Foundation

[myfavoritmartin]

Joe Gloor:

I think that the protestant belief in solo scriptura is detrimental to your salvation, not mine.
I don’t think it’s a matter of Montana man being right, it’s a matter of what the Church teaches.
Someone is right and someone is wrong.
The Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, is right.
Montana man is simply in agreement.
Protestants, in their disagreement with the Church, are wrong.
Each and every protestant can (and I submit does) come up with their own doctrines based on their own Biblical interpretation.
When the Catholic Church makes Doctrine based on Biblical interpretation and the Tradition of the Apostles, it is going to be correct.
When a protestant makes doctrine based on his own Biblical interpretation, who knows?
Am I going to trust any man or am I going to trust the Church that Jesus founded?
It’s not a difficult question for me to answer.

Your church that you claim Jesus founded and my church that I claim Jesus founded are 2 diffrent items.
I am willing to take my chances on the word of God over the uninspired word of man, as I mentioned earlier it is our resposibility to take what is taught us and read the scriptures daily to verify it’s truth. Acts 17:11

 

[Eden]

*"*I would like you to quote where Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus say the Roman bishop is involved in the “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon”."

Clement circa 88 CE
Ignatius died at Rome between 98 and 117 CE.
Iranaeus circa 170 CE

If you know the history of the New Testament, you will realize that Clement, Ignatius and Irenaeus lived before and during the first phase of the development of the New Testament. So, what exactly are you expecting to have been said by these men at this phase of the NT development?

A. THE FORMATION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON (A.D. 100-220)

“The idea of a complete and clear-cut canon of the New Testament existing from the beginning, that is from Apostolic times, has no foundation in history. The Canon of the New Testament, like that of the Old, is the result of a development, of a process at once stimulated by disputes with doubters, both within and without the Church, and retarded by certain obscurities and natural hesitations, and which did not reach its final term until the dogmatic definition of the Tridentine Council.”

B. THE PERIOD OF DISCUSSION (A.D. 220-367)

“In this stage of the historical development of the Canon of the New Testament we encounter for the first time a consciousness reflected in certain ecclesiastical writers, of the differences between the sacred collections in divers sections of Christendom. This variation is witnessed to, and the discussion stimulated by, two of the most learned men of Christian antiquity, Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea, the ecclesiastical historian. A glance at the Canon as exhibited in the authorities of the African, or Carthaginian, Church, will complete our brief survey of this period of diversity and discussion…”

C. THE PERIOD OF FIXATION (A.D. 367-405)

D. SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT CANON

1. To the Protestant Reformation

2. The New Testament and the Council of Trent (1546)

3. The New Testament Canon outside the Church

4. The criterion of inspiration (less correctly known as the criterion of canonicity)

www.newadvent.org/cathen/03274a.htm

 

[Fredricks]

If you know the history of the New Testament, you will realize that Clement, Ignatius and Irenaeus lived before and during the first phase of the development of the New Testament. So, what exactly are you expecting to have been said by these men at this phase of the NT development?

My response was to this statement from Jane:

We have numerous 1st and 2nd century writings which indicate the immense weight and importance of oral doctrinal tradition and the authority of the episcopacy in concert with the Roman bishop in the development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon. (I recommend reading Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and yes, Eusebius). Yet, for almost 400 years, the Church was essentially void of the modern Biblical text that some insist one must rely on for all doctrinal truth.

She is telling ME TO read Clement, Ignatius, and Iraneus…and Eusebius.

I SAY:

“I would like you to quote where Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus say the Roman bishop is involved in the “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon”.”

Notice I leave out Eusebius, I know he talks about the canon. SHE was the one telling me to read those guys(Clement, Ignatius, and Iraneus) about the Canon.
I only responded.

Eden. We AGREE. I do not think Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus would have much to say about the role of of the Roman bishop in THAT ERA about the development of the canon. I never claimed that, Jane did. Of course Eusebius did. He was writing much later and I know he talked a lot about it.

 

[montanaman]

myfavoritmartin:

That was a post I needed, it made me smile even laugh I might add. I am guilty as charged.
I’m done shortly God bless everyone and have a great evening.
-Simon

Well, that’s something. Maybe with a few more good works like that I’ll earn my wings.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

My response was to this statement from Jane

:

So, I’d like to jump in here. . .

We have numerous 1st and 2nd century writings which indicate the immense weight and importance of oral doctrinal tradition and the authority of the episcopacy in concert with the Roman bishop in the development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon. (I recommend reading Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and yes, Eusebius)

. Yet, for almost 400 years, the Church was essentially void of the modern Biblical text that some insist one must rely on for all doctrinal truth.

