If the Bible is a 'Catholic book', are Protestants, by default, under Catholc authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?

[alwayswill]

And where did the authority originate that told you the tenants of the faith proceeded from Scripture?
The Church was not a ‘Johnny come lately’ who jumped on the Bible bandwagon. The Church was in existence from the Resurrection on, it was the Apostles of the Church who penned the New Testament. It was the Church who put it all together in a Book we call the Bible.

From previous threads: I think we all agree Scripture (writing breathed out by God) are the highest authority: (I can provide links where Catholic state that)

so if we agree on that: what is the issue in saying “Those basic tenants of the faith proceed from the Scriptures”

 

[alwayswill]

Which was never the case even in the early church. Until the 4th century the New Testament canon did not exist as we have it today, so your appeal to scripture cannot be valid since the church had to discern and decide what was authentic Christian divinely inspired (hence the rejection of the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas [sp?]which are Christian but not inspired) and the rejection of all the Gnostic writings.

C’mon…your argument just doesn’t wash. Accept the facts of history and embrace the truth, okay?

But Scripture did exist prior to the 4th Century; right?

Polycarp, who was martyred in A.D. 155, quoted from 16 NT books and** referred to them as “Sacred Scriptures.”**

Irenaeus of Lyons, one of the most able defenders of the faith, around A.D. 180 quoted over 1,000 passages from all but four or five New Testament books, and** called them “the Scriptures”** given by the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian of Carthage, around A.D. 200, was the first serious expositor and used almost all the NT books. They were equated with the Old Testament, and he referred to “the majesty of our Scriptures.” He clearly possessed a canon almost, if not wholly, identical to ours.

By A.D. 240, Origen of Alexandria was using all our 27 books, and only those, as Scripture alongside the Old Testament books.

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160, who referred to it directly. An insistence upon there being a canon of four gospels, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyons

Scripture did exist prior to the 4th Century; right?

 

[Randy_Carson]

The** Bible is a collection** of all known God breathed writings (aka Scriptures)

The Books of Moses, the Book of Isaiah, The book of Acts, The Book of Revelation, etc are not Catholic books

How is it a Roman Catholic book? Moses and King David certainly would not be considered Roman Catholic. The Apostles and Gospel writers wrote in the first century. They were Christians and got their authority from God, not from Rome.
Just because a council centuries later made a formal ruling about what would be NT Scripture, it doesn’t mean that the NT was invented then. The Scriptures were recognized as Scripture at the time they were written. 1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul cites 2 Scriptures including Luke. 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. There may have been a few questions, but it was largely recognized immediately as being Scripture.

The New Testament contains 27 books that were authored by and for people who considered themselves to be members of one Church which had begun calling itself the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century.

 

[alwayswill]

The New Testament contains 27 books that were authored by and for people who considered themselves to be members of one Church which had begun calling itself the “Catholic Church” before the end of the first century.

got it:
They were part of the universal church; the followers of The Way, first called Christians at Antioch, the ekklesia; those called out by Christ, as am I

 

[Randy_Carson]

got it:
They were part of the universal church; the followers of The Way, first called Christians at Antioch, the ekklesia; those called out by Christ, as am I

Indeed.

The early Church - the Church founded by Christ as promised in Matthew 16:18 - was that which was originally known as “the Way” (cf. Acts 24:14). Later, those individuals who followed Christ began to be called “Christians” beginning at Antioch (cf. Acts 11:26). As early as 107 A.D., those same individuals referred to themselves collectively as the “Catholic Church”. In a letter to the Church of Smyrna, Ignatius of Antioch wrote:

You must all follow the bishop as Jesus Christ follows the Father, and the presbytery (priest) as you would the Apostles. Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, A.D. 107, [8,1])

Notice that Ignatius does not take pains to introduce the term “Catholic Church”; instead he uses it in a manner suggesting that the name was already in use and familiar to his audience. This further suggests that the name, Catholic Church, had to have been coined much earlier in order to have achieved wide circulation by the time of this writing. In other words, the Christian assembly was calling itself the Catholic Church during the lifetime of the last Apostle, John, who died near the end of the first century. John, the beloved disciple, may have thought of himself as a member of the Catholic Church!

