Early church fathers believed in sola scriptura?

[Philthy]

I know to which canon you adhere; I just want to know when that canon was infallibly defined. You have not answered that yet.

I surely did get the non-answer.
You still have not provided the source of your statement “SS presupposes a canon” unless you are claiming you are the one who originally stated this.
Otherwise, you shouldn’t have much problem providing the ECF or Scripture verse or theologian who provided the world with the statement: “SS presupposes a canon.”

I got “scolded” earlier as well for being persistent along these lines…it seems to be a bit of a sore spot. Either that or I simply havent been paying attention…

 

[twb1621]

If the sheep wander off to destruction, then Christ fails to keep the Father’s charge, and therefore, He’s not a perfect savior (cf Jn 6:39).

you would actually believe it would be Jesus to blame if you you lost salvation based on the choices you make… so you are guaranteed salvation? That is the most ridiculous reasoning I have ever heard and has without doubt stood the test of time. What exactly do you think Christ is coming back to judge each of us for? This you can use common sense with.

I adhere to the 66 book protestant canon.
Its easier than ours, isn’t it.
SS presupposes scripture, as without scripture there can be no SS—common sense.
you’re still on this rant and I bet you didn’t consider the answers I provided you regarding your question asking for a list or the Church Fathers supporting Sacred Tradition. 3 pages ago.
That would be back in post #567

 

[rmcbride77]

Hi CM!

While I agree with you from an intellectual standpoint regarding the reasonableness of SS, I have to also point out that part of the problem with the Catholic Church is…well…Catholics!
There has been plenty to dissuade non-Catholics from considering Catholicism - particularly in the USA. I say this not to bash the Church I love, but because without confronting our own failings we will not move to fix them. I think that the Protestant Reformation is an opportunity to re-examine various aspects of parish life, for example, to improve it.

I would have to disagree with you about the “reasonableness” of SS. I don’t see how it is reasonable at all. Especially when we see the fruit of 500 years of this heresy: Over 35,000 Protestant denominations all claiming to have the right interpretation.

 

[rmcbride77]

Please don’t confuse the recent 2 pope’s statements that one MAY possibly be saved without formal membership in the Catholic Church as a guarantee that ANY of them will be. The Church believes that is it irregular and an exception to be saved outside of formal membership in the Catholic Church. The recent Pope’s are just acknowledging God’s sovereign right to work outside of the channels of grace we have through the Catholic Church. Jesus wanted all to be formal members in His Church and to receive all the sacramental graces.

So I think its important to see these papal statements and teachings for what they are: 1) Recognition of God’s sovereignty and 2) appeals to ecumenical outreach that are intended to open the door to people who want to join the Catholic Church. But the Catholic church will never change its teachings or dogmas just to accommodate ecumenical sentiments. What The Church does is signal that she is always open to meaningful dialog. The clear message has always been that “all salvation is through the Catholic Church” - either through formal membership or through the good graces of The Church as permitted by God Himself.

I still hold to the belief that no Protestant has ever been recognized within Protestantism nor the Catholic Church as having attained any level of saintliness or any degree of advanced theosis. Although in so saying I am not rejecting that there are well intentioned and pious individuals who are outwardly living a Christian lifestyle and morality. But then again there are agnostics and atheist who are humanist-moralists that also exhibit outward sings of moral living - clearly though a saintly interior disposition is not present in those who knowingly reject God and His Church.

Regards,
James

I don’t agree with the conclusions you have jumped to. I don’t see this hard line when I read scripture, the CCC or the Pope’s Encyclicals. I agree that the best possible world would have been where there had been no Schism and every Christian could avail themselves of the graces found in the 7 sacraments, especially the Eucharist. But I think that you underestimate the sovereignty and Mercy of the Father. Remember the Divine Mercy Novena and chaplet. Think about the Mercy that our Lord wants to pour onto the whole world.

 

[rmcbride77]

If you could produce the list you could fathom it. Maybe that’s your problem.

You call it a reduction because you can’t produce it.

ISTM, you know as much about women as you know about the list—not much.

I wasn’t referring to scripture, but to the statement in your catechism.

I know it says what I assert, it’s you that has the difficulty with RCC teaching on the subject.

You are precious in your ambiguity and equivocation.

I love Catholics.

The list is kept in the heart of every faithful Catholic, and yet, not one of them can produce the comprehensive list—Odd. Perhaps they’re deceived?

