .we wish to be reassured by you that this trickle of ours, however scant, flows from the same fountainhead as your abundant stream, and we desire the consolation of your writings, drawn from our common share of the one grace. Every word of this should be noted: The Roman church is not the source of the African Church, for both, in parallel streams, flow from the river of the same tradition, even though the river is fuller in the Roman church. Rome thus has a relatively greater and more weighty authority, and that is why the African Church seeks a verdict from Rome.”
Klaus Schatz, S.J. Papal Primacy (Minnesota: The Liturgical Press, 1996, p. 34-35).

 

[Algo1]

Actually, I think a case can be made that Mary’s Assumption is Scriptural.

On the Assumption of Mary, it is helpful to distinguish between different types of Tradition.

1. Things the Apostles taught clearly (i.e., explicitly) in Scripture and clearly in oral preaching.
2. Things the Apostles taught clearly in Scripture but unclearly (i.e., implicitly) in oral preaching.
3. Things the Apostles taught unclearly in Scripture but clearly in oral preaching.
4. Things the Apostles taught unclearly in Scripture and unclearly in oral preaching.

Examples of type 1 include disapproval of divorce and remarriage; the Real Presence in the Eucharist; baptismal regeneration; Confession, etc. Oddly, many Protestants today reject all of these core teachings, which seem to be quite clearly laid out in Scripture and the ECFs.

An example of type 2 might include original sin, which seems pretty clear in Romans 5:12. Yet its details were not really worked out fully until St. Augustine, when the doctrine became directly implicated in the Pelagian controversy.

Type 3 could include contraception and abortion. They are unclear (i.e., implicit) in Scripture but explicit in the ECFs. Purgatory is another example that would probably fall into this category.

The Assumption of Mary (and other Marian dogmas) fall into category 4. Given its vagueness, it is no surprise that the few doctrines falling into category 4 include the ones to which Protestants are the most hostile.

Now, just because a doctrine falls into category 4, or that it takes X number of years before a ECF explicitly mentions a doctrine, this does not mean that it should be simply disregarded.

It is only logical that Christians would take centuries to work out what Scripture means/implies on certain matters, particularly where Scripture is unclear. Even Protestants must grant this – in their view, it took 1,500 years for Christians to realize that St. Paul taught justification by faith alone (a concept found nowhere in the ECFs).

Clement of Rome:
Let us clothe ourselves with concord and humility, ever exercising self-control, standing far off from all whispering and evil-speaking, being justified by our works, and not our words. ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 30.

In other words, Clement is simply affirming that declaring ourselves to be justified by “our words,” is not the proof of our justification, but rather our works; because here it is our works contrasted with our words, not our faith. He says, “Let us clothe ourselves,” etc., i.e. demonstrate in deed that what we believe concerning ourselves is true, rather than merely claiming it. Otherwise, what he goes on to say two chapters later is utterly meaningless. For he goes on to say…

Clement of Rome:
Whosoever will candidly consider each particular, will recognize the greatness of the gifts which were given by him. For from him have sprung the priests and all the Levites who minister at the altar of God. From him also [was descended] our Lord Jesus Christ according to the flesh. From him [arose] kings, princes, and rulers of the race of Judah. Nor are his other tribes in small glory, inasmuch as God had promised, “Thy seed shall be as the stars of heaven.” All these, therefore, were highly honored, and made great, not for their own sake, or for their own works, or for the righteousness which they wrought, but through the operation of His will. And we, too, being called by His will in Christ Jesus, are not justified by ourselves, nor by our own wisdom, or understanding, or godliness, or works which we have wrought in holiness of heart; but by that faith through which, from the beginning, Almighty God has justified all men; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen. ANF: Vol. I, The Apostolic Fathers, First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians, Chapter 32.

It’s clear, then, that Clement denies in no uncertain terms that our works, performed in a state of grace, serve meritoriously in any sense as the grounds on which we’re justified, and declares that faith, not our works, has always been the means by which God justifies all men.

Getting back to the Assumption, Catholics believe that the Assumption is implied in both Scripture and Tradition, but indirectly. For example, William Lane Craig – an excellent modern defender of the bodily Resurrection of Jesus Christ – argues that the absence of any veneration of Christ’s relics in the early Church is a strong proof in favor of his Resurrection. After all, early Christians venerated (honored) the bones of the Apostles and the martyrs (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch – my namesake – and Polycarp). But Craig’s argument carries equal force in favor of the bodily Assumption of Mary, the Mother of God, for it is a fact that nobody ever claimed to possess or venerate her relics either. This is indirect early evidence of her bodily Assumption.

