Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[mackbrislawn]

Here is one way of looking at Traditon, and its relationship to Scripture…

A Jehovah’s Witness once told me that she believed the Bible was like a giant jigsaw puzzle.

Okay. To continue with her image of the Bible: With a jigsaw puzzle you dump the pieces on the table and try to assemble a picture from the pieces. I presume, then, that she meant that the verses of the Bible are like puzzle pieces and you then assemble a theological picture from them.

Now, though, a jigsaw puzzle comes in a box, and on the outside of the box there is always a picture of what the assembled picture should look like. That picture corresponds to Tradition–a tradition that shows us what the assembled theological puzzle should look like.

However, some people throw the box away, so they don’t know what the completed puzzle should look like. And they then put it together in a fashion that appeals to their human proclivities. Others may not like the picture on the box, so disregard it, and again assemble the puzzle according to their man-made likes and dislikes.

That explains the value of Tradition. St. Peter states this same idea in 2Pet 3:15-16 when he says, “There are certain things in the letters of our beloved brother Paul that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.”

The untaught correspond to those who throw the box away without looking at it, ie, they are ignorant. The unstable correspond to those who don’t like what the picture looks like, so try to put together something else.

It is a dangerous thing then for the ignorant and the unstable to try to understand Scripture without benefit of prior teaching, Tradition.

From this view point we see that Scripture is not sola, but comes to us in a box, which provides a guide for its proper understanding.

 

[rmcbride77]

Here is one way of looking at Traditon, and its relationship to Scripture…

A Jehovah’s Witness once told me that she believed the Bible was like a giant jigsaw puzzle.

Okay. To continue with her image of the Bible: With a jigsaw puzzle you dump the pieces on the table and try to assemble a picture from the pieces. I presume, then, that she meant that the verses of the Bible are like puzzle pieces and you then assemble a theological picture from them.

Now, though, a jigsaw puzzle comes in a box, and on the outside of the box there is always a picture of what the assembled picture should look like. That picture corresponds to Tradition–a tradition that shows us what the assembled theological puzzle should look like.

However, some people throw the box away, so they don’t know what the completed puzzle should look like. And they then put it together in a fashion that appeals to their human proclivities. Others may not like the picture on the box, so disregard it, and again assemble the puzzle according to their man-made likes and dislikes.

That explains the value of Tradition. St. Peter states this same idea in 2Pet 3:15-16 when he says, “There are certain things in the letters of our beloved brother Paul that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.”

The untaught correspond to those who throw the box away without looking at it, ie, they are ignorant. The unstable correspond to those who don’t like what the picture looks like, so try to put together something else.

It is a dangerous thing then for the ignorant and the unstable to try to understand Scripture without benefit of prior teaching, Tradition.

From this view point we see that Scripture is not sola, but comes to us in a box, which provides a guide for its proper understanding.

that is one of the best descriptions I have heard on Tradition
thanks!!

 

[cfrancis]

Many, including me, would disagree with you on that. We would say that they were infallibly defined by Trent.

That begs the question: when was the canon to which you subscribe infallibly defined?

Also, WRT to SS. When you declare “SS presumes a canon”, from what source does that statement come?
What is the source document/teacher for this definition of SS?
If that statement is a fundamental element of SS, it had to come from someone/some source.
Is it Apostolic in origin?
ECF?
Reformation?
Modern?

Sandusky?

 

[paul_c]

I think after 500 years of discussion on this point, it is fairly clear that the church as many non-scripitural doctrines that were handed down by tradition:

Purgatory (if you exclude Maccabees, as do many Protestants)

The communion of saints

the Immacutale Conception, Assumpiton and Crowning of Mary as Queen of the Universe

the role of the priests in the church

Papal infallibility on points of doctrine

The details of the way of the cross (Jesus falling 3 times, etc)

As discussed by many posters, the list can simply be created by taking all the doctrine in the catechism and subtracting out what is listed in scripture. An alternative method would simply be to list all the Catholine doctrines that Protestants don’t agree with because they are non-scriptural.

And therein lies the rub. The issue isn’t whether there are separate doctrines not written down in the 73 books of the bible. As you can see from the above, there clearly are. The issue is whether we believe that these were transmitted to the Apostles by Jesus and the Holy Spirit. From a Catholic perspective, the validity of these doctrines have been attested by the Church, many times in non-scriptural writings dating back to the early church fathers, Sometimes these doctrines are hinted at in scriptures (like the praying for the dead in Maccabees) but are not accepted by the Protestants because their interpretation doesn’t line up with the traditional interpretation by the church fathers.

