N
Nicea325
Guest
Really? What empirical proof/evidence (substantiation) do you have to present the early church did not teach the papacy,infallibility and Marian doctrines?
Sounds like mere charge on your part.
Sources please…
I respectfully ask evangelical, protestant and sola scriptura proponents...
- Status
Sounds like mere charge on your part.
Sources please…
J
jlhargus
Guest
which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]
The Church was teaching, preaching, converting and faithfully passing on that apostolic doctrine at least twenty years before the first word of the NT was written. Except for John all the apostels were dead before the NT was finished.
Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.
[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP ****BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.]
2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **also.
2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.
2Thes3:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and **HOLD THE TRADITIONS **which ye have been taught, WHETHER BY word, OR our epistle.] Unless you can post a SCRIPTURE saying ALL TRADITION is now in scripture then you’re following a tradition of men.
All faith groups have traditions handed down, by which they see and interpret scripture. That’s why a Baptist interprets the SAME scripture differently than a Presbyterian or a Presbyterian differently than a Methodist a Methodist differently than your faith group. Yet they will ALL deny they hold traditions. Those very scriptures tell you the Church is the pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15.
J
jlhargus
Guest
which ye HEARD of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is IN TRUTH, the WORD OF GOD, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.]
The Church was teaching, preaching, converting and faithfully passing on that apostolic doctrine at least twenty years before the first word of the NT was written. Except for John all the apostels were dead before the NT was finished.
Jn14: 26: But the Comforter, which is THE HOLY GHOST, whom the Father will send in my name, he SHALL TEACH YOU ALL THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, WHATSOEVER I have SAID UNTO YOU.
[2 TIM 1:13 HOLD FAST THE form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 That good thing which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP ****BY THE HOLY GHOST **which dwelleth IN US.]
2Tim2:1 Thou therefore, my son, be strong in the grace that is in Christ Jesus. 2 And THE THINGS that THOU HAST HEARD OF ME among many witnesses, THE SAME COMMIT thou TO FAITHFUL MEN, who shall be **ABLE TO TEACH OTHERS **also.
2Tim1:13 HOLD FAST the form of SOUND WORDS, which thou hast HEARD OF ME, in faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. 14 THAT GOOD THING which was COMMITTED unto thee KEEP BY THE HOLY GHOST which dwelleth IN US.
2Thes3:14 Whereunto he called you by OUR GOSPEL, to the obtaining of the glory of our Lord Jesus Christ. 15 Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and **HOLD THE TRADITIONS **which ye have been taught, WHETHER BY word, OR our epistle.] Unless you can post a SCRIPTURE saying ALL TRADITION is now in scripture then you’re following a tradition of men.
All faith groups have traditions handed down, by which they see and interpret scripture. That’s why a Baptist interprets the SAME scripture differently than a Presbyterian or a Presbyterian differently than a Methodist a Methodist differently than your faith group. Yet they will ALL deny they hold traditions. Those very scriptures tell you the Church is the pillar and ground of TRUTH, 1Tm3:15.
P
Portrait
Guest
Dear kelman,
Cordial greetings and a very good day. Please permit me, if I may, to respond to your remarks above.
The Church and the bible developed together, but obviously at the beginning the ‘tradition’ was oral and consisted in the apostles teaching and preaching. Much of the core teaching was later written down in the Epistles, but sometimes it was transmitted orally. In fact St. Paul actually refers to the authority of both his oral and written teaching when he says, in II Thess. 2: 15, “So then brothers, stand firm and hold the traditions we passed on to you, whether by word of mouth or by letter”. He expected that his oral teachings would be handed on faithfully from generation to generation. Again he says to young Timothy, “What you heard from me keep as the pattern of sound teaching, with faith and love in Jesus Christ. Guard the good deposit which is entrusted to you” (II Tim. 1. 13).
