How does protestant settle issues concerning enterpretation of Scriptures when these issues arise?

[DorianGregorian]

The Early Church Fathers are unanimous that Christ established one and only one Church and that Church is called the Catholic Church. If you’re not afraid of the truth you should read them.

All of the writings of the Early Church including the New Testament are Catholic. Not too surprising since there were only Catholics and heretical groups such as Nestorians, Arians, Gnostics etc…

The Assyrian Church of the East (not Eastern Orthodox) split from the Catholic Church in the 400’s.

Of course there is one Church, people just disagree on what constitutes the Church. Is it the Pope and those who are in communion with him (RCC)? Is it the Pentarchy along with the Bishops (EOC) or is it as St. Paul says the Body of Christ, that is true believers. Remember the word Church is taken from Ekklesia which literally means assembly. Stephen I was the first to claim the Primacy of Rome, well after the deaths of the Apostles. Most would be willing to grant the Bishop of Rome a place of Primacy, just not authority.

 

[DorianGregorian]

Also while Peter was clearly the Protos of the Apostles (as identified in Scripture) this does not mean he claimed to be better than the others. Peter is rebuked by Paul in Scripture. Also the first Christians were not at Rome, they were at Antioch as said in Scripture. And the only mother mentioned is Jerusalem. Rome did have an important place in the early Church though, it is just that the Bishops of the Middle Ages took their authority way too far.

 

[1holycatholic]

Of course there is one Church, people just disagree on what constitutes the Church.

Christ established one and only one Church - the Catholic Church. What you are referring to aren’t disagreements about what constitutes the Church, but rationalizations to justify being outside of the Church be redefining the Church. Nobody held the contra-Biblical, contra-Sacred Tradition, contra-historical Christian belief of an invisible church filled with members only known to God until the early 1500’s.

 

[JonNC]

Christ established one and only one Church - the Catholic Church. What you are referring to aren’t disagreements about what constitutes the Church, but rationalizations to justify being outside of the Church be redefining the Church. Nobody held the contra-Biblical, contra-Sacred Tradition, contra-historical Christian belief of an invisible church filled with members only known to God until the early 1500’s.

Actually, it is pretty visable. That said, the CC says that we are all in communion with the CC, albeit imperfect, by virtue of our Baptism. So, your claim we are outside the Church is not entirely accurate from a Catholic perspective.
Jon

 

[1holycatholic]

Actually, it is pretty visable. That said, the CC says that we are all in communion with the CC, albeit imperfect, by virtue of our Baptism. So, your claim we are outside the Church is not entirely accurate from a Catholic perspective.
Jon

That’s correct. There is only one Church, the Catholic Church. And a valid baptism brings one into the Church, even if imperfectly. That doesn’t mean that anyone validly Baptised who hangs up sign saying “Church” constitutes a Church. To wit:
FIFTH QUESTION

Why do the texts of the Council and those of the Magisterium since the Council not use the title of “Church” with regard to those Christian Communities born out of the Reformation of the sixteenth century?

RESPONSE

According to Catholic doctrine, these Communities do not enjoy apostolic succession in the sacrament of Orders, and are, therefore, deprived of a constitutive element of the Church. These ecclesial Communities which, specifically because of the absence of the sacramental priesthood, have not preserved the genuine and integral substance of the Eucharistic Mystery[19] cannot, according to Catholic doctrine, be called “Churches” in the proper sense[20].

 

[DorianGregorian]

\belief of an invisible church filled with members only known to God until the early 1500’s.

Really? Saint Paul appears to have addressed a church in Corinth, of course to the Strict-Roman view, this would mean the Church is outside of Rome and invalid.

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

The Church is universal, not Roman.

 

[1holycatholic]

Really? Saint Paul appears to have addressed a church in Corinth, of course to the Strict-Roman view, this would mean the Church is outside of Rome and invalid.

1 Corinthians 1:2 To the church of God that is in Corinth, to those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints together with all those who in every place call upon the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, both their Lord and ours:

The Church is universal, not Roman.

You are correct in pointing out that the Catholic Church is the one and only universal Church. The Church St. Paul addresses in Corinth is a particular Church and is not outside of the Church or invalid in any way.

For someone who is rejecting the Church you don’t seem to know very much about her.