In any case, to not believe the Church’s interpretation and non-scriptural doctrines implies that the Protestants think that the Church is lying about what they heard from Jesus and the Holy Spirit. The question I ask of those that believe this is what would be the church’s motivation to lie about doctrine? To do so would imperil their own souls. Do you think that people who have devoted their entire lives to God would take the disposition of their souls so lightly? Do you think the Holy Spirit would allow it? And what do they gain personally by preaching that Mary was conceived without sin, or that she was raised body and soul to heaven? What do the church father’s stand to gain by saying that there is a place after death where you can be purified before entering heaven? What do they gain by saying that the dead can benefit from our prayers and visa versa? Why would they make this stuff up? To me, if you can’t figure out a motivation for the Church to lie about these things, then the best course of action would be to believe that it was truly inspired…

 

[hope_7]

I have been reading some of thease posts. I think there is alot of misunderstang about the whole reformation movement and the condition of the church at that time.

I also think that if salvation or being born again like many have found could be experianced by many on this forum they would see and understand things quite differantly. I am not saying this to attack or put down anyone. When a person really gets saved they are changed from the inside. They are no longer the same.

When talking to someone who has not experianced the new birth it is impossible for them to really grasp what you are trying to tell them because one has to recieve this gift of God by faith before the miracle of being born again takes place. This is especially hard for those that are dedicated members of a church. Instantly they will put up a wall against it. They cant grasp this and it threatens them.

As far as traditions of the church and sola scripture. I would look at Jesus and follow His example. The church of His day was full with traditions. Some good and some bad. I would look at how He made it a point to keep the scriptures Jesus never did anything that was contrary to scripture but always obeyed it. I see Him comming against alot of traditions and the pharisees didnt like it at all.

I would take the new testament that we have and just read it and ask am I doing this. I would be willing to weigh the differant traditions that I have and have been taught. The things that are spoken by the priest or some preacher I would weigh by scripture to see if thease things were so.

I believe that the advice in the book of Acts 17:11 is what we should follow. They were using the scriptures to check out the things that Paul and Silus were teaching to see if what they said was true. They put the authority of scriptures over apostles and prophets and were accounted more noble because they not only recieved the word with readiness of mind. They searched the scriptures daily to see whether the things Paul and Silus taught were so.

Shouldnt we do this today?

 

[grayhog86]

How about a quote from the Lord?Mark 7:9-13

10 “For Moses said, ‘Honor your father and your mother’; and, ‘He who speaks evil of father or mother, is to be put to death’;

Question: If we are to imitate Christ…
Who is Jesus’ Father? Do you honor Him?
Who is Jesus’ Mother? Do you honor her?

Do you call her “blessed”? Do you honor her as the living Ark of the New Covenant?

13 thus invalidating the word of God by your tradition which you have handed down; and you do many things such as that.”While I don’t believe that all tradition is to be condemned, certainly, according to Jesus, all tradition that sets itself against scripture must be exposed for what it is, fought against, set aside, and ignored.

Question: *Is Christ speaking of the Traditions (oral traditions) of the New Covenant or the abuses and man-made traditions of the pharasis? *It is clear he is NOT speaking of the Ttraditions He Himself gives us but the abuses that have crept into the Jewish faith. Read scripture in context of the time, place and people.

 

[paul_c]

Hope 7:
Paul and Silas were undoubtedly describing the fact that Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophesies and the Beroeans were verifying that the quotes they were using were legitimate. After all, they couldn’t check against new testament scripture, since that wasn’t defined yet. The Catholic church expects people to use reason when searching for the faith, which is why the Beroean’s actions are shown in a positive light.

Your description of Jesus’s antipathy against tradition is valid, if and only if, tradition is counter to scripture, as it was in the examples Jesus is using. I think you would be hardpressed to find any Catholic Doctrine counter to scripture… What you will find instead is that it adds to and defines scripture. And that’s the rub. Scripture is a subset of the deposit of faith in the church. I won’t doubt the depth of your religious experiences, but I will suggest to you that by denying the traditions passed on through the church, you are depriving yourself of the fullness of God’s message.

 

[twb1621]

I have been reading some of thease posts. I think there is alot of misunderstang about the whole reformation movement and the condition of the church at that time.

