How do Protestatnts defend the canon of the NT

[Yggdrasil]

The tear (schism) from the few Orthodox who protest the authority of Peter’s Chair given by Jesus is not the same matter as protestants who broke off Apostolic succession and valid holy orders and valid sacraments is a whole different set of strokes.

Just as an aside here, the notion that Anglicans have “broken off” Apostolic succession and valid sacraments rests on the prejudice that the legalistic Roman approach is the only game in town.

The issue of Apostolic succession remains unclear insofar as Anglican orders are concerned. Apostolicae Curae is as close as the Roman Church has yet come to issuing an official policy statement on the matter, and yet the standards it set for validity were disregarded when the Romans reformed their own orders in the 1960s.

For the sole reason that the Roman Church “says so” do incoming Anglican clergy have to be re-ordained when they convert. But what’s good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

 

[Contarini]

What good is having cake if one can’t eat it?

That’s an old adage that I have never understood.

I think it would be clearer if put the other way round. The point is that once you eat the cake, you no longer have it. You can’t enjoy its beauty any more.

Edwin

 

[Amy1966]

since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?

Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.

Anyone know what the typical protestant response to this (their) dilemma is?

This is just another example that brings Cardinal Newman’s famous quote to mind, " To be steeped in history is to cease being protestant"

Tim Staples in a debate with James White said the official canon was not complete until the 1200’s because the councils you mention are not binding on the whole church, not ecumenical councils. Christians do not need to defend a canon for the word of God comes from heaven and not from men - what else needs to be said?

“To be steeped in the history of men and religion is to be steeped into the world” - Anonymous

 

[simspt]

Christians do not need to defend a canon for the word of God comes from heaven and not from men - what else needs to be said?

“To be steeped in the history of men and religion is to be steeped into the world” - Anonymous

How do you know its the word of God?

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

There always were Protestants. What is a Protestant? Obviously, someone that protests. Many people protested against the teachings of the Catholic Church, but if you called them heretics and burned them alive well … what church could develop in that case? By the way, burning heretics is against the teachings of Jesus and He Himself condemned it.

Cristian B define a heretic? The Protestant founders were Catholic and invented new theologies from men, these were heretics. Protestants today do not fall under the term heretic.

Iam amazed at when non catholics run out of argument they jump across history and try to interpret Catholic history from a far against those who lived it. You have been misinformed between the actions of men who may have been Catholic, and confuse these with the divine institution Jesus founded the Catholic Church. You attack the humanity of the Church which is subject to sin. Yet the Church is fully divine with Jesus as our head, which the gates of hell will never prevail against. Non catholics need to get this biblical understanding.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Just as an aside here, the notion that Anglicans have “broken off” Apostolic succession and valid sacraments rests on the prejudice that the legalistic Roman approach is the only game in town.

The issue of Apostolic succession remains unclear insofar as Anglican orders are concerned. Apostolicae Curae

The problem with the term Protestant it includes a variety of seperated denominations from one another. You wish to bring to the forefront Anglican orders. When King Henry the VIII decided to start his own church, and change the Holy Orders of obedience to the King of England instead of vowing obedience to Jesus and his Catholic Church, the Existing Bishops who remained loyal to the Anglican King kept Apostolic succession, but those ordained after them lost Apostolic succession.

The Roman Catholic Church asked the question on how to solve this, not questioning if valid orders are in place. I am only aware of Orthodox in the west who refuse communion with the Pope, who have adopted an ancient Anglican liturgy. I can’t begin to mention how much strife this has caused between Orthodox communities, but that is another subject. Those protestants who favor Orthodox who refuse communion with the Pope should look into these Orthodox in the west. They took an Anglican liturgy that is not their own. For me this disqualifies them as an Orthodox Church. But this does not get out much, because protestants are behooved by someone claiming to be Orthodox and in protest against the authority of the Pope. Someday this will all come out in the wash.

The Roman Catholic Church has never changed the Apostolic succession of laying of hands. To my knowledge the only thing new in holy orders in the 1960’s was bringing back the ancient practice of a “Permanent Deacon” of holy orders. Because the transitional deacon replaced the ancient Permanent Deacon in the west mainly due to vow of chastity took presedence over the permanent Deacon. The Roman Catholic Church brought the permanent Deacon back from antiquity to the present.

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

=Contarini;6628692
That’s an astoundingly ignorant statement. Are you really unaware that there were plenty of heresies and schisms throughout the history of the Church? And what’s with 1600 years rather than 1500 anyway?

Gabriel of 12
The 1600 years pretty much includes all protestants. Yes Iam aware that most of these heretics and heresies came from the Eastern Church which the Western Church defeated. These were not protestant churches. these were Catholic bishops who became heretics, apostates and were exiled from the Catholic Church.

Furthermore, as I already said, you assume that because the early Church used the word “Catholic” and you use the word “Catholic” that therefore you are the sole heirs of that ancient Church. Sorry, but it’s not so easy.

Facts please? Your protest holds no water in regards to the Catholicity of the Roman Cathoilc Church. Look up Papacy in any encyclopedia, ask any religious Jew, look back into history as far as you can. You will find the Roman Catholic church in every age. I respect your protest, but carry’s no weight to discuss.

One can make all kinds of strong-sounding claims if one defines one’s terms cleverly. But there is no true profit in such an empty victory. Why don’t we discuss substantive matters instead?

Sure, first of all the council of Trent did not invent the Roman Catholic church of late. I think we should stick to the OP, because some of your claims are very outrageous for me to comment upon.

Jesuits came along at about the same time–does that mean that Jesuits can’t defend the canon either?

Jesuits are Catholic and remain loyal to the Pope and the magisterium. Protestants don’t.

Until Catholics get it into their heads that moderate Protestants see their respective denominations as much more like Catholic religious orders than like the Catholic Church itself, you will not be able to communicate effectively with such Protestants.

Now this comment has substance; On the other side of your coin, if Protestants can get it through their theologies that the Catholic Church will not and cannot change what God has put together. Protestants should learn the understanding of what the biblical teaching of the body of Christ as being the Church of Jesus Christ. The Catholic church cannot change Apostolic doctrinal teachings and revelations. It was Jesus Christ who instituted his priesthood upon his apostles, who remain unbroken succession in the Popes and magisterium of bishops in unity with Peter present day Pope. The Catholic church cannot change this, protestants have bumped their heads to think that Catholic church can change holy orders which Jesus Christ instituted. There are no rebel Martin Luthers and King Henry’s in the ranks of the successors to the apostles.

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

Not that I think numbers are of supreme importance, but your estimate of the relative numbers of Eastern Christians in and out of communion with Rome is wildly incorrect. Orthodoxwiki.org estimates the number of Orthodox worldwide at 225-300 million. Based on the numbers given on the EWTN website in 2007, it looks as if Byzantine Catholics worldwide number no more than 9 million, with another 8 million or so in other Eastern churches (whose counterparts not in communion are in the non-Chalcedonian churches).

Your right these numbers do not mean anything. If numbers counted, I referenced the number of Catholic Rites in Catholic church not members. Now we are derailing the thread here.

Are you saying that one can be Catholic while rejecting papal infallibility and a number of other Catholic dogmas?

In that case, I guess I can be Catholic after all.

No, the difference between Orthodox not in communion with the Pope and Protestants deals with valid sacraments and valid holy orders and valid liturgy. These Orthodox not in communion with the Pope, have a pride that surpasses all understanding. These refuse communion with the successor of Peter, although this action they take gives witness to their pride from men. The Pope works on calling them back to the fold as commanded by Jesus. The Catholic Church recognizes their valid sacraments and holy orders and liturgies. Their pride gives out more bite than what is truly a reality which is very minor to doctrinal definitions and clarification by the Pope, which brings about their great protest against “authority”.

I can become like them and say a lot of nasty things to keep us apart. But Iam in the body of Jesus Christ. This is the body of Jesus Christ his Catholic Church not mines. Jesus did not call his church to refuse communion to one another.

I am aware of this. However, the Orthodox don’t think they are the same Church as you. They don’t think they have the same faith as you. Surely they are allowed to speak for themselves?

They can cry wolf all they want it does not change the reality that Jesus Christ is present in all his valid sacraments, they can’t change this, and the Roman Catholic Church cannot change this. Although these Orthodox in schism think they can, and they decieve themselves in believing they have the power to reject Christ from anyone they please, comes from the evil one of pride, who forgets that the Catholic church is the body of Jesus Christ, not the Orthodox church in isolation from Peter in the Popes and the magisterium in unity with the Pope.

The existence of the Orthodox is enough to demolish most of the Catholic apologetics one hears these days. Most of it is directed toward Protestants only, and toward fundamentalist Protestants at that.