More substantially, there is the book of Revelation, which speaks mysteriously about a woman giving birth to Christ, being taken up into heaven, and existing in heaven during the time of John (Rev 12). The Assumption can also be seen as a necessary corollary to Mary’s sinlessness, which doctrine is more firmly evident in Scripture and the New Even parallel made by John (Gen. 3:15/Jn. 2:5-11; 19:26-27/Rev 12), as well as the ECFs, who venerated her as “all holy” and many of whom explicitly held Mary to be sinless.

 

[Algo1]

Then do you agree with paulc’s comment:

Originally Posted by Algo1
Yes, that’s basically true. Cardinal Newman recognized that in the midst of Vatican 1 and came up with his theory. Prior to that and in fact in Vatican 1 the common view was partim-partim. The view that part of God’s special revelation is contained in the Scripture, and part is contained in Tradition.
Most Roman Catholic scholars as far as I know claim material sufficiency. This simply means the content of divine revelation God intends His people to have is contained entirely in Scripture. That is, all the doctrines Christians are to believe are found in the Bible.
Originally Posted by paulc
This is true. All the doctrines are in the Bible so it is materially sufficient but not formally sufficient, the difference being that the Bible is not so clear that everyone can come to the same conclusions reading it without official interpretations:
catholic.com/thisrock/1993/9310fea2sb2.asp

Yes.

If Mary was still living when Paul taught the Corinthians and Thessalonians then it could not have been something he had ‘delivered’ (1 Cor. 11:2), ‘taught’ (2 Thess. 2:15), or ‘commanded’ (2 Thess. 3:6). Furthermore, since it is not even mentioned in Scripture then it can not be defended from a ‘material sufficiency’ interpretation.

This is not true. All of the Apostles knew that Mary never had any other children. As we dont’ have the date of her passing, it is likely lthat most of the NT was written while she was still alive, and therefore, no one is likely to have referenced the Assumption.

Very well, you have just proven that your claim to “Material Sufficiency” is jettisoned as soon as it becomes inconvenient. And you complain about a lack of consistency among protestants in how we define/practice Sola Scriptura?

No reasonable person could possible believe that all of what the Apostles believed and taught is found in scripture.

Well, according to the definition by paulc via Jimmy Akin:

MANY Protestants, including James White, have difficulty understanding the Catholic distinction between the material and the formal sufficiency of Scripture. For Scripture to be materially sufficient, it would have to contain or imply all that is needed for salvation. For it to be formally sufficient, it would not only have to contain all of this data, but it would have to be so clear that it does not need any outside information to interpret it.

Nevertheless, I am earnestly in search of an MP3 of Paul’s two years of lectures at the hall of Tyrannus.

If you find it, please burn me a copy of it.

Well, we read Scripture differently, do we not? Catholics are not “Paulists” as many of our separated brethren who are steeped in Calvanism. We understand doctrine through the fullness of ALL the scriptures and through the Teaching of the Apostles preserved infallibly in the Church by the Holy Spirit. Just because Paul did not happen to mention a certain doctrine in one of his letters does not mean that it is “not even mentioned in Scripture”.

Then please stop using 1 Cor. 11:2, 2 Thess. 2:15 or 2 Thess. 3:6 as a carte blanche proof text to claim that a current dogma of the Roman Catholic Church found nowhere in Scripture was taught orally by any of the apostles.

Upon contextual examination, we see that the apostle Paul is writing about passing on the basic teachings of the gospel itself, that they ‘stand fast and hold the traditions’ that he as an apostle had communicated to them, whether by means of oral proclamation or epistle. In the larger context, they were to ‘stand fast (stekete) and hold (krateite) the traditions’ of ‘our gospel’ (v. 14) in the face of eschatological apostacy and deception that would arise in future days (2 Thess. 2:1-12).
We learn, then that the ‘traditions’ of 2 Thess 2:15 are a reference to the same message delivered in two different modes. The coordinating conjunction eite-eite (whether-or) in 2 Thess. 2:15 signifies the two-fold apostolic method of delivering the same doctrine orally or in writing. There is not the slightest inference from this passage that the apostle’s oral proclamation differed in content or substance from that which was delivered by written tradition. It does not follow that any part of apostolic tradition has ever been produced.
David T. King Vol. I p. 120 Holy Scripture The Ground and Pillar of Our Faith.

