How do Protestants defend "Sola Scriptura"?

[Hail_Linus]

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.

I measure the progress of the Church loyalty to scripture and tradition left to us in the deposit of faith.

Out of curiosity, and I do not mean this as an insult, are you politically Progressive. I ask this because Progressives (even Progressive Christians) also do not have a fixed set of moral values and therefore can never really progress. For example, for the past several decades marriage was wrong; now it is so beneficial they encourage same-sex marriage.

BTW, it seems to me that your teaching authority (through “development” and “clarification”) has changed its position more than a few times.

State the Case.

I am inclined to dismiss your opinion and go with more scholarly opinions wrt how and when these things developed.

My opinions are scholarly and not based on Catholic apologetics. But if you would like to give some names I would be happy to look at there opinion.

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.

The keys in Matthew 16 does refer to a Monarchy just like Isaiah 22. Jesus Christ is a King. Don’t kings have kingdoms.

As to past corrupt Popes, I cannot deny that. But isn’t it amazing that they were not permitted to make heresies. The fact the Catholic Church has survived corrupt Popes shows it is indestructible. It seems that not even the Gates of Hell can prevail against it.

 

[Radical]

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.

well, men were involved…those men used their ability to reason…what do you have to suggest that divine guidance came into play?

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.

right, and that is why it is called “Faith”…though we can confidently say that certain NT books were written by an apostle and that the Council of Nicea was not attended by an apostle. Differences can be noted.

There is only one New Testament canon, and it is used by both of us.

Have you heard of the Syriac Canon or the Muratorian canon?

It was also established by the Catholic Church as authentic writings of the apostles, as opposed to the unauthentic ones.

It was established by the actual practice of the various and numerous local churches throughout the empire. The councils/synods merely ratiifed what was already achieved.

When you accept this canon as infallible, whether you realize it or not, you accept the authority of the Catholic Church in their decision.

by that reasoning it would seem that the CC of today, by accepting what the body of believers decided through praciice in the first centuries (w/o holding any ecumenical council), has accepted the ultimate authority of the body of believers…maybe it is time that the ultimate authority took charge again.

Again, show/prove how our philosophy is man-made and yours is not.

I don’t know about any philosophy that isn’t man-made.

 

[Marybeloved]

Assuming that you hold to a traditional Catholic POV, we agree that scripture contains a reliable record of the teachings of Christ and the apostles. Since Tradition is so obviously flawed, Scripture is “sola” unless you can find something else that possesses a reliability equal to its.

How is it so obviously flawed? By your private judgment and interpretation? Like the kind that some people use to determine that the OT is obviously flawed according to their own concepts of justice?

 

[Lincoln7]

Hi MaryBeloved, welcome to the discussion.

Each one decides based on his own private interpretation of the scriptures whether the Church teaches the doctrine of the scriptures or not

One tenant of Sola Scriptura is the “perspicuity” or clarity of Scripture.(1) In others words, it is understandable, we can know what it means. "To assert that God would offer man a revelation incapable of being understood is to take up a scarcely tenable position. It is intended for every age and for men of every social standing and type of education (2) - Hence the pastoral letters’ instructions to Children.

Because the church’s interpretations must be subjected to your own personal take on what the scriptures really mean, and if you and the church disagree- then surely the Church is not the Pillar and foundation of truth!

I often note a tendency here to read infallibilty of the church into this passage, if one is not seeking it, looking at the context of the passage and letter, St Paul affirms the church as this Pillar and Foundation as it upholds the mystery of Jesus Christ as is stated in the verse following this one (1 Timothy 3:16) It does not neccesarily to me, suggest a belief in infallibilty in all matters. Rather truth is to be proven, for me from Scripture. Where for example did St. Athanasius go to dispute with Arius? - “And the novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures are these following” (3) It would appear St. Athanasius here was fully convinced of his understanding of the Scriptures and their clarity on the matter relating to the Blessed Trinity.