 

[DorianGregorian]

So:
A: There is one Church.
B: There is a particular Church which is not the Church in Rome.

C: So there is one Church and not one Church?

Please show me the Book, Chapter, and Verse where Peter is given the title “Pope” and is told that he is infallible in faith and morals.

 

[1holycatholic]

So:
A: There is one Church.
B: There is a particular Church which is not the Church in Rome.

C: So there is one Church and not one Church?

A particular Church is part of the Church. The Latin Church is a particular Church there are twenty two other particular Churches besides the Latin Church.

Please show me the Book, Chapter, and Verse where Peter is given the title “Pope” and is told that he is infallible in faith and morals.

You’ve got false premise laid upon false premise. His title is irrelevant, his position and authority are not. Further, his position predates by many years the first word of the New Testament being written and the infallible declaration of what constitutes the Bible by the Catholic Church. Further still, the Bible explicitly states that it doesn’t contain everything Jesus said or did, and that the Church, not the Bible is the pillar and foundation of truth. Christ established an authoritative Church from which the Bible proceeds, not the other way around. You aren’t arguing with me, you’re arguing with historical facts.

 

[wisdomseeker]

So:
A: There is one Church.
B: There is a particular Church which is not the Church in Rome.

C: So there is one Church and not one Church?

Please show me the Book, Chapter, and Verse where Peter is given the title “Pope” and is told that he is infallible in faith and morals.

you obviously dont understand the Church as we Catholics do. the Church is One although she is in every part of the world. if you were a Catholic before, you should know that if you went to any part of the world, you could go to Mass wherever you were and you would have the same Mass. wherever you are you can find a CC. that is why she is universal. Jesus sent His Church to go into whole world and preach the Gospel.

when those letters were written, the Church had already been formed. those letters were written to address certain issues in the Church in different places. therefore, you could not know everything that was being tought and done in the Church just by reading the Bible. only the Church that continued after the Apostles died knows about the Teachings of Jesus. although the Apostles died, the history continued wiht the Church. those who separated themselves from the CC became heretics because of their false teachings.

just like martin luther who also tought heresies and has many followers today. the reason his heresies are so attractive is because of his antagonism towards authority.
many dont like to be under authority and the idea of being a rebel is very attractive to many. it is not to me because i know that God has placed authority over me in His Apostolic Church therefore i must submit to them in obedience to God.
martin luther rejected this authority and became dissobedient to God taking many with him,.

**
"We have compromised ourselves out of the Faith." Madre Angelica**

 

[DorianGregorian]

you obviously dont understand the Church as we Catholics do.

Clearly, that’s the heart of this disagreement. As far as the claim of Scripture not being around at Pentecost. True. However the Apostles taught the Bible as doctrine and with the close of the Apostolic Age, the Bible preserved this doctrine, the same exact doctrine the Apostles taught.

S. Cyril apparently believed in the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

St. Cyril in his Lectures: “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

 

[1holycatholic]

Clearly, that’s the heart of this disagreement. As far as the claim of Scripture not being around at Pentecost. True. However the Apostles taught the Bible as doctrine and with the close of the Apostolic Age, the Bible preserved this doctrine, the same exact doctrine the Apostles taught.

It would have been impossible for the apostles to have “taught the Bible as doctrine.” The Bible did not exist until the late fourth century, roughly three and a half centuries after Pentecost.

 

[wisdomseeker]

Clearly, that’s the heart of this disagreement. As far as the claim of Scripture not being around at Pentecost. True. However the Apostles taught the Bible as doctrine and with the close of the Apostolic Age, the Bible preserved this doctrine, the same exact doctrine the Apostles taught.

S. Cyril apparently believed in the authority and sufficiency of Scripture.

St. Cyril in his Lectures: “This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures.”

can you give me more info about this quote? to whom is he speaking to? why is he saying this, do you know? what year has this taking place?

and just how this quote take away the authority of the Church? is it not the Church that haqs set the Doctrines from the beginning? you know, people in the Church? the Bible does not speak for itself, ya know.

watch this.

youtube.com/user/wordonfirevideo#p/u/23/RWYwBDqFsuE

 

[DorianGregorian]

It would have been impossible for the apostles to have “taught the Bible as doctrine.” The Bible did not exist until the late fourth century, roughly three and a half centuries after Pentecost.

