F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
OK, so you’re removing the context of the scriptures from Chrysostom and in so doing changing the subject.
- Status
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
It’s cherry-picking when you take a quote out of context and try to make it say something it doesn’t say.
There ya go. So Chrysostom either didn’t advocate Sola Scriptura or he was schizophrenic. He wasn’t schizophrenic.
Yes, he’s speaking hyperbolically. Or do you believe that he really didn’t think that homilies were needed, as he was writing one?
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
You misunderstand Tertullian. He advocated delaying baptism because of his Montanist tendencies. He denied the concept of forgiveness of grave sins. Therefore, since baptism is regenerative and procures the forgiveness of sins, and since you can only be baptized ONCE, it makes sense that he’d advocate delaying baptism.
S
SyCarl
Guest
Then what does it say?
S
SyCarl
Guest
I am not changing the subject. I am pointing out that when Chrysostom commented on 2 Timothy 3:16 the New Testament had been written and there is no reason to say he is limiting his statement to the Old Testament,
S
SyCarl
Guest
I am not suggesting that he was schizophrenic. What I am saying is that he indicated that what is necessary is contained in Scripture. That does not say that tradition is not important or that it cannot be believed.
I do not believe I have taken anything out of context. By the way, Non-Catholics are not the only ones who cherry-pick.
D
dronald
Guest
“De Baptismo” was one of his earliest writings, prior to his conversion to Montanism.
He also claimed to be passing on his beliefs of Baptism from the Apostles at times. He also challenged other Church’s to trace their lineage to the Apostles, citing Peter to Clement and John to Polycarp.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
So, you’re claiming that Chrysostom is doing eisegesis?
What does it matter what transpired between the time St. Paul wrote the letter and the time St. Chrysostom wrote about it?
The fact is, St. Paul is commenting on scripture that St. Timothy was acquainted with from childhood. To apply his comment to things that were written later is eisegesis.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Materially, yes. Formally, no.
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
Yes, but he apparently had latent Montanist tendencies.
D
dronald
Guest
Yes, but I didn’t misunderstand him. He’s quite clear and his words cannot be easily dismissed, especially when he was in favour of Orthodoxy at the time.
S
SyCarl
Guest
F
FathersKnowBest
Guest
You do misunderstand him, unless I misunderstand you.
He is advocating eschewing infant baptism not because, as I believe you believe, it is ineffective but because it IS effective, and a “trump card” best reserved until a person has grave actual sins to be remitted.
A
Adamski
Guest
What I mean is if Luther or Calvin didn’t have direct contact from God like Mosses or Peter what gives them the right to come up with a new belief system 1500 years after jesus
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Amamski: I have to say that I agree as to what gave Luther and Calvin and also Zwingli to decide what doctrines to have and what not to have and think that they had God’s ears so o speak? makes one wonder?
K
KathleenGee
Guest
Check Protestant sources who became Catholic and are now sharing on www.calledtocommunion.com. What they came to find was the fullness of faith in Jesus Christ.
Whenever there is a new condition in life, there are always mistakes in how the Church definds and put into practice faith in context of current conditions. I think of Liberation Theology coming out in the '70’s and relativism…caused alot of damage and division in the Church.
Whenever there is a new condition in life, there are always mistakes in how the Church definds and put into practice faith in context of current conditions. I think of Liberation Theology coming out in the '70’s and relativism…caused alot of damage and division in the Church.
K
KathleenGee
Guest
The other point about the Catholic Church is how it processes new theological insights and practices to deal with new and contemporary issues that are confusing to the devout Christian.
This process is used all throughout the Church history going back to the very beginning.
The beginning is the time Christ was with His apostles teaching them and the time it took amidst the arguing and debates what the Lord was trying to say and how He would have to correct them all the time. Then He appeared to them on the Road to Emmaus after His resurrection and they did not recognize Him and likewise rebuked them while explaining the very depth of Scripture, that they still did not understand.
When the Lord ate fish (meaning conversions) and then broke bread, then the apostles recognized Him and He disappeared, and through the sacred meal, they then understood.
You then go to Acts and still see issues coming up like Peter backing off from his dream before the Hebrew Christians and falling back on the Law when Paul arrives. Paul affirms our freedom in Christ. There are actions in how to set up the Church…not by any one single apostle, but through the Holy Spirit, structure is built by the communion of the apostles, their disciples and followers.
The Church does not accept any individual now giving us a new interpretation. Theologians must submit their teachings before the Church for discernment and if holding on to the Tradition of faith given us by the apostles, before proceeding.
In Martin Luther’s case, there is blame on both sides. Luther was a theologian himself. But the ecclesial theologian over him blocked any dialogue, any communications with him. And there were nationalistic movements happening both in Germany and England that furthered partisan sentiments. The rest is history.
As was stated in Scripture to write it down, documentation of the Church began soon after Christ’s ending of His earthly mission. But the Church always works in unity. Always…but that doesn’t mean smoothly. You have to look at the history of councils, synods as well as the theological issues that came about through the discipline of Christology that was not able to be systemized until after the persecution of the first 300 years. It was happening, of course, beforehand, but communications were difficult…but accomplished through the Holy Spirit to provide us continuity of faith.
It is Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, – Body, Blood, soul and Divinity Himself that teaches us what the Scripture means, most especially at the Mass. That is the place for me I best like to learn Scripture.
This process is used all throughout the Church history going back to the very beginning.
The beginning is the time Christ was with His apostles teaching them and the time it took amidst the arguing and debates what the Lord was trying to say and how He would have to correct them all the time. Then He appeared to them on the Road to Emmaus after His resurrection and they did not recognize Him and likewise rebuked them while explaining the very depth of Scripture, that they still did not understand.
When the Lord ate fish (meaning conversions) and then broke bread, then the apostles recognized Him and He disappeared, and through the sacred meal, they then understood.
You then go to Acts and still see issues coming up like Peter backing off from his dream before the Hebrew Christians and falling back on the Law when Paul arrives. Paul affirms our freedom in Christ. There are actions in how to set up the Church…not by any one single apostle, but through the Holy Spirit, structure is built by the communion of the apostles, their disciples and followers.
The Church does not accept any individual now giving us a new interpretation. Theologians must submit their teachings before the Church for discernment and if holding on to the Tradition of faith given us by the apostles, before proceeding.
In Martin Luther’s case, there is blame on both sides. Luther was a theologian himself. But the ecclesial theologian over him blocked any dialogue, any communications with him. And there were nationalistic movements happening both in Germany and England that furthered partisan sentiments. The rest is history.
As was stated in Scripture to write it down, documentation of the Church began soon after Christ’s ending of His earthly mission. But the Church always works in unity. Always…but that doesn’t mean smoothly. You have to look at the history of councils, synods as well as the theological issues that came about through the discipline of Christology that was not able to be systemized until after the persecution of the first 300 years. It was happening, of course, beforehand, but communications were difficult…but accomplished through the Holy Spirit to provide us continuity of faith.
It is Jesus Christ, the Incarnate Word, – Body, Blood, soul and Divinity Himself that teaches us what the Scripture means, most especially at the Mass. That is the place for me I best like to learn Scripture.
S
spina1953
Guest
Hi Kathleen Gee: Great post! I think you made very good points. I would like to add to your comment that Catholic exegete must make skillful use of the new aids to exegesis, especially those which the historical method had provided. Unless the exegete pays attention to all of the factures which have a bearing on the origin and the composition of Scriptures and makes due use of the acceptable findings of modern research, the exegete will fail in the duty of ascertaining what the intentions of the sacred writers were, and what it is that they actually said.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
- Status