And it’s validity can be judged on the total inability to agree on any doctrine witnessed in the Protestant “communion”

I propose there is actually very much agreement amongst Protestants, (at least those who dont twist scripture to suit their own meaning and who look at it in its whole - 2 Timothy 4:3, 2 Peter 3:16) Their is a prevailing opinion to see Protestantism as 30,000 denominations all in disagreement, this is not the case. I can count Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, Reformed, (forgive me if i do not list a group, also in Alphabetical order) not on to 30,000… It seems to me we all share vastly similar views, The Blessed Trinity, salvation, love etc. But hold slight differences on some, but as 1 Corinthians 11:19 explains - " For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (KJV)

St.Paul here does not call for divisions, far far far from that, neither of course does our Lord in his prayer that “we may all be one” (John 17:21), rather here St Paul says these divisions, which sadly will come, thanks to our nature as corrupted humans, will serve the purpose of highlighting the truth, thus to suggest Protestants are all against one another, I dont see this, rather we look to Scripture to clarify our beliefs, belief’s all remarkably similar, and in our disputes, we discuss from scripture to prove a case and the divisions will serve to highlight the truth of the correct position.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Hope i make some sense and am being charitable, if not, apologies, ive read it through a few times!

In Christ

Lincs

Footnotes -
1- In Understanding Be Men, T C Hammond, Inter-Varsity Press, 1968, pg 35
2- In Understanding Be Men, T C Hammond, Inter-Varsity Press, 1968, pg 35
3 - newadvent.org/fathers/2803.htm

 

[Radical]

How is it so obviously flawed? By your private judgment and interpretation?

yes, it is my opinion that it is obviously flawed. It would seem that the majority of Christians also think that it is flawed…Only God would know how many have formed their opinion after a thorough examination of the historical and biblical evidence.

Like the kind that some people use to determine that the OT is obviously flawed according to their own concepts of justice?

…or like the kind of private judgement that you have used to determine that the CC is the one true Church and that its official teaching has been kept free of error.

 

[Marybeloved]

Hi Lincoln,

One tenant of Sola Scriptura is the “perspicuity” or clarity of Scripture.(1) In others words, it is understandable, we can know what it means.

Really? Where in scripture do you get this tenet? Or is it just another assumption you have to make (like Sola scriptura itself) to make yourself the final authority on truth? For example I read of Paul’s letters in scripture that He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

"To assert that God would offer man a revelation incapable of being understood is to take up a scarcely tenable position. It is intended for every age and for men of every social standing and type of education

Exactly! That’s why we have a divinely set up authority throughout the course of history to interpret it for us under God’s many protection and guarantees, so it will never ever be incapable of being understood despite the hard teachings St. Peter warns us about

I often note a tendency here to read infallibilty of the church into this passage, if one is not seeking it, looking at the context of the passage and letter, St Paul affirms the church as this Pillar and Foundation as it upholds the mystery of Jesus Christ as is stated in the verse following this one (1 Timothy 3:16) It does not neccesarily to me, suggest a belief in infallibilty in all matters. Rather ***truth ****is to be proven, *for me from Scripture.

First, I’ve read the passage, the context adds nothing to St. Paul’s simple description of the Church- Pillar and foundation of truth.

Secondly, Like I said, you just give me private thoughts that you’ve somehow given the weight of truth in your own mind, one of which proves my first post to you- You make yourself your own final arbiter of truth- Scripture contains writing which must be interpreted, though not by private interpretation as St. Peter tells us, you have appointed yourself that arbiter who cannot err in his interpretations. This discussion is a good example. You and I disagree on what scripture means in several places- which of our interpretations is correct?

Where for example did St. Athanasius go to dispute with Arius? - “And the novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures are these following” (3)

An example of contradictions against scripture- I am quite sure you know we can produce lot of patristic writings denying heresy on the basis of their departure from the sacred tradition- This quotation really does nothing to prove your point. It just shows that scripture is one source of truth.

It would appear St. Athanasius here was fully convinced of his understanding of the Scriptures and their clarity on the matter relating to the Blessed Trinity.

