S
sandusky
Guest
Concerning kecharitomene, it has led to the inclusion of the IC into the Gospel as something that must be believed upon the penalty of forfeiture of salvation.
- Status
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
You sound very bored and confused.You’re trying to switch the issue. The church that defined the canon is not the church that teaches unsupported, unwritten tradition that she alone defines.
S
sandusky
Guest
The doctrine wasn’t formulated then, but it was practiced by the ECF with respect to the scripture; it’s scripture to which they appealed when the faith was challenged.
S
sandusky
Guest
You’re arguments are not very invigorating, nor are they difficult to deal with.
J
jean8
Guest
Why is the Catholic church afraid of Sola Scriptura? If everyone started adding to the Bible it would never end.
jean8
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
It’s become quite a pattern that sandusky attempts to deflect away arguments that he doesn’t want to address by giving unsubstantiated statements, including one addressed to me that I got a lot of anger. Actually, it’s very difficult to make me angry. I actually had a lot of fun writing those responses to sandusky. Nothing better than intellectual stimulation even with someone you disagree with (had lots of those in college), though I can’t say that sandusky is a particularly stimulating one.
I see no point in adding new information for sandusky shows that s/he is very unwilling to engage the content of the arguments presented while we are trying to do so. As many posters have pointed out, Tradition is not so much a collection of things, but the living faith of the Church, the fullness of Divine Revelation transmitted and lived. Yet s/he doesn’t seem to understand and keeps asking for a list. When presented with certain elements of the Catholic faith which expresses that living Tradition of the Church, such as the canon of Scripture, worship on Sunday, the Sacraments of the Church, etc, s/he ignores them entirely. When asked to provide some proofs of various positions s/he holds, so that we can understand what constitutes sufficient proof for him, the requests are completely ignored on the pretext that we must provide a list first.
But I want to remind us all of one thing before I leave this thread:
I see no point in adding new information for sandusky shows that s/he is very unwilling to engage the content of the arguments presented while we are trying to do so. As many posters have pointed out, Tradition is not so much a collection of things, but the living faith of the Church, the fullness of Divine Revelation transmitted and lived. Yet s/he doesn’t seem to understand and keeps asking for a list. When presented with certain elements of the Catholic faith which expresses that living Tradition of the Church, such as the canon of Scripture, worship on Sunday, the Sacraments of the Church, etc, s/he ignores them entirely. When asked to provide some proofs of various positions s/he holds, so that we can understand what constitutes sufficient proof for him, the requests are completely ignored on the pretext that we must provide a list first.
But I want to remind us all of one thing before I leave this thread:
As already demonstrated and agreed by sandusky, this is a manifestlt false assertion. There was no commonly accepted canon of Scripture up till the 4th and 5th centuries, perhaps even later, and sandusky had acknowledged that sola Scripture presupposed a canon of Scripture. Further, in post #28, I quoted St John Chrysostom, who wrote:
The mere quotation of Scripture doesn’t indicate sola Scriptura. Please don’t sully the memory of the Church Fathers with unsubstantiated claims that others have already rebutted.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
Catholics are not afraid of sola scriptura anymore than we are afraid of the arian heresy or satan. Catholics disagree with the human concept of sola scriptura because it is inconsistent with the Apostolic Tradition we have received and therefore is untrue.
Catholics believe there is no further public revelation; God has already said everything he intended to communicate to man in Jesus his Son, and this revelation is transmitted through both Scripture and Tradition. There can be nothing added, so there won’t be a never ending story as you feared. Sola scriptura denies the validity of the transmission of divine revelation by Tradition. The OP dealt with the question of whether the early church fathers accepted the principle of sola scriptura, but it seems that the thread has digressed to someone asking for a “listing” of Tradition.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Hi jean8,
I suspect that, like a lot of Protestant posters, you don’t understand the difference between Sola Scriptura and Sufficiency of Scripture.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Huh? Forfeiture of salvation?
C
cydonian
Guest
Afraid? no. The CC is not afraid of SS, It knows it is incorrect to believe in it.
Jesus gave us a CHURCH, not a book. Therefore we have sacred scripture, sacred Tradition, and the magisterium to guide us.
With SS you can prove and believe about anything you want. ie SDA, JW, etc.
S
SyCarl
Guest
That would seem to be what Pius IX said in Ineffabilis Deus.
Unless the bold part means something different than what it seems to say.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Excellent. What I have been consistently saying is that a Protestant can not even describe herself except for in terms of “in opposition to” or “in protest of” or “in contrast to” an established tradition and standard. In others words Protestants having no history to speak of can only define themselves in terms of what they are not. That is, Protestants are “not Catholic”; whatever they think we are or know us to not be.
What is most oxymoronic is for these people to demand we give them a sterile legalese list of Catholic “traditions” so they can say “yeah - that’s what we are not”. It’s like asking someone to write down the nuances, emotions and sounds of a beautiful symphony on paper without the orchestra pieces and players and lives and emotions between musician and audience. It’s like "tell us in a book what Frankincense and Myrrh smell like and how the reverberations of the choirs echo throughout the cathedral. They just don’t “get it” that somethings can not be expressed in written words and somethings must be lived and experienced.Ask a Protestants to describe Red and she will say “its the opposite of Green”. Ask a Protestant to write down the truth on blank sheet of white paper and she will perspire to soil it with black ink to show us by contrast what it is not.
The Prophet Isaiah warned us about these sort of people:
*Isaiah 5:20-21
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! 21Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and clever in their own sight!
