Hey Nicea325,
Okay,but how do you conclude or assume that simply means without a shred of doubt Aquinas only believed in the Bible-Only or is the final authority? How do you come to such a conclusion from one paragraph or quote?Hey Nicea325,
I would argue based on my readings of St. Thomas, firstly - I will never know enough of his intellect to get close enough to summarising him!
But moving back on track… I see his quote as showing he was here submitting the successors of the Apostles and Prophets to Scripture, in the same way I interpret myself doing with teachers today.
In Christ
Lincs
Okay,but with all respect and kindness to your understanding, it is faulty. You are merely “proof-texting” or reading “into” the text something which is not there or stated. Tons of Bible-Only folks repeatedly do the same with other early church fathers. They merely find a quote where the church mentions scripture and the Protestant believes he or she has presented a smoking gun proving the Bible-Only. Simply because he makes reference to Scripture does not mean without a doubt Aquinas is basically saying: Scripture is the final authority.Nicea325,
Agreed, i do not know St. Thomas well enough yet to make such a bold claim, fair point.
However i see that quote as speaking for itself. I do know of him speaking of the authority of the Catholic Church as well, his final words for example. Il have to brush up on some summa!
What I suppose i see here though is broadly where i fall into it all, namely what is that final authority by which all else is held? St.Thomas here seems to grant it to Scripture.
But as you say, until i know him inside out i cant make such an assertation, but for now, with a line like that, im still inclined to my original reading of it.
Good Discussion.
In Christ
Lincs
You’re very welcome.
Ah, St. Aquinas. It is his philosophy and theology I follow 80% of the time, I hope you enjoy his writings as much as I do. The other 20% is based upon St. Therese.
Ok, so then there are Protestants that are farther from Catholicism and closer to the truth than you.
There ARE differences of opinion in Catholicism. Differences are not a problem. The Franciscans are very different from the Dominicans, etc. You do not have to believe in Fatima or Lourdes. You do not have to pray the Rosary. Differences only become a problem when you change the core of the religion.
that simply doesn’t follow
that makes sense…but where the problem arises is with all those things that the CC now claims must be believed, even though they were never part of the original rule of faith (as described in the NT and by the first Church fathers)
by faith
no further
zero
This is merely wishful thinking on your part. The rule of faith described by Irenaeus (the core of the mid-second century Christian religion) sure doesn’t contain the Catholic doctrines that I reject and which your Church now claims must be accepted
again, this simply doesn’t follow.
Although I seriously doubt your prophetic abilities, you are right with this one thing…truth doesn’t change. It doesn’t “develop” either…and IMHO it isn’t defined by your Church
they are the product of man’s reasoning…which isn’t always flawless
“persons” or “people” is also a philosophical term…and if you feel that God should properly be described as being constituted in 4 or 5 persons, then I would invite you to start a thread. Personally, I don’t think there is any reason to make such an argument…I don’t see any good evidence for it.
which NT canon do you have in mind?
the flawless philosophy would be the one that isn’t man-made…
Indeed this is the question, obviously this is so vast a topic, were only on Sola Scriptura. I would say for Aquinas he would say no.
First and foremost it was God, hence the verse ive oddly yet to post in a SS discussion ; 2 Timothy 3:16 “God-Breathed” This is the question always asked of a Protestant, If i may i would like to paste some of my original post, to save typing it again -
I view none having authority over it, it is God’s Breathed word. Logic determines either it or the Church has to be the Final Authority, from the case im trying to make, I see it as Scripture.
You said: “I don’t hold to the flavor of SS put forward by Luther…he was still “too Catholic”.”
It is encouraging to see a post of this kind, Cat. I have been here a short time, but I’ve noticed that most contributors do not pause to consider “the other guy’s side.” It’s nice to see that you recognize that there is wisdom and a defensible position on the Protestant side–even though you do not agree with it. To “disagree without being disagreeable” is a valuable art. Bravo.