Yes, he most certainly was! As was Arius of his own understanding of Scriptures and their clarity on the matter of the doctrine he taught! As are his modern sons the Jehovah’s Witnesses similarly convinced! As were Nestorius and the monophysites and all the heretics similarly convinced of their own understanding of scripture and its clarity on their doctrines! It was the authority that you deny that settled the matter and turned the faithful back from heresy, sometimes almost the entire community!

This already totally disproves your “tenet” of scripture above- Why did Arius read the scriptures and understand it differently from St. Athanasius if your tenet is true? While did 80/90% of the Church believe that Arianism was the proper interpretation if your “tenet” is true? All the heretics appealed to scripture and tradition equally as those who later turned out to be the orthodox preachers- The faithful knew the truth only when the Church magisterium finally settled it authoritatively!

If Protestant ideas had existed at the time and the Church were not submitted to the teaching authority of the magisterium and believed it free of error, only God knows what “Christianity” would mean by now- How many canons of scripture we would have all claiming to be the authoritative inspired books! What theologies of God and Christ we would have from Arianism, Nestorianism and probably much worse by now!

To be continued…

 

[Marybeloved]

I propose there is actually very much agreement amongst Protestants

I beg to differ- All the successive schisms that have occured since the reformation did not happen out of “style”- they were based on disagreements that they could not resolve, hence the endless schisms.

(at least those who dont twist scripture to suit their own meaning and who look at it in its whole - 2 Timothy 4:3, 2 Peter 3:16)

Here again is that flaw- Who is to say that they are twisting scripture? You? Because they have different conclusions from you? Are you or any other Protestant denomination infallible? How do you know they are wrong but you are right?

The Blessed Trinity, salvation, love etc. But hold slight differences on some,

I doubt that Trinity is believed by JWs or Mormons, Salvation? Really? Tell me- Is baptism necessary for salvation? How about Holy communion? How about the sacraments? How about good works? Is faith alone necessary or must there be works with it as well? Are we predestined for heaven or hell or do we actually get to chose our destiny? Is it possible to lose your salvation or not? Are people who die without knowing Jesus through no fault of their own automatically destined for Hell? Is that bread really bread or Jesus’ actual body? Is the wine symbolic wine or Jesus’ real blood? Do you mean to tell me that there are agreements among Protestants on these important questions that pertain mostly to salvation? CAF Archives alone will disprove such a notion. We debate all sorts of protestants who vary greatly in all these points. My friend, that is just not true. :nope:

but as 1 Corinthians 11:19 explains - " For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you" (KJV)

Exactly! Trouble is we can’t know which ones of us are heretics by your sola scriptura, except by assuming that we ourselves are right and those who interpret the scriptures contrary to us, wrong.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut. Hope i make some sense and am being charitable, if not, apologies, ive read it through a few times!

No worries- No evidence of any offense discovered here.

Peace of Christ!

 

[Marybeloved]

yes, it is my opinion that it is obviously flawed. It would seem that the majority of Christians also think that it is flawed…Only God would know how many have formed their opinion after a thorough examination of the historical and biblical evidence.

…or like the kind of private judgement that you have used to determine that the CC is the one true Church and that its official teaching has been kept free of error.

I’m sorry my friend, but my choice did not require private interpretation. Mine was simply to locate the historical community founded by the Apostles and to submit myself to its teachings regarding the Christian faith, Christian scriptures and Christian morality. I did not judge that they it was “right” as per my reading of scripture first before I gave myself to submission to it.

Peace!

 

[Radical]

I’m sorry my friend, but my choice did not require private interpretation. Mine was simply to locate the historical community founded by the Apostles and to submit myself to its teachings regarding the Christian faith, Christian scriptures and Christian morality. I did not judge that they it was “right” as per my reading of scripture first before I gave myself to submission to it.

Peace!