That quote from S. Cyril can be found here: Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23

As far as the Bible not existing until the 4th century? What? The earliest letter 1 Thessalonians was written 50-60 A.D and John was written 100-110. The Bible had been written by that time. Now the Canon (of which I believe God, not man determines) was set in the fourth century, although dispute raged up to and including Trent.

Now as far as teaching “the Bible” I meant that anything the Apostles taught was in complete harmony with the later Scripture. This is because they taught nothing that could not be reconciled with Scripture, and nothing necessary for salvation that is not in Scripture.

 

[wisdomseeker]

That quote from S. Cyril can be found here: Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23

As far as the Bible not existing until the 4th century? What? The earliest letter 1 Thessalonians was written 50-60 A.D and John was written 100-110. The Bible had been written by that time. Now the Canon (of which I believe God, not man determines) was set in the fourth century, although dispute raged up to and including Trent.

Now as far as teaching “the Bible” I meant that anything the Apostles taught was in complete harmony with the later Scripture. This is because they taught nothing that could not be reconciled with Scripture, and nothing necessary for salvation that is not in Scripture.

what Scriptures? the Apostles were tought by Jesus, then by the HS. Scriptures came from the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles(NT). Oral teachings. some were written and some were not.

do you know what is necessary for Salvation? how can you know if you cannot understand the meaning of Scriptures?

the Church kept the letters of the Apostles since it was sent to the Church anyway.
the Church continues to teach the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles to this day.
if you recall it was the CC that fought all the heresies of the past. and today she is the One also fighting heresies. she alone.

 

[1holycatholic]

That quote from S. Cyril can be found here: Catechetical Lectures, IV:17, in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers [Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1983 reprint], Second Series, Vol. VII, p. 23

The same St. Cryil who died in the late fourth century.

As far as the Bible not existing until the 4th century? What? The earliest letter 1 Thessalonians was written 50-60 A.D and John was written 100-110. The Bible had been written by that time.

No. The writings were written before 110 AD as were many other writings. There is no Bible without the Canon.

Now the Canon (of which I believe God, not man determines) was set in the fourth century, although dispute raged up to and including Trent.

The Canon was definitively established in the late fourth century. The Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the Canon in response to Protestant practice of removing books from the Bible that that they didn’t like.

Now as far as teaching “the Bible” I meant that anything the Apostles taught was in complete harmony with the later Scripture. This is because they taught nothing that could not be reconciled with Scripture, and nothing necessary for salvation that is not in Scripture.

I agree with you. Christ established One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Christ’s Catholic Church cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals as she is the “pillar and foundation of the truth.”

 

[BrianH]

The same St. Cryil who died in the late fourth century.

No. The writings were written before 110 AD as were many other writings. There is no Bible without the Canon.

The Canon was definitively established in the late fourth century. The Council of Trent merely reaffirmed the Canon in response to Protestant practice of removing books from the Bible that that they didn’t like.
."

I do not think it was definitively established. Maybe in some parts…yeah.
beutel.narod.ru/write/canon.htm

 

[1holycatholic]

I do not think it was definitively established. Maybe in some parts…yeah.
beutel.narod.ru/write/canon.htm

Did you even bother to read the link you posted? What is there between the early 400’s and the Protestant rebellion? Virtually nothing. I’m told (at the Melkite Parish I occasionally attend) the Eastern Churches didn’t read the Revelation to John in their liturgy and they don’t to this day, but it’s still in the Canon that they acknowledge.

 

[BrianH]

Did you even bother to read the link you posted? What is there between the early 400’s and the Protestant rebellion? Virtually nothing. I’m told (at the Melkite Parish I occasionally attend) the Eastern Churches didn’t read the Revelation to John in their liturgy and they don’t to this day, but it’s still in the Canon that they acknowledge.

Yes. Uncool question I will assume you lack normal social skills and go on with my question.
I am talking about the differerent canons used by other groups like the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Eastern Orthodox and so forth. Virtually nothing can be up to seven books.

 

[1holycatholic]

Yes. Uncool question I will assume you lack normal social skills and go on with my question.
I am talking about the differerent canons used by other groups like the Oriental Orthodox, Assyrians, Eastern Orthodox and so forth. Virtually nothing can be up to seven books.

NEWS FLASH: Heretics and schismatics disagree with the Church! Film at eleven.
:whacky: