I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...

  • Thread starter Thread starter joe370
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
louis91766 said:
In the Eastern Byzantine Catholic Churches, in their creed, they say that the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father. In the Roman Catholic Churches, they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. This is not a disciplinary teaching.
Click to expand...
Yep. If you’ll go back to my post you’ll notice that I excluded #1, the filioque.

What about 2-7? How are they dogmas/doctrines that we disagree with the Orthodox on?
 
louis91766 said:
In the Eastern Byzantine Catholic Churches, in their creed, they say that the HolySpirit proceeds from the Father. In the Roman Catholic Churches, they say that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. This is not a disciplinary teaching.
Click to expand...
BTW, did you mean Orthodox, not Eastern Byzantine Catholic Churches? Because the Byzantine Churches are in full communion with the Bishop of Rome.
 
joe370 said:
They deferred to the practice of sola scriptura. 😃 Just joking…

Certainly Peter would have to get to Rome and establish his leadership there and pass on the keys to a successor before any one could recognize Peter as the bishop of Rome. Peter didn’t just hustle over to to Rome and set up shop, immediately after Pentecost. Like the codification of scripture, things took time to develop. 👍 Of course I will assume that you will of course disagree, since you are a protestant.🙂
Click to expand...
]I came back to the church six years ago after being a Sunday School teacher and the head of the department for two years. I read the Fathers and Peter Kreeft. My comment was to help you in what I thought was an excellent response but lacking in what my old friends can NOT get a grip on - Papal Infalability in matters of F&M. All disagreements between most prostestant will always go back to Sola Scriptura and Papal Infallablity.🤷
 
joe370 said:
Jon, when you say, “The unified Church (guided by the Spirit) eventually came to view NT books” - I think of an east - west ecumenical council.

I thought it was the various local synods that determined the canon and ultimately the local synod of Rome, affirmed by Damasus?
Click to expand...
Actually, the question was put by Pope Damasus at some point during the 380s AD, the Councils were Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, and the end result (3 identical lists of 27 books of the New Testament) was ratified by Pope St. Innocent I, and promulgated to the whole Church to be compiled into one codex and read out at Mass during the Liturgy of the Word in two parts: the Epistle Reading, and the Gospel Reading, to be taken only from these 27 books and no others. And that every Church in Christendom to be given a copy in the Latin language, together with a 46-book Old Testament, which was also being translated by St. Jerome at the same time.

But you are correct that there was no Ecumenical Council - they were three local Councils, and it was the Pope who made the final decision, on the basis of their findings.
 
David_Castlen said:
]I came back to the church six years ago after being a Sunday School teacher and the head of the department for two years. I read the Fathers and Peter Kreeft. My comment was to help you in what I thought was an excellent response but lacking in what my old friends can NOT get a grip on - Papal Infalability in matters of F&M. All disagreements between most prostestant will always go back to Sola Scriptura and Papal Infallablity.
Click to expand...
🤷

You came back to the Catholic church? 🙂
 
jmcrae said:
Actually, the question was put by Pope Damasus at some point during the 380s AD, the Councils were Hippo, Carthage, and Rome, and the end result (3 identical lists of 27 books of the New Testament) was ratified by Pope St. Innocent I, and promulgated to the whole Church to be compiled into one codex and read out at Mass during the Liturgy of the Word in two parts: the Epistle Reading, and the Gospel Reading, to be taken only from these 27 books and no others. And that every Church in Christendom to be given a copy in the Latin language, together with a 46-book Old Testament, which was also being translated by St. Jerome at the same time.

But you are correct that there was no Ecumenical Council - they were three local Councils, and it was the Pope who made the final decision, on the basis of their findings.
Click to expand...
Can it be verified that the Pope made the final decision???
 
joe370 said:
Can it be verified that the Pope made the final decision???
Click to expand...
Proclamation of Pope Damasus, regarding the Council of rome…AD382…

"Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon * two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus * one book.

Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book, with Ginoth, that is, with his Lamentations, Ezechiel one book, Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books *, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books.

Likewise the order of the writings of the New and Eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book.

The Epistles of Paul the Apostle in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one.

Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle one epistle."
  • Decree of the Council of Rome (AD 382) on the***
 
Portrait said:
In any event, the practical proof of the insufficiency of the bible as a sole rule of faith is the diversity of belief among Protestants, every extravagance of doctrine being professedly based on someone’s interpretation of the sacred text - and, crucially, no agreed authority to settle disputes even over fundamental doctrines and moral issues.
Click to expand...
It’s unfortunate my first post is one in which I disagree, yet, I guess it’s understandable that that would be the case.

The potential for massive errors and disagreement is the result of human nature not of Sola Scriptura, nor even of Scriptura Plus.

If there were an alternative where we would all just know perfect truth all the time, we would take it. However, such a utopia does not exist.
 
pablope said:
Proclamation of Pope Damasus, regarding the Council of rome…AD382…

“Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun…”
Click to expand...
Two points. Obviously, It would seem Trent believed prior proclamations didn’t settle the issue since it felt it necessary to authoritatively declare the canon. This canon differed considerably from many of the earlier lists of the OT, for example, those of Athanasius and Eusebius.
 
kelman said:
Two points. Obviously, It would seem Trent believed prior proclamations didn’t settle the issue since it felt it necessary to authoritatively declare the canon. This canon differed considerably from many of the earlier lists of the OT, for example, those of Athanasius and Eusebius.
Click to expand...
Trent affirmed prior decisions because Luther and company started tinkering with the Canon. Prior to Luther and company, were there disputes about the canon? After the proclamation of Pope Damasus…were there disputes about the canon? How many Bibles had different lists?