Your location of the “historical community founded by the Apostles” involved no private judgement? Your decision to “submit…to its teachings” involved no private judgement? IMHO both would have to involve private judgement, whether or not you referenced any scripture in making the call. Somehow you have privately judged the CC to be the “historical community founded by the Apostles”. Somehow you have privately judged that you should “submit…to its teachings”.

 

[Marybeloved]

Your location of the “historical community founded by the Apostles” involved no private judgement? Your decision to “submit…to its teachings” involved no private judgement? IMHO both would have to involve private judgement, whether or not you referenced any scripture in making the call. Somehow you have privately judged the CC to be the “historical community founded by the Apostles”. Somehow you have privately judged that you should “submit…to its teachings”.

Judgment as in use of my intellect? Sure! I do that every day! Right this moment, in fact . I am a functional Homo Sapien Sapien, you know. But private interpretation- which is judgment on the content of Christian truths so that I can chose the community that conforms to my preconceived notions of correct doctrine and join that group? No!

 

[Trevor_Stamm]

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.

Of course he would say no, he was a devote Dominican Priest and became a Saint and Doctor of the Church. But the question is on everyone else, has the Church taught anything that deviated from the Apostles writings? The real answer is no, so why the separation from the Church?

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 -

2 Tim 3:16, I wonder what Scripture he was referring too when writing this in 66 AD

And please note, this verse is stating that Scripture is profitable for teaching, not essential nor sole authority.

God is the author of Sacred Scripture but your evading the answer. Who had the capability to know what was Sacred Scripture and what was false, who compiled it? We know who did, and it is only thanks to her that everyone has a Bible that is free from false teachings (though, some of you are missing seven books ).

 

[Radical]

I measure the progress of the Church loyalty to scripture and tradition left to us in the deposit of faith.

I think what you really do is measure the progress of your Church by its loyalty to (its particular interpretation of) scripture and (its particular interpretation of its selected) tradition. That is a pretty standard approach used also by Protestants wrt their respective Churches.

Out of curiosity, and I do not mean this as an insult, are you politically Progressive. I ask this because Progressives (even Progressive Christians) also do not have a fixed set of moral values and therefore can never really progress. For example, for the past several decades marriage was wrong; now it is so beneficial they encourage same-sex marriage.

by Canadian standards I am conservative, by American standards I am more progressive. Talking about political progressiveness, has the CC flip-flopped on the idea of democratic governance (re nations) in the last few centuries?

My opinions are scholarly and not based on Catholic apologetics. But if you would like to give some names I would be happy to look at there opinion.

WRT Apostolic Succession you could look at Sullivan’s From Apostles to Bishops.

The keys in Matthew 16 does refer to a Monarchy just like Isaiah 22. Jesus Christ is a King. Don’t kings have kingdoms.

Jesus’s kingdom is not of this earth. To the 12 Jesus said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

As to past corrupt Popes, I cannot deny that. But isn’t it amazing that they were not permitted to make heresies.

I don’t know that their existence hasn’t created heresies. The Bride of Christ being led by a very corrupt fellow who does not begin to meet the qualifications of an overseer (as set out in the Pastoral Epistles) has had to be explained away…The appointment and then toleration of such a leader by the CC has had to be explained away…and doctrines have had to accommodate those explanations.

The fact the Catholic Church has survived corrupt Popes shows it is indestructible. It seems that not even the Gates of Hell can prevail against it.

It all depends on one’s interpretation of what constitutes the Gates of Hell prevailing against it.

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea325,

Again merci for the response,

In terms of “proof reading” into this text what i want too see, again i must stress that he does indeed submitt all to Scripture here. But we shall have to agree to disagree on this quote!

I shall return tomorrow at some stage, (battery issues!)

LIncs!!

My friend,basically what I am saying is that Aquinas no where in the quote explicitly states Scripture is the final authority. Yes he adheres to scripture and yes we must obey what it teaches;however,no where does Aquinas exclaim it is the final authority.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325

Really? So they are flawed?

they are the product of man’s reasoning…which isn’t always flawless

Wow! So in other words,there is no absolute truth and Jesus basically pulled everyone’s leg about the guidance of the HS leading into all Truth? Relativism is the fad of today.

Quote:
So God is actually four people? Maybe five? Only one as Jehovah Witnesses believe?

“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.

I beg your pardon? I never said God is four or five people. I asked you a question and you merely turned it back on me.

Quote:
What about the NT canon? Is that also fallible to you?

which NT canon do you have in mind?

Wow! There was more than one NT canon ratified in the 4th and 5th centuries? Kindly show me the other canon(s) of the NT ratified?

Quote:
Greek philosophy? So tell me which is the correct philosophy?

the flawless philosophy would be the one that isn’t man-made…

Which…is?

 

[Radical]

Wow! So in other words,there is no absolute truth…

How do you think this follows from me saying that the doctrine of the Trinity was produced by man’s reasoning? God has revealed some things about himself. From what God has revealed, man has deduced other things. Man’s reasoning isn’t flawless and therefore, whatever is the product of man’s reasoning has the potential to be flawed. That hardly means that absolute truth doesn’t exist.

…and Jesus basically pulled everyone’s leg about the guidance of the HS leading into all Truth?

again, this doesn’t follow. There are other ways to understand that promise besides it meaning that a bunch of bishops et al won’t err when they get together.

I beg your pardon? I never said God is four or five people.

neither did I

I asked you a question and you merely turned it back on me.

and?

Wow! There was more than one NT canon ratified in the 4th and 5th centuries?

did I mention ratification?..there was the Muratorian canon long before the 4th century and I doubt that it was the only one. As to whether I think the ratified NT is infallible, the answer is no. For example, if a “Christian dead sea scroll” site was discovered which contained copies of the hypothetical Q, split a letter of Paul’s into two seperate letters with somewhat different content or had a much shortened version of a particular book, then I wouldn’t refuse to reconsider what should be included in the NT on the basis that some bishops et al ratified a particular list 1600 years ago.

Which…is?

none that I know of

 

[Hail_Linus]

I think what you really do is measure the progress of your Church by its loyalty to (its particular interpretation of) scripture and (its particular interpretation of its selected) tradition. That is a pretty standard approach used also by Protestants wrt their respective Churches.

At least you are honest. But then you are not a very stritct sola scripturist.

While your description is accurate for many, in my case I came to the Catholic Church through scholarly study and frankly I was a little angry at first when I discovered the reality that the Catholic Church is the one built by Jesus. I was relieved however when its interpretation of scripture was very close to my own.

by Canadian standards I am conservative, by American standards I am more progressive.

Does that mean you are support the right to abortion and same-sex marriage?

Talking about political progressiveness, has the CC flip-flopped on the idea of democratic governance (re nations) in the last few centuries?

I think you misunderstand the CC. The CC is against true democracy which would be chaotic and very dangerous since it is basically “Mob Rules”. The Church supports a Democratic Republic. In other words, the CC uses the word Democracy in a scholarly manner. When you, like most people, use the word democratic you probably mean Democratic Republic. You could learn more about it by reading Aristotle. However, it comes down to the messenger of the word. As you implied, anywhere outside of the USA a liberal is actually what an American would call a conservative.

WRT Apostolic Succession you could look at Sullivan’s From Apostles to Bishops.

Thanks.

Jesus’s kingdom is not of this earth. To the 12 Jesus said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

I don’t know that their existence hasn’t created heresies. The Bride of Christ being led by a very corrupt fellow who does not begin to meet the qualifications of an overseer (as set out in the Pastoral Epistles) has had to be explained away…The appointment and then toleration of such a leader by the CC has had to be explained away…and doctrines have had to accommodate those explanations.

If Jesus Kingdom does not include earth then that would mean Peter’s keys would would give him authority in heaven.

I like your first paragraph but you seem to view being a Pope as this wonderful thing. I certainly would not want to serve in that position. The current Pope (my personal favorite) and the Popes of the 20th century have all been great servants and teachers. Being elected Pope in the first 300 years of the Church was a death sentence.