This “obviousness” of corruption is purely a product of your Protestant heritage. This “corruption” was obvious to me before I converted, not because the Catholic traditions contradicted scripture (which they don’t, not at all) but because I had been taught that they did growing up. We read the same Bible, but from different points of view. Protestant churches emphasize certain parts of the Bible, while Catholics see the whole Bible through the valid, uncorrupted tradition of the apostles, and the whole thing makes sense. When I found my way into Catholic thought, I found that the whole Bible was sort of illuminated in a way that it wasn’t for me before; I remember many passages were very difficult for me as a Protestant calvinist because many verses contradicted my former theology. Not only that, but I found that Catholic theology had its place in every part of Church history; I can start with the Fathers and go on from there, and Catholic theology is so obvious there.
This is the point he is trying to make… the reformers also believed as you do, that they had the truth and it was found in scripture. You are saying that they didn’t have the full truth, they were still “too Catholic.” Even puritan theology, especially with regards to salvation, is different from modern Calvinism, anyone who can read can discern that for themselves. So the point is, if they had it wrong, and were just getting “closer to the truth,” by what means do you think that you know you have it right? Who’s to say that a hundred years from now whatever protestant tradition you belong to will not say “well the people of radical’s faith tradition had it almost right, but we know better than them now because we read the scriptures and have faith”?
You have said this many times yet you don’t have any real evidence that the traditions are merely products of man’s reasoning, you just say it. And by whatever standard you say it, it can thence be just as easily argued that the scriptures are also merely products of man’s reasoning.
There is only one New Testament canon, and it is used by both of us. It was also established by the Catholic Church as authentic writings of the apostles, as opposed to the unauthentic ones. When you accept this canon as infallible, whether you realize it or not, you accept the authority of the Catholic Church in their decision.
Again, show/prove how our philosophy is man-made and yours is not. Right now you are just making noises.
so, if someone said the “porridge is too cold” then hotter is always better? The CC has many things that are right and it is good to be Catholic in those areas.
It works for me…and it is also what I would use to describe your “system of measurement”.
possibly…though, in many instances the differences aren’t all that great
Actually there is a serious question as to how any of the ECFs (of the first two centuries in particular) would have reacted if presented with the CC of today…after seeing its rather dark (at times) history and its added doctrines and its love of wealth and power, an ECF could find a number of reasons to conclude that it isn’t the bride of Christ.
Isn’t this really the whole debate then? Everything else is moot!
and a product of my study of history and a product of a more simple approach to biblical studies.
Catholic theologians are extremely intelligent fellows. They aren’t going to adopt a doctrine that can not (in some way) be reconciled with scripture. That being said, some of their efforts at reconciliation leave a lot to be desired.
Everyone emphasizes certain parts of the Bible over other parts. You claim you see the Bible through uncorrupted tradition, whereas I think that you see the Bible through corrupted tradition.
Really? I had suggested Mariology as a starting point…where is Catholic Mariology between 50 AD and 150 AD if Catholic theology had its place in every part of Church history? That, of course, should be pursued on a different thread.
This is related to my point. We know what is morally right. Sometimes we swing to the left and sometimes to the right but we always know what is right and we find our way back. A Protestant Church changes the definition of what is morally right. It can’t find its way back to normal because it has changed what is normal. Moreover, a Protestant cannot measure their progress towards what is morally normal since they have changed what is morally moral. I would give a specific example but I do not know what your denomination is.
The above explains why this can’t be true.
There is NO question the ECF’s would disprove forms of Christianity without things, like sacraments, Priests and Bishops with Apostolic Succession, the real presence in the Eucharist, Sola Scriptura, etc.
No, it is that we can’t measure our progress the way you want to measure your progress. I expect that you believe that absolute certainty is necessary and so you have concluded that an infallible teaching authority must exist so as to provide that certainty. You then measure your progress relative to that authority, but the validity of your approach is contingent upon the validity of your assumptions…which brings us back to faith. BTW, it seems to me that your teaching authority (through “development” and “clarification”) has changed its position more than a few times.
I am inclined to dismiss your opinion and go with more scholarly opinions wrt how and when these things developed. Further, merely b/c overseers existed in NT times, it doesn’t mean that ECFs would accept the form of monarchical bishop possessed by the CC today or that an ECF would approve of a Church that has appointed and tolerated exceedingly corrupt men as its Pope.
well, when faced with unsupported assertions I’ll tend to think that it is sufficient to offer my opinion in return.