The Catholic Church believes that the oral traditions of the apostles were as equally as authoritative as the written word, and that these oral traditions were kept alive and passed on faithfully by the leaders of the early Church. The tradition and written word were both highly venerated. Eusebius, the renowned historian of the early Church, speaks of one of the earliest Christian leaders called Papias (c. 120 A.D.) and writes, “and Papias…acknowledges that he received the sayings of the apostles from those that followed them…he mentions them frequently by name* and includes traditions of theirs in his writings*” (emphasis mine).
Irenaeus is yet another very early witness as regards the value of an apostolic tradition that was both oral and written. In his work Adversus Haereses he says, “What if the apostles had not left us writtings to us? Would it not be necessary to follow the order of tradition which was handed down to those to whom they entrusted churches?”. Elsewhere Irenaeus also observes how vital this apostolic tradition is for men to know the full truth - “It is possible then for everyone in every church who may wish to know the truth to contemplate the Traditions of the apostles which has been made known throughout the whole world”.
We Catholics believe, dear friend, that this apostolic tradition has been preserved from antiquity most fully within the Catholic Church. It is this body of tradition which gives us a dynamic force for elucidating the written tradition of Sacred Scripture with an authentic voice.
Although you and I both venerate the written word of God and recognise its great authority, you want them to be the final authority, but the problem is whoever interprets Sacred Scripture is the final authority. The fact remains, kelman, that whilst is good to devoutly study and devotionally read the bible, we always require some man to interpret the sacred text for us. In point of fact this does happen when Protestants listen to their preachers give a biblical ‘exposition’ or study bible commentaries by scholars who share their own theological viewpoint or bias. In other words they are entrusting themselves not so much to the bible, but rather to the interpretative authority of their favourite church leaders, be they J. I. Packer or John Wesley. Now if they happen to disagree with their leaders, well, then they are trusting to their own personal interpretative authority, which may, in some cases, be jolly precarious and lead to all sorts of novel and bizzare ideas. In any event, either way, whoever decides what the bible means is the final authority and that surely is an ineluctable conclusion. Therefore we have established that all Christians believe in some final interpretative authority, but Catholics recognise this fact and see the dangers of entrusting oneself to a qaugmire of competing opinions, rather than to the infallible and authoritative Church established by Christ.
This will be my final post this side of the weekend and it only remains for me to wish you, dear friend, and all other contributors to this thread a splendid weekend, whatever you plan to do.
God bless you all.
Warmest good wishes,
Portrait:tiphat:
Pax
J
jmcrae
Guest
You cannot “read” oral words. You could, however, come to Mass and hear them.
Exactly - which is how Purgatory (a place where people are washed from their sins in the blood of Jesus Christ) becomes possible, in the first place.
But nothing unclean can enter Heaven, so if there were no blood of Christ to clean them, pouring down from the Cross, they would have to go to Hell.
A
Arizona_Samson
Guest
Here you go…
**And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting Me?” And he said, “Who are you, Lord?” And He said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.” (Acts 9:4-6)
And I said, ‘What shall I do, Lord?’ And the Lord said to me, ‘Get up and go on into Damascus, and there you will be told of all that has been appointed for you to do.’ (Acts 22:10)
And he said, ‘The God of our fathers has appointed you to know His will and to see the Righteous One and to hear an utterance from His mouth. For *you will be a witness for Him to all men *of what you have seen and heard.” (Acts 22:14-15)
If anyone thinks that he is a prophet, or spiritual, he should acknowledge that the things I am writing to you are a command of the Lord. (I Cor 14:37) **
K
kelman
Guest
But surely “hard to understand” does not mean impossible to understand? God gave us many references about the need to read and meditate on Scripture which He wouldn’t do if we couldn’t understand what we’re reading. The ECFs also had a “multitude” of interpretations, for example, some believed in a spiritual presence only, some believed in a physical presence and some symbolic. I don’t think either the ECFs differences or Protestant differences is an indication that “all is far from well”.