It all depends on one’s interpretation of what constitutes the Gates of Hell prevailing against it.

Well then its just a coincidence the Catholic Church is the longest lasting institution ever. This is truly miraculous considering how poorly it has been managed.

 

[Nicea325]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicea325
Wow! So in other words,there is no absolute truth…

How do you think this follows from me saying that the doctrine of the Trinity was produced by man’s reasoning? God has revealed some things about himself. From what God has revealed, man has deduced other things. Man’s reasoning isn’t flawless and therefore, whatever is the product of man’s reasoning has the potential to be flawed. That hardly means that absolute truth doesn’t exist.

So according to your standards,then I guess men really were not inspired by God to write Scripture telling us about God? No…the doctrine of the Trinity was revealed to man by the Holy Spirit as promised.

Quote:
…and Jesus basically pulled everyone’s leg about the guidance of the HS leading into all Truth?

again, this doesn’t follow. There are other ways to understand that promise besides it meaning that a bunch of bishops et al won’t err when they get together.

It does follow,it is you who does not follow. So if the bishops have made errors as you truly believe,then I guess there is no such thing as a valid doctrine/dogma?

Quote:
I beg your pardon? I never said God is four or five people.

neither did I

I know you didn’t,but you sure dodged the question I asked you.

Quote:
I asked you a question and you merely turned it back on me.

and?

I did not ask for an and, I asked you a question…and…can you answer?

Quote:
Wow! There was more than one NT canon ratified in the 4th and 5th centuries?

did I mention ratification?..there was the Muratorian canon long before the 4th century and I doubt that it was the only one. As to whether I think the ratified NT is infallible, the answer is no. For example, if a “Christian dead sea scroll” site was discovered which contained copies of the hypothetical Q, split a letter of Paul’s into two seperate letters with somewhat different content or had a much shortened version of a particular book, then I wouldn’t refuse to reconsider what should be included in the NT on the basis that some bishops et al ratified a particular list 1600 years ago.

No I did and for a reason. So in other words,no one really knows if the current NT is accruate,since human reasoning is full of errors? I guess all of our salvation is based on or hinged on pure guessing?

Quote:
Which…is?

none that I know of

:ehh:

 

[CompSciGuy]

and a product of my study of history and a product of a more simple approach to biblical studies.

Translation: your unobjective personal interpretation of scripture and historical events, biased to what you already believe, are the basis for your rejection of Catholic dogma. And you feel no need to elaborate on your “findings.”

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.

You are assuming that I read only the commentaries of Catholic theologians and apologists. I didn’t. They referenced the early Church Fathers, and then I read the Fathers and found the apologists to be in context. Remember, it was apologists talking to a skeptical Protestant at the time; the difference between me and you is that I was listening objectively. Also the Bible explicitly teaches against things that many Protestants believe, such as once saved always saved, baptism being symbolic, etc. and I saw this clearly as a Protestant.

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.

Again your claim is baseless. You have yet to explain why you think Catholic tradition is corrupt, other than because it’s what you’ve been taught. And see the point above. Coming from a Protestant background, I cannot have seen from anyone’s point of view when I realized that the teachings of scripture, and the teachings of the protestant faith I grew up in, did not match each other.

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.

Mariology is not a good ‘starting point.’ Note that Mary did not die until after all the books of the New Testament were written. There are plenty of Church Fathers who support the doctrine of her immaculate conception, and her perpetual virginity, and her assumption, as they are beliefs that were passed down by the apostles. There is also a prayer from the 3rd century written in the catacombs, directed toward Mary under the name “Theotokos.”

I don’t need a 1st century or 2nd century writing to tell me that Mariology is ok. The whole point is, the Church has operated the way it has from the time of Christ until today. We can look at history and see the Catholic Church stretching into the past, and then the Protestant schism. This is what the Church had always looked like before the so-called “reformation.” I can find many fundamental aspects of Catholic belief stemming from the 1st, 2nd and 3rd centuries, and compare them with the modern Catholic Church and know that it is the same Church. Therefore I don’t think that every apostolic doctrine has to be super well-documented in order to believe it. I can find the authority of the Church well-documented enough, and see its origins and practices to be able to accept its authority myself.