Edwin

I would be happy to debate your outlandish remark and prove it to be a fallacy. The Orthodox you speak of is new, she does not come from anitquity as does the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, because these remain in unity as one body (magisterium) of faith in communion with the Pope with Jesus Christ our head, whereby these new Orthodox come over a thousand years later to protest the Pope’s authority, when all the other Eastern Orthodox Churches (Rites) from antiquity remained in communion with the Pope.

When one makes such remarks as you do here, one tend’s to forget that the Roman Catholic Church is Orthodox because she has protected the Apostolic teachings intact by defeating here enemies including Eastern Orthodox heretics and heresies (oh yes, you probably didn’t know this) from the first centuries on ward. The Roman Catholic Church has defended the Apostolic teachings and Traditions since the resurrection unchanged, this is Orthodoxy practiced in every age by the Roman Catholic Church.

What your Orthodoxy protests is that while she was in seclusion by her governments (communism and dictators) the Roman Ponitff and the magisterium were battling the worlds influence upon the Apostolic Teachings and defended them by defining the Apostolic revelations of Jesus Christ to new tongues, nations and peoples. For this reason the Orthodox who have isolated themselves from all the Bishops around the globe in unity with the Pope, protests the Popes authority when he excercised his God given authority to defeat her enemies with the keys to the Kingdom Jesus gave to Peter and his successors, and his God given divine power to bind and loose on earth.

When one looks past the Orthodox in secluded communities prideful boasts of being seperated from Peter and sees the biblical teachings, and the hard fight every Bishop and Pope came up against. It is not so hard to view these new Orthodox whom the Pope (John Paul II) defeated their enemy for them “communism” that they are now set free to practice openly once again thanks be to God for the Pope whom God used as his key holder to bind and loose that serpernt. But you will never get an Orthodox to thank the Pope for setting them free from the snares of communism which they suffered tremendously.

I have much more to discuss here, but we have gotten off topic

Peace be with you

 

[Yggdrasil]

The problem with the term Protestant it includes a variety of seperated denominations from one another. You wish to bring to the forefront Anglican orders. When King Henry the VIII decided to start his own church, and change the Holy Orders of obedience to the King of England instead of vowing obedience to Jesus and his Catholic Church, the Existing Bishops who remained loyal to the Anglican King kept Apostolic succession, but those ordained after them lost Apostolic succession.

The Roman Catholic Church asked the question on how to solve this, not questioning if valid orders are in place. I am only aware of Orthodox in the west who refuse communion with the Pope, who have adopted an ancient Anglican liturgy. I can’t begin to mention how much strife this has caused between Orthodox communities, but that is another subject. Those protestants who favor Orthodox who refuse communion with the Pope should look into these Orthodox in the west. They took an Anglican liturgy that is not their own. For me this disqualifies them as an Orthodox Church. But this does not get out much, because protestants are behooved by someone claiming to be Orthodox and in protest against the authority of the Pope. Someday this will all come out in the wash.

Anglican ordination according to the Edwardian rite was likely defective (even many Anglicans will confess this). The story, however, does not end with the Elizabethan settlement. Conscious of the possible deficiency, Archbishop Laud introduced a sound sacramental phraseology into the ordinal. Obviously this did little to rectify the loss of Apostolic sucession, but later alliances with Dutch Catholics and certain Orthodox bishops fully restored the sacramental inheritance in certain quarters. Many of the “Anglo-Catholic” clergy are validly ordained by Roman standards, if Rome would but care.

The Roman Catholic Church has never changed the Apostolic succession of laying of hands. To my knowledge the only thing new in holy orders in the 1960’s was bringing back the ancient practice of a “Permanent Deacon” of holy orders. Because the transitional deacon replaced the ancient Permanent Deacon in the west mainly due to vow of chastity took presedence over the permanent Deacon. The Roman Catholic Church brought the permanent Deacon back from antiquity to the present.

The Roman Church revised its whole rite of Episcopal Orders in 1968, during the liturgical reforms that followed Vatican II. An entirely new sacramental form was introduced—of dubious historicity and questionable usage. Most controversial, however, is that it doesn’t qualify as properly “signifying the effects” according to Rome’s own sacramental theology. The traditional ordinal indicates that the consecration of a bishop bestows “the fullness of the priesthood,” whereas the Paul VI rite is (at best!) ambiguous in this regard. Now Rome is free to do whatever she wants, but according to her own rules, the signification of effects must be explicit. And yet, in the new rite of ordination, the signification is implicit (if there at all). Apparently, the rules are malleable. If Rome can get away with this, then the Anglicans certainly deserve a pass, especially considering that they revised the Edwardian rite during the Restoration, and later found common cause (and orders) with the Old Catholic Church following Vatican I.

All of this is only to go further off-topic, though. Let’s get back to the assumption that Protestants are too dim to realize that the New Testament canon justifies Roman Catholic infallibility *all the way up to the present day! *

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Gabriel of 12; I have to respectively disagree with your opinion of changing or reforming the sacrament of Holy Orders by the Catholic church. I don’t think we are on the same page here when it comes to discussing a sacrament of Holy Orders. Canon lawyers are still studying these Vatican II documents, and you come away with an opinion all of your own? Amazing; I think you are confusing the Wording in a Rite for the universal Church to what is a sacrament of Holy Orders, which I agree is off topic here.

Infallibility is not part of the OP. Protestants and non catholics cannot defend the canon of the New Testament, because Protestants have rejected the Canon of the bible from the Catholic church by adding the word “alone” to the scriptures and removed 7 canon books of the bible, which protestants excercised their own “infallibility” to reject 7 inspired books of God. Now that is incredible; How do you defend such a fact of history from protestantism which removed 7 canon books of the bible?

The Roman Church revised its whole rite of Episcopal Orders in 1968, during the liturgical reforms that followed Vatican II. An entirely new sacramental form was introduced—of dubious historicity and questionable usage. Most controversial, however, is that it doesn’t qualify as properly “signifying the effects” according to Rome’s own sacramental theology. The traditional ordinal indicates that the consecration of a bishop bestows “the fullness of the priesthood,” whereas the Paul VI rite is (at best!) ambiguous in this regard. Now Rome is free to do whatever she wants, but according to her own rules, the signification of effects must be explicit. And yet, in the new rite of ordination, the signification is implicit (if there at all). Apparently, the rules are malleable. If Rome can get away with this, then the Anglicans certainly deserve a pass, especially considering that they revised the Edwardian rite during the Restoration, and later found common cause (and orders) with the Old Catholic Church following Vatican I.

All of this is only to go further off-topic, though. Let’s get back to the assumption that Protestants are too dim to realize that the New Testament canon justifies Roman Catholic infallibility *all the way up to the present day! *

 

[Non_Serviam]

So anyone who protests against Catholic teaching is a Protestant?

Gnostics were Protestants, Arians were Protestants, etc.

Is that really the spiritual heritage you want to claim?

What about “Protestants” like Polycarp and Irenaeus who didn’t roll over and accept the bishops of Rome’s Diotrophean attempts to set aside Apostolic tradition for their own preferences, the Romans being willing to push their fiat even to the point of near schism?

At least until they saw they didn’t have the support for their actions so they backed down and maintained unity with the church.

That seems like a good “Protestant” heritage to me.

 

[JonNC]

Infallibility is not part of the OP. Protestants and non catholics cannot defend the canon of the New Testament, because Protestants have rejected the Canon of the bible from the Catholic church by adding the word “alone” to the scriptures and removed 7 canon books of the bible, which protestants excercised their own “infallibility” to reject 7 inspired books of God. Now that is incredible; How do you defend such a fact of history from protestantism which removed 7 canon books of the bible?

Just a correction, Gabriel. No English Bible that I’m aware of has “alone” added to Romans 3:28

New International Version (©1984)
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from observing the law.

New Living Translation (©2007)
So we are made right with God through faith and not by obeying the law.

English Standard Version (©2001)
For we hold that one is justified by faith apart from works of the law.

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law.

International Standard Version (©2008)
For we maintain that a person is justified by faith apart from the works prescribed by the law.

GOD’S WORD® Translation (©1995)
We conclude that a person has God’s approval by faith, not by his own efforts.

King James Bible
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

American King James Version
Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

American Standard Version
We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Bible in Basic English
For this reason, then, a man may get righteousness by faith without the works of the law.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For we account a man to be justified by faith, without the works of the law.

Darby Bible Translation
for we reckon that a man is justified by faith, without works of law.

English Revised Version
We reckon therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Webster’s Bible Translation
Therefore we conclude, that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.

Weymouth New Testament
For we maintain that it is as the result of faith that a man is held to be righteous, apart from actions done in obedience to Law.