You fail to take into account that man is an imperfect and finite creature. Hilary of Poiters’ comments are appropriated and true “heresy comes not from scripture, but from the understanding of it; the fault is in the mind [of the interpreter], not in the [divine] word.” * II.3.4–5:
In the following, I believe Hilary could be speaking directly to the method of interpretation used by the RCC concerning a number of its doctrines: “For he is the best reader who allows the words to reveal their own meaning rather than imposing one on them, who takes meaning from the text rather than bringing meaning to it, and who does not force a semblance of meaning on the words that he had determined to be right before reading them.” De Trinitate, I.18.14–16:
We see that Hilary believed, as did the Reformers, that “Scripture is its own interpreter”. His words indicate that he believes Scripture is perspicuous: *“we must first of all know that God has not spoken to himself [in scripture] but to us and has adapted the language of his declaration to our understanding such that the weakness of our nature is able to grasp his meaning”.*De Trinitate, VIII.43.1–4.
We could just as easily be talking about the RCC and the EO here. Did the Holy Spirit lead both churches in different directions? Both claim apostolic succession yet have some very serious differences.
We do not say the Bible is “perfectly clear” only that it is perspicuous on the essential doctrines of the faith because the purpose of Scripture is soteriological. "Scripture is designed by God to be read and understood - heard and obeyed - proclaimed and believed.” Hilary is not alone in his belief that Scripture is perspicuous.
You write this and yet fail to see the circular reasoning you use….something along the lines of: “I believed the infallibility of the Church, because the Scripture said she was infallible; while I had no better proof that the Scripture said so than the assertion of the Church that she could not mistake the Scripture.” Or, “The Church proves the Bible, the Bible proves the Church.”
No need for what God has not given(an interpretive authority) because Scripture is “self-attesting”…from the Bible’s fulfilled prophecies to the many references which insist that the explicit purposes of Scripture is to communicate faith, hope and to teach us so that we are kept from deception.
Absolutely, the Apostle’s teaching authority came from God, however, nowhere do we see the Apostles handing-down their apostolic authority. What they did was to write down what was given to them by the Holy Spirit. And of this alone does God call ” Theopneustos”.
The church isn’t mentioned in the entire chapter. In fact, Peter highlights the need for the written Word to which he instructs us to go: ”1 This second epistle, beloved, I now write unto you; in both which I stir up your pure minds by way of remembrance: 2 That ye may be mindful of the words which were spoken before by the holy prophets, and of the commandment of us the apostles of the Lord and Saviour:”
God made full provision for His church when He inspired the Bible and gave the Holy Spirit to enlighten those who come humbly and prayerfully to Scripture. Where do we find the light to instruct us?.. Ps 119:105 claims it is from God’s words. Where do we go to find faith?..Ro 10:17 say to the Word of God. Is 29:18 tells us that it is the Word of God which takes us out of the darkness: ”And in that day shall the deaf hear the words of the book, and the eyes of the blind shall see out of obscurity, and out of darkness.”
God makes amazing statements about Scripture – it is sufficient to make men wise unto salvation – even the intellectually unsophisticated.*
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
Kelman, you must substantiate that this claim you make is true. Meaning give sources and reasons. Not just say, “the substantiation comes in the form of their writings.”
That is a claim, not a substantiation.
G
GreggAlvarez
Guest
We don’t believe the CC is an “interpretive authority”. We believe her to be an infallible authority. God gave the binding/loosing power to somebody and meant it to be authoritative. So, yes, God did appoint somebody as authoritative.
Titus 2:15
Titus 1:5-9
Titus 3:1
These are just the verses I came up with. I know there are more, but I don’t know where. So, to say what you just said is completely false.
Yes, Scripture is good. We are not disputing this.
Ok, Romans 10:17 says nothing of “Scripture only” neither does that Psalm passage. They only mention the Word of God. (This is what Sacred Tradition is: the Word of God, both oral and written.)
So, to say what you just said is to do exactly what Hilary had spoken against (which I imagine you trust and agree with his words), reading into the text what is not there and reading into the text what you believed prior to that specific reading. In other words, you are reading into the text that Word of God means and only means “Scripture Only”.