 

[Radical]

While your description is accurate for many, in my case I came to the Catholic Church through scholarly study and frankly I was a little angry at first when I discovered the reality that the Catholic Church is the one built by Jesus. I was relieved however when its interpretation of scripture was very close to my own.

Interesting. For me it seems all too obvious that the ECFs were inclined to ruminate on scripture and tradition and then expound and elaborate with the result being that the original (much simpler) rule of faith was extensively supplemented with uninspired additions. IMHO it happened early and often…though there is often a century or two or three gap between the apostles and the innovation. I realize that conservative Catholic historians reject “innovation” in favor of “development” to account for the observed change in doctrine. To more properly call it a development (to lessen the change and distance it from a clear innovation), it seems to me that this sort of assumption is made: If a doctrine was clearly taught in the 3rd century, then it was believed in the 2nd century and if it was believed in the 2nd century, then it was received from the apostles in the first century. From there, to make the development something that can’t be questioned, it is claimed that development was guided by the HS. With assumptions involved together with a claim of the HS’s guidance, the conservative Catholic claim is obviously a position of faith. I can see where Catholics would think that it is a reasonable faith and I would hope that learned Catholics would be able to see how others might think that it isn’t reasonable enough.

Does that mean you are support the right to abortion and same-sex marriage?

no…but I don’t categorically oppose them either. For example, IMHO same-sex marriage should not be viewed as indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage. Society should rightly place a greater value on heterosexual marriage, but it is society’s right to enact a law that would recognize adult interdependent relationships w/o regard to the sexes of those involved and there is a fairness in doing so. I would prefer if the latter wasn’t called marriage, but as Christians we do not enjoy a copyright on the term.

I think you misunderstand the CC.

which one? the CC of the 18th Century, or the one of the 21st Century?

The Church supports a Democratic Republic.

…and it always has?

In other words, the CC uses the word Democracy in a scholarly manner. When you, like most people, use the word democratic you probably mean Democratic Republic.

I understand the distinction and use the term as it is popularly used.

If Jesus Kingdom does not include earth then that would mean Peter’s keys would would give him authority in heaven.

…or wrt a kingdom of the spritual realm.

I like your first paragraph but you seem to view being a Pope as this wonderful thing. I certainly would not want to serve in that position.

given that the office was fought over for centuries b/c of the power and wealth it could attract, others must have viewed being a “Pope as this wonderful thing” too…though obviously it would be an onerous thing. One can’t help but note the hugh difference between the pomp and pageantry of the Papal office and the manner in which Christ conducted himself. Tradition has it the Peter insisted on being hung upside down, b/c he was not worthy to suffer in the same manner as Christ…I guess Peter’s alleged successors insist on serving from a palace, b/c they are not worthy to serve from poverty as did Christ

The current Pope (my personal favorite) and the Popes of the 20th century have all been great servants and teachers.

they sure have improved…I wonder how much of the improvement had to do with loss of a monopoly?

Being elected Pope in the first 300 years of the Church was a death sentence.

I didn’t think it was that bad, but then some say that being born results in a death sentence.

Well then its just a coincidence the Catholic Church is the longest lasting institution ever.

you mean the Orthodox Church?

This is truly miraculous considering how poorly it has been managed.

when you point to grossly sinful fellows to establish the hand of God, something seems terribly wrong

 

[Hail_Linus]

Interesting. For me it seems all too obvious that the ECFs were inclined to ruminate on scripture and tradition and then expound and elaborate with the result being that the original (much simpler) rule of faith was extensively supplemented with uninspired additions. IMHO it happened early and often…though there is often a century or two or three gap between the apostles and the innovation. I realize that conservative Catholic historians reject “innovation” in favor of “development” to account for the observed change in doctrine. To more properly call it a development (to lessen the change and distance it from a clear innovation), it seems to me that this sort of assumption is made: If a doctrine was clearly taught in the 3rd century, then it was believed in the 2nd century and if it was believed in the 2nd century, then it was received from the apostles in the first century. From there, to make the development something that can’t be questioned, it is claimed that development was guided by the HS. With assumptions involved together with a claim of the HS’s guidance, the conservative Catholic claim is obviously a position of faith. I can see where Catholics would think that it is a reasonable faith and I would hope that learned Catholics would be able to see how others might think that it isn’t reasonable enough.