 

[guanophore]

Good, and that means how they interpret Scripture can either be taken as flawed or factual. The rub here is this: in totality, none of the ECF’s unanimously agreed or everything the Church teaches, especially the bodily assumption of Mary.

Why is that a rub? Most of them had no reason to write about it. THe majority of the writings are instruction in the faith to outsiders (apologetic) and defense against heresies. There are a few, like the Epistle of Barnabas that are instruction to the flock, but, as in Scripture, there is no effort to produce a full compendium of the faith.

Why would we expect everyone to agree on everything? That has not happened from the first day, until now! Look at the struggles the Apostles had in the NT with departures from the faith - even among disciples. The men sent from James that upset the believers in Galatia were well meaning, as was James. It was not his intention to trouble the flock by requiring circumcision.

Absent in scripture, absent in history.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we? What do you think Jesus meant when He put Peter in charge of the care and feeding of His flock?

Well if I had to post a litany of quotes more so than the Scriptures make them out to be, then I would be writing another book.

What the heck is this supposed to mean?

Did you read the stuff Ignatius33 posted?

I believe I have separated myself from institutional apostasy, especially in regards to its faith and practice.

Yes, of course. One could not, in good conscience. leave the Church founded by Christ otherwise.

I am not arguing for sole proof just from the Bible, I’m looking for evidence that supports the cause. I’ll accept any explicit or implicit scriptural and historical evidence that supports how the Church defines tradition i.e., the unwritten teachings that could sometimes be found in (or sometimes absent from) the word of God.

No, Parker, you clearly do not. YOu were given voluminous quotations, adn all you could say is

Well if I had to post a litany of quotes more so than the Scriptures make them out to be, then I would be writing another book.

This is no scholarship, and certainly does not reflect in any way that you have examined any of the evidence.

No, but it can self-authenticate. I think we’ve both got a misunderstanding here.

Perhaps you can explain how it is the Bible self authenticates?

Where does the Bible tell you which books belong to itself?

Well just because two people don’t come to the same conclusions does not mean the Bible alone is all sufficient. I thought someone taught you this logic.

If two faithful, spirit filled, committed Christians read the Scriptures and come to opposite conclusions (and this happens every day) this tells us something about the nature of human interpretation. God did not give us the Scriptures to be used this way. They are to be used under the authorative revelation He provided.

The Church functions like court judges (rather than lawyers like I mentioned earlier–sry) and the constitution. Just because judges ignore Scriptural command, does that mean the constitution would become insufficient?

No, anymore than the office of the judge is invalid because the person in it does not uphold his office appropriately.

Define credibility and qualifications.

this is a fruitless exercise in your case. You will not even engage what has already been posted. The presentation you offer of someone who is willing to look at evidence has proved to be disingenuous.

Just because the Church decided to ‘straighten’ itself out after the Reformation and using that as a pedigree does not make the ‘perfect church’

This is true. The Church is perfect because Jesus makes her that way, not because of anything mankind does. Men are always in need of Reform, where the doctrine of Christ, and HIs Holy Bride, is already perfected by Him.

Your statement here, along with your reference to an “institutional apostasy” makes it clear that you are suffering from a deficient understanding of the Church.

At this point, seeing other such groups who teach extra-biblical apostolic tradition (e.g. Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, JW’s, Seventh Day Adventists, Christian Scientists, etc.), I would confine almost every teaching to the boundaries about what has been said and ruled out in the written word of God.

The biggest problem with this, Parker, is that human beings interpret everything that touches the senses. What you understand to be written there, and it’s meaning, will differ from that of the next person, as there are about as many perceptions as there are belly buttons. In the end , you have made yourself your own authority of the meaning of God’s Revelation.
?

 

[guanophore]

In your case, you got several different groups all claiming the same thing you are. So, how do you suppose your church fairs in regards to other ones?

Why would we care? We have been charged to preserve the Apostolic Teaching that was handed down to us. We were not commanded to compare ourselves with those who have departed from it.

Are you going to tell me you’re the oldest church?

Jesus only founded One Church. There are no others.

Right you are, but he expects us to write whatever he said on paper, for other people to remember and enforce his rules. He doesn’t need to speak more than once.

Unless the book prescribes it. Quite different.

Parker

So I guess you are the self appointed enforcer and interpreter of God’s rules