As a side note, most people use the argument “in remembrance is symbolic” to prove that the bread and wine are not literally His Body and Blood. Do you agree with the use of “remembrance” in that argument?
If not, well then I wasted my time.
If yes, then you agree that Peter was not talking literally about Scripture, but only symbolically. That is, he really meant that what he wrote was only meant to be symbolic and not literal. After all, he did used “remembrance” just as Jesus did.
I really dislike the “remembrance” argument. I really hope you don’t use that argument. It is more like grabbing at straws than an actual argument. There are better ones out there.
True! That gives me a chance.
J
joe370
Guest
Me too, and I agree with you.Excellent question.
I have met quite a few ëx Catholics"who become evangelical Anglicans/Baptists/Pentecostals who get really angry at any mention of the great tradiiton of the Roman catholic Church and how it is the original church. Yet they provide no hard evidence to discount it. Well it is time they started.
P
PRmerger
Guest
So when Saul was “told what” he was to do when he entered the city, was it by reading
the Bible? (I don’t think so.
)As the Bible had not be written yet, this is a peculiar verse to support that Jesus commanded a book to be written. It seems to be, though, a great verse to support the Catholic Church’s teaching on Sacred Tradition.
Again, did they then look to their Bible in order to find what what “has been appointed for” them to do?
:nope:
So, again, oddly, this verse you’re proffering to support your belief that Jesus commanded a book to be written upholds and affirms the Catholic Church’s teaching on Tradition.
Yes, Catholics give a hearty amen to this verse. Sacred Tradition, again. Nothing at all about a command to write down the Word of God.
Amen!
But if we’re going to use this verse to support your claim that Jesus commanded a bible to be written, then we’re going to have to say that he only commanded Paul to write the bible, and, thus, we must dismiss the Gospels, the OT, Hebrews (possibly), 1 Peter, etc etc etc.
P
PRmerger
Guest
This is a peculiar paradigm for those who are SS advocates. For where is the verse in Scripture that says it is “its own interpreter”?
Chapter and verse, please.
That Hilary proposed such a thing is fine, given that he was a Catholic and was not bound to the man-made tradition of SS.
Why would the Reformers (and you) claim this “Scripture is its own interpreter” without offering a single verse to substantiate this paradigm?
Could you please cite some of those “serious differences”? Thanks.
And you have yet to answer my questions vis a vis:
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans the Eucharist is the true presence of Christ, and then tell the Baptists it is only a symbol?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Methodists it is alright to have female ministers, and then tell the Baptists it is unbiblical?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Seventh-Day Adventists that Saturday is the day of worship, and then tell the Presbyterians the day of worship is Sunday and not Saturday?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Lutherans that the Blessed Virgin Mary was and remains always virgin, and then tell the Baptists she had other children?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell the Baptists, “once saved always saved”, and then tell the Church of Christ that Sola Fides is unscriptural?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell Episcopalians to baptize infants and then tell Pentecostals infant baptism is invalid?
- How can the Holy Spirit tell Mormons that the Holy Trinity is three separate persons, and then tell Methodists the Trinity is three persons in one GOD?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Where does the Bible speak of these “essential doctrines”? Could you please cite book, chapter and verse where the Bible tells us what’s an essential vs a non-essential doctrine?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Actually, the argument proferred is not circular, but SPIRAL.
"We are not basing the inspiration of the Bible on the Church’s infallibility and the Church’s infallibility on the word of an inspired Bible. That indeed would be a circular argument! What we have is really a spiral argument.
On the first level we argue to the reliability of the Bible insofar as it is history.
From that we conclude that an infallible Church was founded.
And then we take the word of that infallible Church that the Bible is inspired.
This is not a circular argument because the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired) is not simply a restatement of its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable), and its initial finding (the Bible is historically reliable) is in no way based on the final conclusion (the Bible is inspired). **What we have demonstrated is that without the existence of the Church, we could never know whether the Bible is inspired." **source
P
PRmerger
Guest
The Infallibility of the Catholic Church Proved from Scripture
Originally posted by Randy Carson
The following verses suggest that the Catholic Church is protected by God from ever teaching error in matters of faith and morals, and questions concerning each verse are provided as food for thought.