She is telling ME TO read Clement, Ignatius, and Iraneus…and Eusebius.

Yes, indeed, I recommended reading Clement, Ignatius, Irenaeus, and Eusebius. This recommendation immediately followed a comment about the authority of the episcopacy in concert with the Bishop of Rome in the development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon. Please note that this was a parenthetical recommendation. It was not meant to infer that I had some smoking gun quotation in mind. I simply recommended these particular Fathers as good references for what the early Church did, believed, practiced, and thought.

I SAY:

“I would like you to quote where Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus say the Roman bishop is involved in the “development and acceptance of the New Testament Canon”.”

As I said, I did not have specific quotations in mind when I wrote this. This was never my intention in recommending these Fathers’ writings. I did, however, respond. My response was in concert with my orginal intent.

Eden. We AGREE. I do not think Clement, Ignatius, and Iranaeus would have much to say about the role of of the Roman bishop in THAT ERA about the development of the canon. I never claimed that, Jane did. Of course Eusebius did. He was writing much later and I know he talked a lot about it.

Mr. Fredricks, you have either mistaken the intent of my original statement OR you have twisted it to somehow make this particular point a straw man. I never claimed that any of these men said specifically the things you demand proof of. In any case, please understand that my original recommendation to read these early Church Fathers was just that: a parenthetical recommendation.

Upon reading these and other 1st and 2nd century Chruch Fathers, however, I still firmly believe that any exhaustive study will render a picture in which the early Church gave “immense weight and importance to oral doctrinal tradition,” led by an authoritative episcopacy in concert with the Roman Bishop, and was particularly interested in the developing canon of Scripture. This was my original point.

 

[JaneFrances]

And too. . .

Can we get back to some semblance of the original dialogue?

These are all very valid tangents, but they really don’t seem to be getting us any closer to anwers we were seeking in the beginning.

Bible Alone OR Bible and Tradition?

 

[Joe_Gloor]

Fredricks:

Really?
A person goes back 133 posts to take **ONE ** sentence from something I said and then edits it to suit their cause is a good thing?

I’m not in a position to judge it good or bad. I’m only saying that objecting to it does nothing to further your argument against the use of Tradition.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

myfavoritmartin:

Your church that you claim Jesus founded and my church that I claim Jesus founded are 2 diffrent items.
I am willing to take my chances on the word of God over the uninspired word of man, as I mentioned earlier it is our resposibility to take what is taught us and read the scriptures daily to verify it’s truth. Acts 17:11

Nothing personal, but I don’t trust your ‘uninspired’ interpretation of Scripture, whereas I do trust the ‘inspired’ wisdom of the Catholic Church, because Jesus said the gates of Hell would not prevail against it.
The church you claim Christ founded was invisible for 1600 years until suddenly some men found a new interpretation of the Scriptures which opposed the Traditional teachings of my Church which has been visible and active since the time of Christ.

Matthew 5:15 Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house.

The Bible can and has been interpretted in myriad ways to defend any number of false doctrines, from Mormonism to Jehovah’s Witness to David Koresh. God provided us with a definitive agent to defend us against heresy - that is the Catholic Church.

2Peter 1:20-21 2:1 Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit. But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

Joe Gloor:

Nothing personal, but I don’t trust your ‘uninspired’ interpretation of Scripture, whereas I do trust the ‘inspired’ wisdom of the Catholic Church

How is it that you can be so comfortable in stating “inspired wisdom of the catholic church” almost like it is more inspired by God than the Bible.

 

[myfavoritmartin]

And come on… leave it to a Catholic to compare protestants to david koresh. I know Catholics think we protestants are heretics but that might be a little bit of a reach. DON"T YOU THINK???

 

[montanaman]

myfavoritmartin:

And come on… leave it to a Catholic to compare protestants to david koresh. I know Catholics think we protestants are heretics but that might be a little bit of a reach. DON"T YOU THINK???

That depends…do you have an armed compound?

 

[Fredricks]

JaneFrances:

And too. . .

Can we get back to some semblance of the original dialogue?

These are all very valid tangents, but they really don’t seem to be getting us any closer to anwers we were seeking in the beginning.

Bible Alone OR Bible and Tradition?

i was still waiting for you to tell me is the defintion and what constitutes Sacred Tradition has changed.
Unless you want me to skip part three of my defense.

 

[DeFide]

Fredricks:

i was still waiting for you to tell me is the defintion and what constitutes Sacred Tradition has changed.
Unless you want me to skip part three of my defense.

I don’t mean to butt in:

…one must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case “T”) that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case “t”) that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church’s calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church’s public worship.

source:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html

From the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**TRADITION: **The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (75-82). The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition (83).

for more see:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#I

Note that Sacred Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition.

(If this isn’t germane to the discussion, please ignore)

 

[Tonks40]

myfavoritmartin:

How is it that you can be so comfortable in stating “inspired wisdom of the catholic church” almost like it is more inspired by God than the Bible.

Because in the Catholic POV, we do believe that Christ’s Church is guided by the Holy Spirit.

We understand that everything is handed down, lead, and revealed from God - the prophets of the OT, the Incarnation of Christ, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition - and these become nicely in-sync with a total and fuller understanding.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

myfavoritmartin:

How is it that you can be so comfortable in stating “inspired wisdom of the catholic church” almost like it is more inspired by God than the Bible.

Indeed, it is my belief that the Catholic Church is inspired by the Holy Spirit, who, according to the Tradition of the Catholic Church, is God.

 

[Joe_Gloor]

myfavoritmartin:

And come on… leave it to a Catholic to compare protestants to david koresh. I know Catholics think we protestants are heretics but that might be a little bit of a reach. DON"T YOU THINK???

I certainly see it as an extreme point on a continuum of false doctrine beginning with Martin Luther.
I entered Koresh as an example of 2 Peter 2:1 “They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves.”
Obviously, most Protestants don’t deny the sovereignty of the Lord.
David Koresh is an example of just how far afield a person can go using ‘do it yourself’ Biblical interpretation.
James Jones also comes to mind.

 

[JaneFrances]

Fredricks:

i was still waiting for you to tell me is the defintion and what constitutes Sacred Tradition has changed.
Unless you want me to skip part three of my defense.

I don’t think we’re on part three yet. . .You still have work to do on part one.

 

[JaneFrances]

DeFide:

I don’t mean to butt in:

…one must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case “T”) that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case “t”) that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church’s calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred Tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing what the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it is always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church’s public worship.

source:
geocities.com/thecatholicconvert/solascriptura21.html

From the Glossary of the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

**TRADITION: **The living transmission of the message of the Gospel in the Church. The oral preaching of the Apostles, and the written message of salvation under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit (Bible), are conserved and handed on as the deposit of faith through the apostolic succession in the Church. Both the living Tradition and the written Scriptures have their common source in the revelation of God in Jesus Christ (75-82). The theological, liturgical, disciplinary, and devotional traditions of the local churches both contain and can be distinguished from this apostolic Tradition (83).

for more see:
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s1c2a2.htm#I

Note that Sacred Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition.

(If this isn’t germane to the discussion, please ignore)

Perfectly germane!

 

[awfulthings9]

myfavoritmartin:

And come on… leave it to a Catholic to compare protestants to david koresh. I know Catholics think we protestants are heretics but that might be a little bit of a reach. DON"T YOU THINK???

He didn’t.

Joe’s words: “The Bible can and has been interpretted in myriad ways to defend any number of false doctrines, from Mormonism to Jehovah’s Witness to David Koresh. God provided us with a definitive agent to defend us against heresy - that is the Catholic Church.”

He isn’t attacking Protestantism but personal interpretation by showing the dangerous extremes to which it leads. In fact, the word Protestant doesn’t even appear in the entire post.

Rather than playing the victim card or stereotyping Catholics with lines like, “leave it to a Catholic” or “Catholics think we Protestants are heretics”, the thread will be much healthier if you just provide an intelligent responce to Joe’s valid point that personal interpretation, without a teaching authority, leads to dangerous theology.

I don’t mean to be harsh here, but we have to avoid logical fallacies in order to dig into the truth. Was there a logical problem with what Joe presented? Was there a factual error? If not, then it deserves something other than an emotional reaction.

God bless.

 

[Eden]

myfavoritmartin:

And come on… leave it to a Catholic to compare protestants to david koresh. I know Catholics think we protestants are heretics but that might be a little bit of a reach. DON"T YOU THINK???

You did not read the specific post to which I was replying. If you look back more closely, you will see that Giver claims that God gave him a special message involving the future of the world and the need for Giver to transmit his message and organize a separate group of believers. This is claiming to be a prophet and mirrors the way in which cults like the Branch Davidians formed. I never “compared Protesants” to David Koresh.