The Catholic Church began with Peter and the Apostles and continued without interruption or cessation through their disciples (Ignatius, Irenaeus, Polycarp, Clement, Justin Martyr, etc.) down to the present day. As a side note, it appears that the believers in Antioch may have coined both terms still in use today: “Christian” and “Catholic Church” – terms they used to describe the one body of believers in Christ.

Protestant Scholar on the use of the Proper Name "Catholic"

One Protestant author who is honest about this history is the renowned Church historian, J. N. D. Kelly. Kelly dates the usage of the name “Catholic” after the death of the Apostle John, but he acknowledges that the original Church founded by Jesus called itself the “Catholic Church”.

“As regards ‘Catholic,’ its original meaning was ‘universal’ or ‘general’ … As applied to the Church, its primary significance was to underline its universality as opposed to the local character of the individual congregations. Very quickly, however, in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations. . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church” (J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines, 5th ed. [San Francisco: Harper, 1978], 190f).

But notice that Ignatius also wrote:

“6. Let no one be deceived! Even the heavenly powers and the angels in their splendor and the principalities, both visible and invisible, must either believe in the Blood of Christ, or else face damnation. Let him grasp it who can. Let no rank puff up anyone; for faith and love are paramount—the greatest blessings in the world. Observe those who hold erroneous opinions concerning the grace of Jesus Christ which has come to us, and see how they run counter to the mind of God! They concern themselves with neither works of charity, nor widows, nor orphans, nor the distressed, nor those in prison or out of it, nor the hungry or thirsty.

“7. From Eucharist and prayer they hold aloof, because** they do not confess that the Eucharist is the Flesh of our Savior Jesus Christ**, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father in His loving-kindness raised from the dead. And so, those who question the gift of God perish in their contentiousness. It would be better for them to have love, so as to share in the resurrection.** It is proper, therefore, to avoid associating with such people and not to speak about them either in private or in public, but to study the Prophets attentively and, especially, the Gospel, in which the Passion is revealed to us and the Resurrection shown in its fulfillment. Shun division as the beginning of evil.**

“8. You must all follow the lead of the bishop, as Jesus Christ follow that of the Father; follow the presbytery [priest] as you would the Apostles; reverence the deacons as you would God’s commandment. Let no one do anything touching the Church, apart from the Bishop. Let that celebration of the Eucharist be considered valid which is held under the bishop or anyone to whom he has committed it. Where the bishop appears, there let the people be, just as where Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not permitted without authorization from the bishop either to baptize or to hold an agape; but whatever he approves is also pleasing to God. Thus everything you do will be proof against danger and valid.

“9. It is consonant with reason, therefore, that we should come to our senses, while we still have time to change our ways and turn to God. It is well to revere God and bishop. He who honors a bishop is honored by God. He who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop worships the devil.”

Ignatius commends following the Bishops, Priests and Deacons and recognition of the Eucharist as the body of Christ for all who are members of the one Church to which you claim to belong: the Catholic Church.

 

[powerofk]

But Scripture did exist prior to the 4th Century; right?

Polycarp, who was martyred in A.D. 155, quoted from 16 NT books and** referred to them as “Sacred Scriptures.”**

Irenaeus of Lyons, one of the most able defenders of the faith, around A.D. 180 quoted over 1,000 passages from all but four or five New Testament books, and** called them “the Scriptures”** given by the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian of Carthage, around A.D. 200, was the first serious expositor and used almost all the NT books. They were equated with the Old Testament, and he referred to “the majesty of our Scriptures.” He clearly possessed a canon almost, if not wholly, identical to ours.

By A.D. 240, Origen of Alexandria was using all our 27 books, and only those, as Scripture alongside the Old Testament books.

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160, who referred to it directly. An insistence upon there being a canon of four gospels, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyons

Scripture did exist prior to the 4th Century; right?