Matthew 16:18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
Q: If Jesus promised to build his own church and that Church ever fell into doctrinal error, would this mean that a) Jesus was a liar, b) Jesus did not have the power to protect his own church, or c) Jesus was incompetent as a church builder?
Matthew 18:15-18
If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over. But if he will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’ If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, treat him as you would a pagan or a tax collector. I tell you the truth, whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
Q: If the Church has the authority to bind and loose on earth in a manner that is also true in heaven, then assuming that there is no error in heaven, can the Church err on earth?
Matthew 28:20
And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.
Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error at any time during the nearly 1500 years before the Protestant Reformation, did Jesus remain with the Church “always”?
Luke 10:16
“He who listens to you listens to me; he who rejects you rejects me; but he who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”
Q: If the Church speaks with such authority that those who hear the Church are actually hearing Christ and such that anyone who rejects the words of the Church are rejecting Christ Himself, can the Church ever be allowed to speak error on behalf of Jesus?
John 14:15-16
15"If you love me, you will obey what I command. 16And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be with you forever—
Q: If the Church fell into doctrinal error, would this indicate that Jesus did not give the Counselor or that the Counselor simply failed to remain with the Church “forever”?
John 14:18
18I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
Q: If the Church ever fell into doctrinal error, did Jesus actually leave us as “orphans” during all that time?
John 14:26
26But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
Q: Despite this promise, did the Holy Spirit fail to teach the Church “all things” or to remind the Church of the things that Jesus had said to the Apostles?
John 16:13
But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.
Q: Did the Holy Spirit fail to guide the Church into all truth?
Now, consider the following three verses:
1 John 4:4
4You, dear children, are from God and have overcome them, because the one who is in you is greater than the one who is in the world.
1 Timothy 3:13
15if I am delayed, you will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth.
Mark 3:27
27In fact, no one can enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man. Then he can rob his house.
Q: Is Satan stronger than Jesus, is the Church the household of God, and can Satan rob the Church of the deposit of truth by “binding” Jesus in any way?
In light of the above, is it possible that the Church fell into doctrinal error? Taken individually, each of these verses creates a problem for those that assert that the Church “went off the rails” at some point in history. Taken as a whole, they portray Christ’s own involvement in building, nurturing and protecting His Church until the end of time. The Catholic Church remains strong and vibrant – not by her own efforts or innate qualities – but because God Himself is leading and guiding her to ensure that “the gates of hell will not overcome it.”
P
pablope
Guest
But actually, if you look at the context of this passage…prior to this passage…Paul is writing instructions to the Church at Corinth…and he is instructing them to consider what he wrote as also from the Lord…as what he taught them orally.
For as Paul said…isn 2Thes…hold the traditions whether orally or by epistle.
And besides…if you are going to use this as a proof text…which writing? The letter only? How about the other letters before? and those letters after? And how about the gospels, written already and yet to be written?
The question is…where did Jesus give the command to his Apostles…to write a book, what to write in the books, and what is to be in that list of the Bible?
Let me ask you a question:
Cite me the chapter and verse where St. Mark claims authorship of the Gospel of Mark. When you find this passage, provide the answer to this…How do you know now that St. Mark actually wrote the Gospel of Mark? Why do you now accept it is part of the Bible? Is inspired? How would you know that it is not just anybody named Mark who actually wrote the Gospel of Mark?
P
pablope
Guest
These are all valid questions, to which I add:
How can the Spirit (and Tradition) tell the Catholic Church the pope is infallible (ex cathedra), and tell the Orthodox he is not.
Perhaps it is not in the telling, but instead in the listening and undetstanding.
Jon
J
jlhargus
Guest
JL: First has the Orthodox Church as one body DEFINED the role of the pope? Second have they defined any doctrine after 1054?
The role of the Bishop of Rome is defined by Nicea. So, yes they have.
Not that I know of.
Jon
- Status