Your insight is appreciated, however, please know the condition of the Church had to do with some of the people within the Church who were corrupt and things needed to be fixed but what also must be recognized is it had to do with corrupt people within the church, not the doctrine or teachings of the church itself. Even the corrupt have never changed that. The Church understands the motivation behind the reformation but it was the wrong way to seek correction and in the attempt, those instituting the reformation movement led many astray through the elimination of parts of the Bible and changing interpretations to suit their idea of how it should be.
I also think that if salvation or being born again like many have found could be experianced by many on this forum they would see and understand things quite differantly. I am not saying this to attack or put down anyone. When a person really gets saved they are changed from the inside. They are no longer the same.

Your points are taken not as insults but your thoughts, no problem. In response to the changes you refer to, first understand that the term “born again” has certain connotations attached to it so to avoid anyone getting confused, I will rephrase this as an “awakening”. There are many including Catholics who express an awakening as you describe, it is not limited to those outside of any church but certainly possible for the Holy Spirit to bring about such an experience. For Catholics, it has nothing to do with the Church, but does with their relationship with Jesus. With that said, they do not leave the Church over this. I can tell you from experience, those who distance themselves from the Catholic Church do so out of a lack of knowledge and understanding of their faith or a lack of strength to be able to live according to Christian teachings.
When talking to someone who has not experianced the new birth it is impossible for them to really grasp what you are trying to tell them because one has to recieve this gift of God by faith before the miracle of being born again takes place. This is especially hard for those that are dedicated members of a church. Instantly they will put up a wall against it. They cant grasp this and it threatens them.

Neither I nor anyone else I am familiar with feels threatened by anyone who feels or acquires genuine holiness nor should anyone because for one person to reach a state of holiness is beneficial to others. The concern is for those who are misled but believe they are “reborn” and some take that very literally. We are born with one soul and regardless of the depth we reach in our devotion, it is still that same soul. To be awakened is to be blessed with the power of the Holy Spirit with such an intense love that the depth of our love and devotion to God is stronger than life itself with no fear of what death brings because we trust and believe in Jesus that sincerely. The only fear should be the fear of hurting our Lord through sin while in this human life.

As far as traditions of the church and sola scripture. I would look at Jesus and follow His example. The church of His day was full with traditions. Some good and some bad. I would look at how He made it a point to keep the scriptures Jesus never did anything that was contrary to scripture but always obeyed it. I see Him comming against alot of traditions and the pharisees didnt like it at all.

Yes, Jesus not only followed the scriptures and the word of God, His Father, but fulfilled the scriptures and elaborated on and strengthened the scriptures and the commandments. This was all performed in His teachings to the Apostles and became the Traditions of His covenant, the new covenant.

I would take the new testament that we have and just read it and ask am I doing this. I would be willing to weigh the differant traditions that I have and have been taught. The things that are spoken by the priest or some preacher I would weigh by scripture to see if thease things were so.

You’re exactly correct in this. We as Catholics are urged to refer to scripture and to never let it be forgotten that all men are human including pastors, ministers priests and so on and are capable of error and sin.
I believe that the advice in the book of Acts 17:11 is what we should follow. They were using the scriptures to check out the things that Paul and Silus were teaching to see if what they said was true. They put the authority of scriptures over apostles and prophets and were accounted more noble because they not only recieved the word with readiness of mind. They searched the scriptures daily to see whether the things Paul and Silus taught were so.

I hope you understand the scriptures they were referring to where the OT and they were not only comparing the teachings against those, but using them to verify the teachings about Christ’s life with the OT prophecies about Him in comparing Him to the Messiah as described by the prophets. The New Testimant Scriptures were not written yet for them to be used. The NT scriptures came after hundreds of years of teaching through Tradition.
Shouldnt we do this today?

Nothing should refute scripture but we must be careful to attest to the correct interpretation of scripture to start with. God Bless You and thank you for your thoughts, I hope this helps.

 

[clmowry]

What an incredible roller coaster ride!
Did the ECFs believe in SS? Well according to Sandusky, SS presumes a canon of Scripture. How do they get to a canon of Scripture though? Nothing has been offered. In addition, it has been suggested that no canon was “presumed” until The Council of Trent. That would entirely eliminate the possibility of the ECFs operating under SS.
I dont know. The manner by which Protestants arrive at a canon of Scripture is remarkably similar to what Catholics refer to as Sacred Tradition, only Protestants cant have any traditions so they basically end up shooting themselves in the foot.
Lastly, the request for a “list” of Sacred Tradition was best addressed by Its Just Dave and Guanophore. Some folks simply will not accept such an ambiguous notion for Sacred Tradition. In that case, I still think the CCC is the best source for the list.** All that is required is one subtract the list of written traditions(aka Scripture) from it and you will have your list.**

Yep.