World English Bible
We maintain therefore that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the law.

Young’s Literal Translation
therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.

bible.cc/romans/3-28.htm

A faily comprehensive list.

Thanks,
Jon

 

[TriuneUnity]

What about “Protestants” like Polycarp and Irenaeus who didn’t roll over and accept the bishops of Rome’s Diotrophean attempts to set aside Apostolic tradition for their own preferences, the Romans being willing to push their fiat even to the point of near schism?

And eventually the papacy’s attempts at authoritarian fiat over the rest of the Church did result in two major schisms.

 

[Contarini]

Yes Iam aware that most of these heretics and heresies came from the Eastern Church which the Western Church defeated.

The creative and interesting ones did. But the Donatists were a Latin group.

Facts please? Your protest holds no water in regards to the Catholicity of the Roman Cathoilc Church. Look up Papacy in any encyclopedia, ask any religious Jew, look back into history as far as you can. You will find the Roman Catholic church in every age. I respect your protest, but carry’s no weight to discuss.

Your assertion carries no more weight.

The fact that there have been bishops of Rome since at least the mid-2nd century (scholars are very dubious as to whether there was a monarchical bishop of Rome before then) does not prove that “Roman Catholicism” as it exists today is the sole heir of the ancient Church.

I’m not sure what religious Jews have to do with it. I would not expect them to consult me as an authority as to which version of Judaism is more authentic.

Of course your Communion has continuity with the ancient Church. The three Eastern Communions have at least as much–arguably more given the major changes that took place in the Western Church in the early second millennium and the periodic new dogmatic definitions and reorganizations that have taken place since. (In contrast, the Eastern Churches look very much as they did when communion between them and you was broken. This is so obvious that apologists for your Church used to revile the Eastern Churches as “stagnant,” and some still continue this unfortunate rhetorical practice.)

Sure, first of all the council of Trent did not invent the Roman Catholic church of late.

I never suggested that it did. But agreement with the teachings of Trent (and Vatican I and II) is a distinguishing mark of your Communion today.

For you to say “the Catholic Church decided on the canon and that same Catholic Church is the one I belong to today” you have to deal with these issues and not simply brush them aside.

The fact is that I cannot belong to your Communion simply on the basis of what was confessed in the fourth century. If I could, I assure you that I would have done so long ago.

I think we should stick to the OP, because some of your claims are very outrageous for me to comment upon.

In other words, your claim is untenable. You cannot in fact show that your Communion is simply identical to the Catholic Church of the fourth century. It has undergone change–what your Communion generally prefers to call “development.” There are many things one must believe to be a Catholic today which one did not have to believe in the fourth century.

Jesuits are Catholic and remain loyal to the Pope and the magisterium. Protestants don’t.

Petitio principii. The question at issue here is whether Protestants can “defend the canon.” You argue that they can’t because they originated in the sixteenth century. When I point out that various Catholic orders did as well, you say that this doesn’t count because they are in communion with Rome. Well, if the argument is simply “you have to be in communion with Rome in order to defend the canon” why bring up the recent origin of Protestantism at all? Our lack of communion with Rome would be enough, wouldn’t it?

The point I’m making is that Protestant churches do not claim to be THE Church, but to be movements within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The recent origin of these movements is neither here nor there. You have to show the specific ways in which Protestants have broken continuity with the historic Church.

That really isn’t that hard to do, by the way.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Your right these numbers do not mean anything. If numbers counted, I referenced the number of Catholic Rites in Catholic church not members.

Oh, I see. I don’t think that justifies your claim that only a “few” Eastern Christians are not in communion with Rome. In fact, one could conceivably use this to argue that Eastern Catholics have less “unity” than Eastern Orthodox (since after all, Catholics often point to the proliferation of Orthodox jurisdictions as a sign of disunity). I think that would be silly–but I think the corresponding Catholic claim is silly as well. The reason you have more Eastern rites is largely that you have a lot of former non-Chalcedonian churches in communion with you. If that’s your point, I think it’s a valid one. The existence of the Eastern churches in communion with Rome is one of the arguments for greater universality for Rome. But it doesn’t justify your rhetoric about only “few” Eastern Christians not being in communion with you.

Now we are derailing the thread here.

No, this is relevant, because as I said the existence of the Orthodox makes the OP nonsensical. The Orthodox have just as many claims to continuity as your Communion does.