I know; much is in an written list, kept in the hearts of faithful Catholics, and none of them can produce the list.

What’s your point?

Agreed.
What???

Sounds good, but that’s about it.
It’s a result of your shuckin’ and jivin’ me 'bout the list.

I have not gotten a response from you when I gave you the following in my preceding post:
Originally Posted by rmcbride77:

If you will, the list in its most accessible form is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Read it for yourself and see the sacred Tradition, the Life and practice of the Church as She lives and breathes the Sacred Scripture.

Now that you have been given a place to read the traditions for yourself, you would rather ignore our anwers and keep squawking like a parrot “Gimme da list, Gimme da list” Who is shuckin’ and jivin’ now???

 

[CentralFLJames]

I don’t agree with the conclusions you have jumped to. I don’t see this hard line when I read scripture, the CCC or the Pope’s Encyclicals. I agree that the best possible world would have been where there had been no Schism and every Christian could avail themselves of the graces found in the 7 sacraments, especially the Eucharist. But I think that you underestimate the sovereignty and Mercy of the Father. Remember the Divine Mercy Novena and chaplet. Think about the Mercy that our Lord wants to pour onto the whole world.

This is off topic but I must ask what conclusions are those Ron?
There is nothing I have concluded that is contrary to the CCC or scripture or the Encyclicals to my knowledge. I do not underestimate God’s sovereignty nor Mercy any more than I underestimate God’s Justice and Jesus’ commandments. Part of Mercy is showing Mercy to those who HUMBLY request it not to those who mock God and defy his ordinances and His appointed authorities. Mercy is to be begged for with tears and pleading not demanded and NEVER assumed as if one has a right to it by simply calling oneself “Christian” while promoting and living heretical anti-Christian teachings. So be careful you don’t soften your catechism into the errors of religious pluralism and moral relativism - both heresies.

I stand by my statements and think you are over reading me. You may PM me if you like to keep this OP on topic.

James

 

[rmcbride77]

This is off topic but I must ask what conclusions are those Ron?
There is nothing I have concluded that is contrary to the CCC or scripture or the Encyclicals to my knowledge. I do not underestimate God’s sovereignty nor Mercy any more than I underestimate God’s Justice and Jesus’ commandments. Part of Mercy is showing Mercy to those who HUMBLY request it not to those who mock God and defy his ordinances and His appointed authorities. Mercy is to be begged for with tears and pleading not demanded and NEVER assumed as if one has a right to it by simply calling oneself “Christian” while promoting and living heretical anti-Christian teachings. So be careful you don’t soften your catechism into the errors of religious pluralism and moral relativism - both heresies.

I stand by my statements and think you are over reading me. You may PM me if you like to keep this OP on topic.

James

Well said and I agree with you for the most part but not every Protestant is as you described. But lets do take this off line. I will PM you.

God Bless

 

[sandusky]

Now that you have been given a place to read the traditions for yourself, you would rather ignore our anwers and keep squawking like a parrot “Gimme da list, Gimme da list” Who is shuckin’ and jivin’ now???

OK; they’re in the catechism.

 

[BRB]

**

Although in so saying I am not rejecting that there are well intentioned and pious individuals who are outwardly living a Christian lifestyle and morality. ,
**

There are many such non-catholics, who accept Jesus as Messiah and strive to imitate Christ. They will join whatever church will best help them in their mission to serve God.

Those who have discovered Catholicism will generally say it’s the ‘best fit’ for them. They also will testify that their understanding of Christianity is vastly improved by the Church’s D & D’s, and proper understanding/receiving of sacraments.

However, if you attempt to convince them they weren’t Saved before their discovery of Catholicism … they know otherwise. Salvation is not exclusive to the Catholics … although it is best experienced/lived thru the Church.

Many Protestants have written of their pilgrimage from Protestant faiths into Catholic Church. But, I haven’t seen many who proclaim their salvations came only after entering Catholicism.

Scott Hahn is exhibit #1. He is grateful for his Protestant years, and believes they have made him a better Catholic.

Finally, with regards to ecumenical efforts of Church in past and present. No one wants the Church to give away its D & D’s. But, doesn’t it trouble you that it hasn’t obtained unity with Eastern Church … after almost 1000 years ? Perhaps it’s because it has taken the ‘hardline’ approach for too many of these years.