And you will get a different list from everybody attempting the exercise.

One man’s “implicitly found in scripture” is the next gals “clearly contradicted by scripture”.

Chuck

 

[twb1621]

Yep.

And you will get a different list from everybody attempting the exercise.

One man’s “implicitly found in scripture” is the next gals “clearly contradicted by scripture”.

Chuck

That’s the problem. What is clearly worded in scripture without the need for interpretation should not be reinterpreted and it should not conflict with what needs to be interpreted. If it does, the interpretation cannot be correct. Some do not seem to get that. They blow off the things they don’t like. That is the foundation for so many denominations.

 

[CentralFLJames]

No one’s interprets infallibly, Steve, anyone who proclaims to do so is, IMO, a fool.

It seems like you are subscribing to either the “greater fool theory” or are betting against the house that you in your infallability can call somone else’s’ infallability on the carpet at a higher statistical rate of certainty than anyone else.

In either case you are gambling on arbitrary tosses of the dice and if you can’t admit that you can’t trust even yourself nor admit that you are gambling on your own opinions then you are just fooling yourself in thinking you are less a fool than anyone else.

At least admit your psychological makeup makes it impossible for you to trust anyone except yourself and that predisposition is just yet another arbitrary choice. But given that you think the evil Catholics are all out to steal your salvation I can certainly understand the paranoia.

Your manner just gives further credence to my theory that Luther’s greatest contribution to the planet was proving beyond all reasonable doubt that like bad ideas, scrupulosity and mental illness are highly contagious. Now, we just need to discover how to treat it. In the old days exorcism was the catch all …

James

 

[CentralFLJames]

What an incredible roller coaster ride!
Did the ECFs believe in SS? Well according to Sandusky, SS presumes a canon of Scripture. How do they get to a canon of Scripture though? Nothing has been offered. In addition, it has been suggested that no canon was “presumed” until The Council of Trent. That would entirely eliminate the possibility of the ECFs operating under SS.
I dont know. The manner by which Protestants arrive at a canon of Scripture is remarkably similar to what Catholics refer to as Sacred Tradition, only Protestants cant have any traditions so they basically end up shooting themselves in the foot.
Lastly, the request for a “list” of Sacred Tradition was best addressed by Its Just Dave and Guanophore. Some folks simply will not accept such an ambiguous notion for Sacred Tradition. In that case, I still think the CCC is the best source for the list. All that is required is one subtract the list of written traditions(aka Scripture) from it and you will have your list.

I agree here. We could come up with an emulation or approximation of a “list” tradtion by pulling in the CCC into a spread sheet and then deleting all lines that have a foot note tied to a scriptural reference in half a day or so. But we both know its not the real thing since “tradition” in the fullest sense is an experience more so than it is an enumeration of concept and ideas. But it might be a good forcing function to give the barking dog a raw hide bone and see what he intends to do with it. My guess he would then bury it in the hyperbole of rhetoric and then demand we interpret that list. What does scripture say about tossing one’s pearls to the swine and arguing with a fool?

James

 

[twb1621]

…

In all sincerity, I have a few questions to ask and I hope you honestly answer;

1. Were you truly a practicing Catholic and if so for how long?
2. What happened to you that you turned away and why do you express so much hate for Catholicism and those within the Faith?

 

[CentralFLJames]

Here is one way of looking at Traditon, and its relationship to Scripture…

A Jehovah’s Witness once told me that she believed the Bible was like a giant jigsaw puzzle.

Okay. To continue with her image of the Bible: With a jigsaw puzzle you dump the pieces on the table and try to assemble a picture from the pieces. I presume, then, that she meant that the verses of the Bible are like puzzle pieces and you then assemble a theological picture from them.

Now, though, a jigsaw puzzle comes in a box, and on the outside of the box there is always a picture of what the assembled picture should look like. That picture corresponds to Tradition–a tradition that shows us what the assembled theological puzzle should look like.

However, some people throw the box away, so they don’t know what the completed puzzle should look like. And they then put it together in a fashion that appeals to their human proclivities. Others may not like the picture on the box, so disregard it, and again assemble the puzzle according to their man-made likes and dislikes.

That explains the value of Tradition. St. Peter states this same idea in 2Pet 3:15-16 when he says, “There are certain things in the letters of our beloved brother Paul that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the rest of the Scriptures.”