Athanasius and Eusebius…were local bishops…making the decisions for their local sees…Pope Damasus made it for the one, holy, Catholic Chuch.
  1. There are, then, of the Old Testament, twenty-two books in number; for, as I have heard, it is handed down that this is the number of the letters among the Hebrews; their respective order and names being as follows. The first is Genesis, then Exodus, next Leviticus, after that Numbers, and then Deuteronomy. Following these there is Joshua the son of Nun, then Judges, then Ruth. And again, after these four books of Kings, the first and second 1 being reckoned as one book, and so likewise the third and fourth 2 as one book. And again, the first and second of the Chronicles are reckoned as one book. Again Ezra, the first and second 3 are similarly one book. After these there is the book of Psalms, then the Proverbs, next Ecclesiastes, and the Song of Songs. Job follows, then the Prophets, the Twelve [minor prophets] being reckoned as one book. Then Isaiah, one book, then Jeremiah with Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle, one book; afterwards Ezekiel and Daniel, each one book. Thus far constitutes the Old Testament.
  2. But for the sake of greater exactness I add this also, writing under obligation, as it were. There are other books besides these, indeed not received as canonical but having been appointed by our fathers to be read to those just approaching and wishing to be instructed in the word of godliness: Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and that which is called the Teaching of the Apostles, and the Shepherd. But the former, my brethren, are included in the Canon, the latter being merely read; nor is there any place a mention of secret writings. But such are the invention of heretics, who indeed write them whenever they wish, bestowing upon them their approval, and assigning to them a date, that so, using them as if they were ancient writings, they find a means by which to lead astray the simple-minded.
 
kelman said:
Two points. Obviously, It would seem Trent believed prior proclamations didn’t settle the issue since it felt it necessary to authoritatively declare the canon. This canon differed considerably from many of the earlier lists of the OT, for example, those of Athanasius and Eusebius.
Click to expand...
True, and true. The Old Testament Canon of Trent is the one we go by today, and is considered infallible because of being promulgated by Trent. There were a variety of Old Testament Canons going around before the Council of Trent, but the one they promulgated seems to have been in widest use for the majority of the Christian era, and corresponds with that which would have been used by Christ and the Apostles, since the Palestinian canon cannot have come into existence before the fall of the Temple, in 70 AD, and since (being Greek) the Early Church must have been using the Alexandrian canon (identical to Trent’s canon) rather than either the Palestinian canon (which did not yet exist) or the canon of the Sadducees (First Moses through to Fifth Moses; aka the Pentateuch).
 
kelman said:
It’s unfortunate my first post is one in which I disagree, yet, I guess it’s understandable that that would be the case.

**The potential for massive errors and disagreement is the result of human nature **not of Sola Scriptura, nor even of Scriptura Plus.

If there were an alternative where we would all just know perfect truth all the time, we would take it. However, such a utopia does not exist.
Click to expand...
You admit that human nature errors and causes disagreement. I don’t claim perfection for the humanity of the OHCAC, Orhtodox, Oriental Church however there is One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism…and if as you say there is an alternative then it was not by humanity that this one deposit of Faith exists.

This is Catholic Answers. Have you reflected on your thoughts as you ponder this and that with the notion that there is an alternative…the people did not listen to Moses, many did not listen to Christ, many did not listen to Paul…but
the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above7Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.) 8But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach;
Click to expand...
It is not that far away…
 
louis91766 said:
A fat hog would be heavy if you compared its weight to a medium size cat. However, if you compared its weight to a large elephant, it would not be all that heavy in comparison.
Click to expand...
You can put lipstick on heavy anyway you choose; but heavy will always be heavy. Trust me, a fat hog is heavy. I’ll have to have you out to the pen someday and help me with a sick sow. That lumbering two ton bull in the next pin may be heavier but when you get done, your ego will not allow you to say that the hog is heavy; but I guarantee, you know will most certainly swear “dat be one heavy piece of meat”, I swear to budda
 
jmcrae said:
Why do you list yourself as Protestant? 🙂
Click to expand...
“Why:eek: do I list myself as protestant?”!!! So where is that…where am I listed as a protestant!!!..
:eek::eek:
I am a Catholic… where does it say otherwise???:eek:

OH no, have I been kicked out… what is going on here:cool:???
 
joe370 said:
I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents:

By whose authority does any one person, (such as myself) - have the right to start a church and call his/her established church the church founded by Jesus Christ on Pentecost? Please leave the catholic church out of the discussion unless of course you can prove that the catholic church is not the church founded by Jesus Christ circa AD 33, in Jerusalem, on Pentecost! 👍

Thanks…🙂
Click to expand...
Great question!..but lets go further back…about 5,000 years ago to the Book of the Science of GOD. As all of these religious branches including Christianity and the Catholic Church, ALL believe in GOD…why has the oldest scripture as relayed directly by GOD, ignored, maligned, over ridden? At the very least, as all these earthy religions based on GOD, Goodness and Godliness, believe in One Almighty GOD…shouldn’t all the earth’s churches and religions worship, glorify and pray to GOD, ONLY? The Book of the Science of GOD has been translated to english and is the “Bhagavad-gita AS IT IS”…In it GOD relays, who we are as humans, why we are here and how to worship, glorify and pray to GOD…and he instructs how we may return on the path back to him, GOD…after this death. I am with you and today confusion abounds on whether to worship demigods, avatars, relics, or just plain MAN CREATED religions…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top