I would like to see the Church promote Matt Chps 5-7 more in its ecumenical efforts. I think the Protestant & Eastern faiths would be swept back into the fold if some Sermon on Mount ecumenical efforts got a grassroots start within the laity.

We do know that the Catholic leadership often responds to movements of faith/action within the Universal membership. If Catholic laity/priests will work towards a unified Springtime of Harvest …JP2 believed better ecumenical results would surely follow. I see it already starting … but, we need you on board.

 

[paul_c]

In the end, I believe that those who achieve heaven will have demonstrated Love for God and Love for Neighbor. This requires more than simply following the 10 commandments. It requires the willingness to do things for others and for God, without expecting anything in return. True love is more than just feelings, it requires action.

I believe that therefore, heaven could possibly be achieved by those outside the Catholic faith. Unfortunately, Protestant doctrine can be an impediment to loving God and neighbor. For instance, the concept of Salvation by Faith alone, eliminates the need for the very action that is required for salvation. The concept of Scripture alone, robs the Protestant of the insight necessary to find his salvation and the concept of the priesthood of the people, robs the Protestant of the Grace of the sacrements. So for a Protestant to achieve heaven, they would actually have to act like a Catholic, without declaring themselves one, while simultaneously denying or ignoring the tenets of their own faiths.

 

[BRB]

for a Protestant to achieve heaven, they would actually have to act like a Catholic, without declaring themselves one, while simultaneously denying or ignoring the tenets of their own faiths.

There are millions of Protestants who believe in the real Presence, the essential need for fruitful works, Mary as every virgin, hold a Prolife viewpoint, Apostolic traditions, etc.

Determined Catholic educational/evangelical efforts to them would yield a major harvest. Look how many have already been brought to Church thru efforts of Hahn and all the other Catholic Apologists who were once Protestants.

 

[cfrancis]

This tangent of how/if Protestants can achieve heaven is interesting, but it is letting Sandusky off the hook of answering some tough questions…

 

[paul_c]

This tangent of how/if Protestants can achieve heaven is interesting, but it is letting Sandusky off the hook of answering some tough questions…

I don’t think Sandusky has anything else to add, do you? All he can do at this point is capitulate, which he won’t do on this forum, or rehash the same arguments for the third time.

 

[sandusky]

I don’t think Sandusky has anything else to add, do you? All he can do at this point is capitulate, which he won’t do on this forum, or rehash the same arguments for the third time.

cfrancis:

This tangent of how/if Protestants can achieve heaven is interesting, but it is letting Sandusky off the hook of answering some tough questions…

 

[paul_c]

Which proves my point.

 

[cfrancis]

I suppose the above is the best we can expect as far as answers to the following:

1. when was the canon to which you subscribe infallibly defined?
2. 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?

You have yet to provide an answer to either of these…but I suppose it’s because you’re too busy rolling on the floor laughing

 

[Philthy]

I would have to disagree with you about the “reasonableness” of SS. I don’t see how it is reasonable at all. Especially when we see the fruit of 500 years of this heresy: Over 35,000 Protestant denominations all claiming to have the right interpretation.

I didnt say SS was reasonable, I said that I agree with CM regarding it’s reasonableness. I guess I should have said that I agree with him that it is not reasonable…

 

[Philthy]

OK; they’re in the catechism.

Yes, simply subtract out your “list of biblical truths” from all the truths in the Catechism and you will have your list, no? I suggested this quite some time ago…

 

[sandusky]

I suppose the above is the best we can expect as far as answers to the following:

1. when was the canon to which you subscribe infallibly defined?
2. 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?

You have yet to provide an answer to either of these…but I suppose it’s because you’re too busy rolling on the floor laughing

Yea, those are show-stoppers, already answered.

But, hey, we know the list of unwritten traditions are in the Catechism, no one knows exactly where, but they’re in there.

 

[cfrancis]

Yea, those are show-stoppers, already answered.

But, hey, we know the list of unwritten traditions are in the Catechism, no one knows exactly where, but they’re in there.

Odd, but you’ve provided no answers to these, yet claim they are already answered.

Just refresh my memory, then. Either porivde the link to the post with the answers, or just provide the answers!

1. Date your canon of 66 books was defined: __________
   (hint: we’d be looking for a date)
2. Source for your “SS presumes a canon” statement: _________
   (hint: we’d be looking for the person who first presented this statement of fact; you know, someone from Scripture, or an ECF, something like that)

Because, hey, you say you’ve given these answers, but no one knows exactly where…