The untaught correspond to those who throw the box away without looking at it, ie, they are ignorant. The unstable correspond to those who don’t like what the picture looks like, so try to put together something else.

It is a dangerous thing then for the ignorant and the unstable to try to understand Scripture without benefit of prior teaching, Tradition.

From this view point we see that Scripture is not sola, but comes to us in a box, which provides a guide for its proper understanding.

Hey - thanks for sharing that - bravo.
I knew there was a reason why God permits JWs to exist - just to frustrate the do-it-yourself-salvation crowd with extraneous jigsaw pieces that don’t fit-in anywhere. That will keep the mischievous heretics safely occupied trying to fit 666 bogus jig-saw pieces into a salvation puzzle that only has room for only 153 genuine pieces to complete.

James

 

[BRB]

I have the authority of a God-given mind, and God-given reasoning abilities along with the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the ultimate authority of His word in writing.

:

Yes,

Authoritative scriptures … canonized by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after their penmanship. Scriptures that are infallible … since all here grant that the apostolic writings are infallible.

So, what did earliest Christians & Church use to obtain their infallible guidance ? Oral teachings/traditions of apostles/Christ.

Protestants read the infallible scriptures in many different ways. So, you cannot be certain your sect has the infallible interpretation ?

I’m sure you believe Christ has protected the scriptures infallibly down to the present age ? But, only the Catholic Church guarantees to the World it has infallibly protected the meanings thereof to the present day.

No other church can make the same claim, or pretend it can. Papal/Magi infallibility regarding faith/morals and scriptural interpretation is essential. Only Catholicism uniquely makes such a claim — and backs it up with 2000 years history.

By default, your church is fallible. That doesn’t mean you aren’t a Christian and saved. But, it means you are in rebellion and not in ideal communion with Christ & Church. Plenty of protestants have been in your shoes, convinced we were right and yet in err.

Remember, you are a work in progress. Look back 12-24 months ago, and you will see some of your ideas/beliefs have surely changed as you confront new ideas. Perhaps the H.S. [you claim to have] is calling you back to the true Church. As long as you seek the Christian brotherhood/sisterhood unity Christ promoted in Beatitudes … you should overcome in due course. We all hope to have Sandman and MD on board in a few more innings, and infallibly linked to the Hall of Fame Apostles & ECF’s they love so dear

 

[sandusky]

I’ve just re-read the entire thread and found this answered nowhere. What post # is this answered in?

Keep looking, Steve, I found it right away.

 

[sandusky]

rmcbride77:

No I don’t claim to have the right interpretation. The Roman Catholic Church does though and has had that right interpretation handed down through over 2000 years from the Apostles.

But you do have the right, and the ability to correctly read and interpret history, and know that the Church has the right interpretation of Scripture?

rmcbride77:

I came in line with that interpretation.

Yes, you did.
rmcbride7:

Your church is a schism of that church and has parted from the deposit of faith left us by the apostles as mine had. Come back home!!

rmcbride77:

Regarding history, you can’t just wave it off with a remark about pedigree. History is real, it happened. You might want to check it out.

Assumes that I haven’t.

rmcbride77:

I agree that the vacation statement is absurd. That is my whole point. You seem to like to avoid discussing issues by replying with one liners and smart remarks and I will bet you are going to answer with more one liners and smart remarks, thus proving that you have yet to give us a cohesive answer. What are you afraid of?

Assumes that I’m afraid.

rmcbride77:

on I Peter 1:19-21… what authority do you have to say you are right and a church 2000 years old with the smartest scripture scholars to ever walk the planet are wrong?..

I’ve already responded to that question.

rmcbride:

wake up, Lazarus…

So you have the Holy Spirit, and I don’t?

 

[sandusky]

paul c:

I think after 500 years of discussion on this point, it is fairly clear that the church as many non-scripitural doctrines that were handed down by tradition:

Purgatory (if you exclude Maccabees, as do many Protestants)

The communion of saints

the Immacutale Conception, Assumpiton and Crowning of Mary as Queen of the Universe

the role of the priests in the church

Papal infallibility on points of doctrine

The details of the way of the cross (Jesus falling 3 times, etc)

As discussed by many posters, the list can simply be created by taking all the doctrine in the catechism and subtracting out what is listed in scripture. An alternative method would simply be to list all the Catholine doctrines that Protestants don’t agree with because they are non-scriptural.