No, the difference between Orthodox not in communion with the Pope and Protestants deals with valid sacraments and valid holy orders and valid liturgy.

That’s not the point. I’m not talking about the Catholic Church recognizing Anglican orders as valid. I’m saying that if I could be received into the Catholic Church on the basis of confessing those things that Catholics and Orthodox agree on, I would ask to be received today. It’s the post-Schism developments that give me pause. It seems pretty clear to me that the West went in some flawed directions from the eleventh century on (if indeed the problems don’t go back to Augustine). I am not Orthodox because I can’t accept that the West has simply ceased to be part of the Church, and because it seems to me that the East has been impoverished by the schism as well. But as an Anglican whose church agrees with many of the Eastern criticisms of Rome, I can’t commit myself to adhere to doctrines which my own church disagrees with and which are criticized by the East as well on what I think are valid grounds.

You try to dismiss these doctrinal issues as just a matter of “pride.” Well, anyone can play that game. Many of my fellow Anglicans think that your Church’s refusal to practice intercommunion with us is just a matter of pride as well. I think it’s a silly tactic that trivializes the issues at stake.

I can become like them and say a lot of nasty things to keep us apart.

Actually you just did. I can’t think of a nastier thing to say than “your protestations of loving the truth revealed by Christ are really just a cover for your unbelievable pride.”

I would be happy to debate your outlandish remark and prove it to be a fallacy.

Feel free to start a new thread and do so. So far all you seem able to do is make confident accusations with no substance, and throw around malicious speculations about the spiritual condition of the Orthodox while priding yourself on not being “nasty.”

 

[Contarini]

The Orthodox you speak of is new, she does not come from anitquity as does the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic Church, because these remain in unity as one body (magisterium) of faith in communion with the Pope with Jesus Christ our head

This makes no sense. The Eastern Churches in communion with you (with the exception of the Italo-Greeks and maybe the Maronites, though the latter’s claims of always having been in communion with Rome are historically dubious) have returned to communion with Rome at some point. They haven’t simply remained in unbroken communion.

The Orthodox can legitimately claim to have simply remained where they always were. True, they aren’t in communion with you, but they would say that this is a change on your part, not theirs. You excommunicated them for not kowtowing to Rome.

whereby these new Orthodox come over a thousand years later to protest the Pope’s authority, when all the other Eastern Orthodox Churches (Rites) from antiquity remained in communion with the Pope.

You choose to regard communion with the Pope as the decisive question, and in yet another petitio principii you make this assumption part of your argument, when in fact the question is precisely whether the churches not in communion with Rome have the same historical continuity you do.

I understand the argument that the Eastern Churches changed their attitude toward Rome, moving toward a weaker view of papal primacy than they had held. And maybe there was some change–it’s hard to tell, because Catholic apologists rely on flowery passages of praise for orthodox Popes as proof that the Eastern Church regarded communion with Rome as essential. The Orthodox would say that this was always conditional on the continuing Orthodoxy of the Popes and never implied that the Popes get to define what is orthodox without any possibility that they might fall into error. This is at least a historically plausible claim. From an outsider’s perspective, there’s no clear way to say that the East has lost historical continuity, in the way that any fair-minded outsider can say that the Protestants broke dramatically with many aspects of medieval Catholic faith and practice.

When one makes such remarks as you do here, one tend’s to forget that the Roman Catholic Church is Orthodox because she has protected the Apostolic teachings intact

Petitio principii again. It’s not obvious to either Orthodox or Anglicans that your doctrine of indulgences (to refer to another recent thread) protects the Apostolic teachings intact, or that Vatican I’s claim that the Pope is infallible part from the consent of the Church protects the Apostolic teachings intact.

Catholic apologists are fond of appealing to Rome’s role in the first millennium (and even this is often exaggerated and over-generalized–Chalcedon owed a great deal to Rome; 2 Constantinople nothing as far as I can see) to justify anything Rome may have chosen to do in the second millennium. It doesn’t work like that. You can’t just coast on the strength of ancient glories.

by defeating here enemies including Eastern Orthodox heretics and heresies (oh yes, you probably didn’t know this)

Of course I knew that there were many Eastern heresies. By definition they were not Orthodox!

from the first centuries on ward. The Roman Catholic Church has defended the Apostolic teachings and Traditions since the resurrection unchanged

But that’s obviously false. It’s not clear to me that it’s true even of the Orthodox. But it is certainly not true of your Communion. That’s why Newman had to come up with his “doctrine of development.”

