P
- Status
S
SyCarl
Guest
Touche on that, although it would not seem to be doctrinally important.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Those are good quotes, SyCarl, but what they indicate is that those fathers believed in Sufficiency of Scripture (which, BTW, some RCs do believe in). I see nothing there to indicate that they believed in Sola Scriptura. (If I may throw in a little side note, it seems that a couple of the Protestant posters have taken to ignoring me whenever I bring up the distinction between Sola Scriptura and Sufficiency of Scripture. But you’re too good for that, right SyCarl?
)
S
sandusky
Guest
Thank you, SyCarl, and many others as well.
P
Peter_J
Guest
S
sandusky
Guest
It’s not a generalization, Peter. I constantly read on different threads, and have been told myself, that the reason people leave the CC is because they have not been “properly cathechized,” which is to say, “they don’t understand the faith.”
It’s inconceivable to the Catholic that people leave the CC because they do understand the teachings.
S
sandusky
Guest
That post is a “keeper,” elvisman, thanks.
S
SyCarl
Guest
I accept that the Scriptures are both materially and formally sufficient and I think that the quotes from Chrysostom and Augustine support this. Both indicate that all the necessary things are plainly set out in Scripture. That would indicate formal sufficiency as well as material sufficiency.Those are good quotes, SyCarl, but what they indicate is that those fathers believed in Sufficiency of Scripture (which, BTW, some RCs do believe in). I see nothing there to indicate that they believed in Sola Scriptura. (If I may throw in a little side note, it seems that a couple of the Protestant posters have taken to ignoring me whenever I bring up the distinction between Sola Scriptura and Sufficiency of Scripture. But you’re too good for that, right SyCarl?
This does not mean that all truth is recorded in Scripture, but when it comes to Tradition, how do we know whose Tradition is right?
Both the Catholic Church and Orthodox Church use Scripture and Tradition, but are their Traditions the same. I am no expert but I know the two Churches have different canons, differences on original sin, differences on the filioque, and differences on Papal authority. Both churches claim Apostolic Succession. As a Protestant whose Tradition should I accept of these two? They can’t both be right. I will stick with the Bible alone.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Might I suggest the thread CAF does NOT represent Catholicism.
P
Peter_J
Guest
Well again here I would say, Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater.
No offense, but the irony of that last statement is staggering. Do you really think that those (Protestants) who “stick with the Bible alone” have a better track-record of unity than those (Catholics and Orthodox) who believe in “Sacred Tradition” as the proper way to interpret Sacred Scripture?
S
SyCarl
Guest
Of course Protestantism is divided and I do not accept any denomination as having all the truth. But there is unity in the essentials. I know that people would say what are the essentials and disagree on what they are. I believe that the essentials are quite simple. The early church used the Apostles’ Creed as a symbol of faith that summarized the Christian message. Since then men have added more “truths”. Some of them may actually be true but are they necessary?
I think that the Gospel is really a simple message that has been complicated by men’s desire to know and understand everything. In our pride we feel that we can and should know everything and if something isn’t clear we reason and speculate on it . We make the results part of required doctrine and insist everyone must believe the same way.
I don’t think we need to or can know everything. To take an obvious and extreme example. It is certain that Jesus was right-handed, left-handed or ambidexerous. People could assert each position and some would have to be right and have the truth on the point, but would that really affect anything.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
Perhaps because if we pretend that they left because of ignorance, they could still be saved. But that’s an aside.That’s what all Catholics think, even about former priests who, after all those years of immersion in the faith in seminary, are claimed not to have known the faith.
You’re unbelievable, but precious:Luke 24:1
But on the first day of the week, at early dawn, they came to the tomb bringing the spices which they had prepared.The Lord was resurrected on the third day—Sunday, the first day of the week.
Hellooooo!!!
I must preface my comments by reminding you that this was used by another sola scriptura Adventist brethren. WIth you, Catholics agree that Jesus was raised on a Sunday. But you didn’t seem to understand the objection raised by the Adventists, so I will rehash them for you: according to the Adventists, the resurrection of Christ on a Sunday has no bearing on which day Christians should hold their worship, since the NT did not command that the day of worship be transferred from Sabbath (Saturday) to Sunday.