Thanks for posting that.
paul c:

And therein lies the rub. The issue isn’t whether there are separate doctrines not written down in the 73 books of the bible. As you can see from the above, there clearly are. The issue is whether we believe that these were transmitted to the Apostles by Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Understood.
paul c:

From a Catholic perspective, the validity of these doctrines have been attested by the Church, many times in non-scriptural writings dating back to the early church fathers, Sometimes these doctrines are hinted at in scriptures (like the praying for the dead in Maccabees) but are not accepted by the Protestants because their interpretation doesn’t line up with the traditional interpretation by the church fathers.

The praying for the dead in Maccabees, if we’re thinking of the same passage, pertains to prayers for the dead who died in the mortal sin of idolatry.
paul c:

In any case, to not believe the Church’s interpretation and non-scriptural doctrines implies that the Protestants think that the Church is lying about what they heard from Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

Not “lying,” Paul, but that oral transmission is not that trustworthy. There’s an old expression, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.” What’s contained in the writings cannot be as easily disputed.
paul c:

The question I ask of those that believe this is what would be the church’s motivation to lie about doctrine? To do so would imperil their own souls. Do you think that people who have devoted their entire lives to God would take the disposition of their souls so lightly?

Again, it’s not about lying, but falling into error. Concerning your point above about the CC priesthood not being in scripture, I believe that came out of a very early error, in which the Fathers misunderstood and misinterpreted the Scripture and formulated the idea that the Church replaced Israel, and inherited all of God’s promises to Israel. Here’s a book on that subject: Israel and the Church, the Origin and Effects of Replacement Theology.
paul c:

Do you think the Holy Spirit would allow it?

Well, I believe that supercessionism, or replacement theology, is an error that the Spirit allowed, and that affected the church’s liturgy, worship, and so on, right into the last century, as the author of the book I’ve cited finds.
paul c:

And what do they gain personally by preaching that Mary was conceived without sin, or that she was raised body and soul to heaven?

For me, it’s more of a question of what’s lost, and that would be the simplicity of grace, Christ, and the Gospel.

 

[clmowry]

You should probably go with inerrant scriptures not infallible a book cannot be infallible since it cannot defend itself.

Chuck

Yes,

Authoritative scriptures … canonized by the Catholic Church hundreds of years after their penmanship. Scriptures that are infallible … since all here grant that the apostolic writings are infallible.

So, what did earliest Christians & Church use to obtain their infallible guidance ? Oral teachings/traditions of apostles/Christ.

Protestants read the infallible scriptures in many different ways. So, you cannot be certain your sect has the infallible interpretation ?

I’m sure you believe Christ has protected the scriptures infallibly down to the present age ? But, only the Catholic Church guarantees to the World it has infallibly protected the meanings thereof to the present day.

No other church can make the same claim, or pretend it can. Papal/Magi infallibility regarding faith/morals and scriptural interpretation is essential. Only Catholicism uniquely makes such a claim — and backs it up with 2000 years history.

By default, your church is fallible. That doesn’t mean you aren’t a Christian and saved. But, it means you are in rebellion and not in ideal communion with Christ & Church. Plenty of protestants have been in your shoes, convinced we were right and yet in err.

Remember, you are a work in progress. Look back 12-24 months ago, and you will see some of your ideas/beliefs have surely changed as you confront new ideas. Perhaps the H.S. [you claim to have] is calling you back to the true Church. As long as you seek the Christian brotherhood/sisterhood unity Christ promoted in Beatitudes … you should overcome in due course. We all hope to have Sandman and MD on board in a few more innings, and infallibly linked to the Hall of Fame Apostles & ECF’s they love so dear

 

[paul_c]

Sandusky,
thanks for your post. Now we are getting somewhere. So we now agree that the there are indeed non-Scriptural doctrines. Your position is that they are in error, not because of any ill intent on the part of Catholics, but because they simply made mistakes in the translation from generation to generation…

Ok…

So what you are saying is that the Catholic hierarchy all came to the same errors and never corrected each other… About the things they cared most about and what was really their responsibility to convey from generation to generation… This at a time when they were calling council after council to address the various heresies of the day and to ensure that the Catholic Faith stayed unchanged.

Do you really think that’s a compelling theory?

Oh and by the way, all these doctrines were written down eventually. (see the CCC) They just didn’t get written down within the first generation (the requirement for scripture).

Isn’t it more likely that the Catholic hierarchy continued to translate the doctrines effectively under the guidance of the Holy Spirit despite the personal corruption of many (but certainly not all) in the church in the late middle ages . Can anyone prove otherwise?