*
Protestants without even knowing Catholicism don’t even know what it is they are protesting except they know infallabily that someone told them its the traditional thing to do…
James
S
sandusky
Guest
And you continue to deflect away that no list of tradition can be produced by your 2000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium. That begs the question: what’s the use of having a 2000-year-old infallible teaching magisterium if they can’t, among other things, produce this list?
I beat you to this, so it’s just “sour grapes” on your part.
The only “new information” I’m interested in is a list of unwritten tradition, and how it is you can substantiate that it would be anything other than “hearsay?”
I understand what you’re saying—I’m a former RC.
Im a He.
The scripture was given to us by means of inspiration of the Spirit, and by extension of that inspiration, the providence of God determined that the those in the early church would preserve the manuscripts and assemble them into the canon.
Worship on Sunday is found in scripture: Acts 20, 1 Cor 16.
Scripture is able to equip the man of God for every good work (2 Tim 2:17).
Concerning the sacraments of the church, I’ve provided a link to this book: Israel and the Church; the Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology. In thinking that she’d replaced Israel, the early church raised up, for herself, her own OT way of worship—a system of law and sacrifice under the guise of sacraments.
You’re putting words in my mouth on the basis of Philthy’s interesting point, which point has been dealt with.
It is the scripture to which the early church appealed for guidance:We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith.
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.1.1
Since, therefore, the tradition from the apostles does thus exist in the Church, and is permanent among us, let us revert to the Scriptural proof furnished by those apostles who did also write the Gospel, in which they recorded the doctrine regarding God…
Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3.5.1The ground and pillar of our faith is the scripture, in which is recorded all the doctrine regarding God, according to Irenaeus.
S
sandusky
Guest
P
Philthy
Guest
- Oh, OK. So they “practiced” it, but never took the time to articulate that this is how the faith was to be “learned”? And none of the authors of the OT or NT bothered to mention that new “Scripture” was coming that would constitute the content of the faith? One incidental comment from Peter (uh, make that allegedly from Peter) that some of Pauls letters(unidentified) are like other Scripture. That seems very odd to me that we have such a redundant and often discombobulated collection of writings in Scripture, yet the fundamental new reality of the faith - SS - doesnt even get mentioned once.
- Furthermore, of course they appealed to Scripture - Catholics do the same thing so pointing this out doesnt add up to SS.
- Most importantly, the fact remains that anyone can appeal to Scripture in defense of their version of the faith. Such appeal, however, does not decide anything for the faithful, does it? I mean you and I appeal to Scripture all the time and we resolve very little. Why? Because neither one of us has any authority to proclaim our interpretation as the infallible truth of the faith. This is one of the blessings(this one’s negative - I believe there are also positive ones) of Protestantism Sandy: it reveals the necessity of something apart from a merely human interpretation of Scripture to know that one is being presented the Truth. And guess what? The ECFs had that something - Apostolic succession. It was never Scripture alone because they always had the blessing by the laying on of hands that Paul spoke to Timothy of. Now their opponents - THEY were often SS since they lacked the Apostolic succession and really had nothing other than their “appeal to Scripture”. At least that’s how ISTM.
- Lastly, the other little problem is that when we look at how the ECFs lived out the faith that you allege came from an appeal to Scripture we see a very Catholic looking bunch. You know Sunday as Lord’s Day, Mass, Real Presence, infant Baptisms, Bishops, Priests, Deacons, etc etc etc - that does not really fit with your intended point that if we merely appealed to Scripture we would end up with the Reformed Church. Either you’re correct in that they appealed to Scripure alone but wrong in that they came away from it theologically and practically Catholic; or you are wrong in that they didnt actually merely appeal to Scripture.
C
Chaldean_Rite
Guest
gotta make sure I post this in case nobody hasn’t already:
Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
Its articles like these, guys and gals, that Sandusky will NEVER be able to honestly read and answer for themselves.
May the prayers of the Holy Virgin protect us all.
Twenty One Reasons to Reject Sola Scriptura
Code:
By Joel PetersMay the prayers of the Holy Virgin protect us all.
S
sodak
Guest
Actually, it’s the opposite. Scripture came forth from Tradition. I actually view it as a subset, simply because Tradition correctly understands and teaches us, as our path to God gets closer. We got the concepts of the Trinity and the Immaculate Conception from Tradition and the Magesterium.
It might not be a literal subset, but rather a refinement, a more focused understanding, but that is how I think of it. Never a contradiction.
Other way around. Tradition came first, historically, that’s easy to prove.
That **EXACTLY **right!!!
Then, by logical extension, so much for Scripture and the Authority of the Bible. Do you really mean to say that?Certainly, and a tradition that’s still disputed. So much for “tradition.”
The value is having a Church that can guard and guide in the Truth. It protects us from heresies and heretics, and keeps souls from being lost to all the wolves out there. It is the Body of Christ that is the pillar and bulwark of the Truth.
New challenges and heresies come up all the time. Stem cell research. Cloning. Euthanasia. Defining when life begins. All important topics. None of which are covered in the Bible. We need this teaching Magesterium to guide us through these troubled waters. Thank God for his Church!!!
S
sandusky
Guest
Phil, read the two quotes from Irenaeus above; those two are only the beginning.
S
sandusky
Guest
Sandusky doesn’t need articles like those; he goes to the ECF.
E
elvisman
Guest
Nope - I calls 'em as I sees 'em and I see a guy who has run out of smug answers.IMO, you’re so wrong about so many things, even your assessment of our “give-and-take.”
The fact of the matter is Sola Scriptura is a man-made tradition that can’t even be proven with Scripture. I challenged you to show me the Scriptural evidence and you failed.
- Status