It seems pretty clear to me, as a church historian, that all churches have undergone change. Whether the change was valid development or invalid “corruption” can be debated.

And yes, this is very relevant to the OP, because the fact of change in all churches makes the assumption of the OP unworkable.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Infallibility is not part of the OP.

Well, the OP is rather vague, frankly, so it’s hard to tell what is part of it or not.

Protestants and non catholics

Does that include the Orthodox?

Can they defend the canon of the New Testament?

And yes, before you complain, I will go on bringing the Orthodox into every discussion that begins with the claim that the Roman Communion is simply identical with the Catholic Church that canonized Scripture.

cannot defend the canon of the New Testament, because Protestants have rejected the Canon of the bible from the Catholic church by adding the word “alone” to the scriptures and removed 7 canon books of the bible, which protestants excercised their own “infallibility” to reject 7 inspired books of God. Now that is incredible; How do you defend such a fact of history from protestantism which removed 7 canon books of the bible?

Well, first of all that’s not what the OP says.

In the second place, we Anglicans never “removed” those books. The 39 Articles gave them a lesser status, which can easily be defended by scholarly opinion throughout the patristic and medieval periods. I agree that to remove them outright was indefensible. But those Protestants who do try to defend this could say

1. That the Jews have authority over which books go in the OT canon. (I don’t agree with this argument, but it’s consistent and doesn’t pose problems for accepting the early Church’s decisions on the NT canon.) Or
2. That if the books are not fully inspired–something suggested by a number of patristic and medieval theologians–then they don’t belong in the canon at all.

That being said, it seems to me that if you remove the deuterocanonicals outright you logically can’t insist on keeping the question of the NT canon closed, but must leave open the possibility that books such as Hebrews, Revelation, James, and 2 Peter might not be Scripture.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

What about “Protestants” like Polycarp and Irenaeus who didn’t roll over and accept the bishops of Rome’s Diotrophean attempts to set aside Apostolic tradition for their own preferences, the Romans being willing to push their fiat even to the point of near schism?

First of all, the Quartodeciman controversy wasn’t necessarily about “setting aside Apostolic tradition,” but about a conflict between traditions in different parts of the Christian world, both of which claimed to be apostolic.

In the second place, as you note the bishops of Rome backed down. We don’t know what Irenaeus would have done if Victor hadn’t backed down.

And in the third place, Polycarp and Irenaeus were defending traditions that could legitimately claim continuity. Protestants, on many points, are not. Luther’s doctrine of justification is obviously innovative and at odds with the teachings of the Fathers, as Luther himself admitted in many places.

So no, there was nothing Protestant about what Polycarp and Irenaeus did.

Edwin

 

[simspt]

since it was the bishops of the Catholic Church working under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost who determined what the canon of the NT is at the councils of Hippo (393 AD) & Carthage (397 AD)?

Anytime a Protetstant sites a NT verse, they are (unknowingly) acknowledging the authority of the bishops of the CC, which is ultimately the authority of the CC itself.

Anyone know what the typical protestant response to this (their) dilemma is?

This is just another example that brings Cardinal Newman’s famous quote to mind, " To be steeped in history is to cease being protestant"

Most Protestants I know admit the role the Church played in the selection of the NT writings. That that authority is critical is obvious. The authority of Scripture is critically important as well. The distinction between scriptures and canon is important to appreciate just how important the decisions made by the Catholic Church was during the canonization process. Some Evangelicals however claim that the Church was corrupt by the second or third century. Obviously this view is problematic because they dont appreciate the role the Catholic Church played in canonization, they downplay it. They start with inspiration (verbal plenary) and anachronistically interpret the Church Fathers supporting this view and conclude that the NT writings were chosen by the Church based on this criteria. This ignores that the NT is a product of the tradition of the Church. Their view on sola scriptura IMO is untenable if they understand the distinction between scriptures and canon in relation to the Church and how the Church viewed inspiration and scriptures.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

What about “Protestants” like Polycarp and Irenaeus

Non Serviam; Polycarp and Irenaeus “protestants”? Can you inform me who is teaching such deceptions? This is the very first I ever heard of such a ridiculous claim about two great Catholics. I almost want to start LOL, but this deception leads many astray. So please don’t make such false claims unless you can back it up with fact that ST. Polycarp and ST. Irenaeus were not Catholic.