Let’s see if they have really developed into something more complicated.

• Today: someone like you is permitted to attend Mass.
• Early simple days: Even if they let you in, you would have to leave for the second half because your are not initiated and you would not be allowed to be present for the Eucharist.
• Today: Catholics confess their sins to a priest in private, your sins are kept secret, you receive absolution from Christ through the priest, and then you do your penance which is usually something simple like saying 10 "Our Fathers…
• Early simple days: You had to confess your sins before the Priest as well as the entire parish. Then you did your penance which was usually difficult and took quite sometime. Sometimes it would take years for absolution. Sometimes those in a state of Mortal sin would be outside of where the liturgy was being celebrated begging fellow Christians to pray for them so they could be granted absolution.

These are just two examples. It seems like being a Christian today is a cakewalk, even for Catholics.

no…but I don’t categorically oppose them either. For example, IMHO same-sex marriage should not be viewed as indistinguishable from heterosexual marriage. Society should rightly place a greater value on heterosexual marriage, but it is society’s right to enact a law that would recognize adult interdependent relationships w/o regard to the sexes of those involved and there is a fairness in doing so. I would prefer if the latter wasn’t called marriage, but as Christians we do not enjoy a copyright on the term.

Society does have this right. However, Christians should not same-sex marriage.
BTW, is it true that speaking out against same-sex marriage in Canada could be considered a hate crime?

which one? the CC of the 18th Century, or the one of the 21st Century?
…and it always has?
I understand the distinction and use the term as it is popularly used.

Always. In fact, a criticism of the Eastern Orthodox is we have always given too much weight to Greek Philosophy, Aristotle being one of those philosophers.

given that the office was fought over for centuries b/c of the power and wealth it could attract, others must have viewed being a “Pope as this wonderful thing” too…though obviously it would be an onerous thing. One can’t help but note the hugh difference between the pomp and pageantry of the Papal office and the manner in which Christ conducted himself. Tradition has it the Peter insisted on being hung upside down, b/c he was not worthy to suffer in the same manner as Christ…I guess Peter’s alleged successors insist on serving from a palace, b/c they are not worthy to serve from poverty as did Christ

We know the horrible men that have been priests, bishops, and even Popes. Many are probably in hell. But even the worst was not able to introduce heresy into the Church.

As to the Pomp, I love it. There is no sense in arguing about this. From your point of view this looks horrible. I used to have that opinion also so I am not going to criticize you there.

you mean the Orthodox Church?

There is only one Catholic Church. Despite the family feud, the Eastern Orthodox are still Catholic. While they don’t agree with Papal infallibility they do agree the Pope is the “First Among Equals.”

Anyway, if you read the actual historical documents of the Early Church Father as well as secular documents of the Roman Empire, both during and after the persecutions, you will see there was only one Church. That one Church was called the Catholic Church and its members were the Christians. That’s a fact!

when you point to grossly sinful fellows to establish the hand of God, something seems terribly wrong

Are you aware of how sinful Martin Luther and Calvin were? We see evil Protestants everyday just like we see evil Catholics. But I don’t disagree with you because of them. You have Judas’ and so do we. That’s life and we all have to deal with the consequences since the atheists just love it when they spot an evil Christian and blame all of the problems of the world on Christianity.

On a side note, have you been to the Notre Dame Basilica in Montreal. I had a very powerful experience there as a child. If you haven’t been there, I encourage you to visit, if only to appreciate the architecture.