You provided a reference to Scripture about worship on the evening of the first day of the week. But the Jewish day started (and still do) with the evening and ends on the next evening. Remeber in the account of creation, each day of creation ended with the refrain: “And there was evening, and there was morining, a xth day” (Genesis 1)? So the account in Acts could justifiably be interpreted as the breaking of bread commencing on Saturday evening. So some sola scriptura Christians continue to insist that their worship can only occur on Saturday evening.
sandusky;4405966:
I think it’ll be helpful if you refrain from such cheap slanders. I already mentioned that it was an argument posed by an Adventist friend. And if you disagree with him, perhaps you can point out what’s wrong with his reasoning, and help your fellow sola scriptura brother. Be constructive in your comments, instead of such useless snides.
If you think so.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
I think the Orthodox and Catholics would say that we have merely brought out the implications of the truths, i.e. developed the seeds found in the Apostolic preaching.
But I’m just curious, wouldn’t such concepts as Trinity, sola scriptura etc be not found in the Apostles Creed? Do you mean to say that these aren’t necessary? Just to help me understand your thoughts better.
Yes, not everything is equally important. Catholics also have different positions on such matters. But there are also certain concepts that are so important that it seems unreasonable that Christians don’t agree on. But in heaven, we should be able to agree on everything utterly. So I like to think any progress in theological unity is akin to progression towards the heavenly state.
But it is true that some of the sad divisions we see today have more to do with silly human pride than the advancement of God’s truths and kingdom.
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
I’m glad that you pointed that out, but if we look at John’s Gospel, all that Jesus did had a great deal of allusion and teachings going into it. Like the Bread of Life discourse from feeding the 5000 men, or the Light of the World discourse from healing the blind man. Might not the writer of John’s Gospel, or at least this part of the epilogue, also imply that with these events, there were also teachings that the Gospel had chosen not to include?
E
elvisman
Guest
Why, thank you, Sandusky.:tiphat:That post is a “keeper,” elvisman, thanks.
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
You do not see a possible connection with Peter denying Christ 3 times and the link to the Body of Christ and future persecutions of the Church and Christ later asking Peter 3 times if he loved Him?
James
C
CentralFLJames
Guest
Well we certainly know that Christ had a favored hand.
Mathew 25:32-33
“All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; 33 and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left.
Acts 2:33-35
Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear. 34 “For it was not David who ascended into heaven, but he himself says:
‘THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
“SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
35 UNTIL I MAKE YOUR ENEMIES A FOOTSTOOL FOR YOUR FEET.”’
James
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
I think Catholics agree with you on the first point, though I would prefer the phrasing “the oral teachings found expression in Scripture”, but that’s me
. As regards your next statement:Catholics are free to accept or reject. During the Council of Trent, it was debated whether to define that the sacred truths were committed partly in Scripture, and partly in Tradition. The Holy Spirit, guiding the Church, chose to omit the words “partly”. Today, we express more fully that Tradition is not simply a collection of teachings so that we can measure as more or less against Scripture, but the whole life of faith and the communication of the person and presence of Jesus.
I would disagree with your interpretation in the last sentence above. A textbook would also teach you the truths you need to know the rules of Italian, but having tried to learn Italian by using textbooks alone, I must say that it is an impossible task.
Also elsewhere, St John Chrysostom affirms the necessity of Tradition alone.
Whatever the Church Fathes may say about clarity, the experience of the ecclesiastical history, and the existence of this thread, shows plainly that it isn’t! Don’t forget that Catholics also find certain doctrines that Protestants object “clearly” taught in the Scriptures, and vice versa. The Fathers are also susceptible to moments of pious exaggeration. If the Scriptures were so clear, I doubt St Augustine would find it so difficult to deal with the Pelagians, and develop the doctrine of Original Sin.
And they are also not sola scripturists. It’s a quantum leap to go from “all the necessary things are -]clearly/-] set out in Scripture”, to “all the necessary things are only set out in Scripture”, or that “Tradition has no role to play in transmitting these necesary things”. A good handbook of scouting may everything you need to know about scouting, but it will be impossible to know what it means to be a scout without joining a scout group and experiencing the traditions of scouting.
The Fathers did not merely respect traditions that are consistent with Scripture, but they recognized that Holy Tradition, too, transmits the deposit of God’s revelation. They didn’t make a either-or choice, but an inclusive both-and.
ISTM (putting something I’ve learnt recently) that we can agree on quite a bit!
P
peregrinus_sg
Guest
Very funny.Well we certainly know that Christ had a favored hand.
I’m reminded of a PC Bible that tried to remove the biasness towards right handers so that left-handers wouldn’t feel excluded when they read the Bible. And the memory that’s stirring in my mind seems to connect its authors to some renegade ‘Catholic’ group called “Priests for Equality”.
S
savedsinner
Guest
- Status