And all these men were Catholic. In fact, IIRC, the title “Catholic” was first used by either Polycarp or Ignatius of Antioch (one might even contend that it was first used by Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles). In general, until the 11th century, the terms “Catholic” and “Christian” were interchangable (of course, this doesn’t take into account the non-Chalcedonean churches - the so-called “Oriental Orthodox”, who were excommunicated by both the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople after the Council of Chalcedon for being adamant in the monophysite heresy; this is why their canon is quite different from that of the Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, as the official declaration of the canon came later). And in the West, “Catholic” and “Christian” were pretty much interchangable until the 1500’s.

Polycarp was a bishop (as was Ignatius). And yes, scripture existed before it was officially canonized at the councils of Hippo and Carthage. But there were differing opinions on what counted as scripture. There were many Christian writings floating around, some more read than others. Many people considered the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians to be scripture. Eventually, it was discarded because it wasn’t purported to have been written by an apostle, though Clement was the third pope (following Peter and Linus) and personally knew Peter and was mentored by him. The Didache was discarded primarily because it was considered an early catechism and missal, but not scripture. And the Shepherd of Hermas was written too late. However, many Christians considered all of these books to be scriptural.

In fact, much of the NT canon was considered scriptural by fewer people than these books and letters. There was much doubt on the 2nd letter of Peter, for example, as well as the letter of Jude, several of the letters attributed to Paul, and the Revelation of John (in fact, the Revelation of Peter, which was eventually rejected, was considered scripture by more Christians than the Revelation of John).

My question is, if you were living in the early days of the Church, how would you discern which Christian writings were scriptural and which ones were not? In other words, how do you know that a book is inspired scripture without an authority inspired by the Holy Spirit to discern what is scriptural? Just because the books are listed in your Bible’s Table of Contents? But who decided what belonged in your Bible’s Table of Contents? The publisher? No - It’s been known for centuries what books belong in the Bible. But why? Because the canon of scripture is declared by Apostolic Tradition. And so, in order to accept the canon of scripture, one must accept the Apostolic Tradition that discerned what was scriptural. As such, in accepting scripture, one automatically rejects sola scriptura.

 

[ChadS]

Which was never the case even in the early church. Until the 4th century the New Testament canon did not exist as we have it today, so your appeal to scripture cannot be valid since the church had to discern and decide what was authentic Christian divinely inspired (hence the rejection of the Didache and Shepherd of Hermas [sp?]which are Christian but not inspired) and the rejection of all the Gnostic writings.

C’mon…your argument just doesn’t wash. Accept the facts of history and embrace the truth, okay?

Amen!

 

[ComplineSanFran]

Okay, that’s a start.
However, even as an Episcopal you would admit that the Bible** as we know it today** was put together, with the Jewish Scriptures, by the predominate Church at the time: The Catholic Church.

This is something that I hear from people on CAF: that the Roman Catholic Church created the canon of today’s Bible. It’s very perplexing to me. The early Christian community had many seats of authority and ways of doing things, predominantly in the East and in the West, but also centered around schools of thought, like the Montanists. There were many disputes, especially around the texts that were used for teaching and bringing in people to the faith. For instance, the Churches in the East had determined a consensus of books to be used by the mid to late 4th century (see Athanasius’s Letter from Alexandria in 367, which included the 27 books of the Church plus the Didache, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the Shepherd of Hermas.) The Syriac Church used a harmony of the Gospels, instead of 4 distinct books. It did not use the general letters nor the book of Revelation.

The book of Hebrews was highly contested by the West, but they ultimately agreed to include it.

Early Church history is complex, and things did not happen in an orderly fashion, to say the least. And for Western-centric Christians, I think we assume everything centered around Rome. That was not quite the case.

So I would argue that perhaps we need to expand our understanding of the Church and how it emerged into a structure that we recognize today (which is still quite diverse with many seats of authority.)

 

[Darryl_B]

I know we don’t need yet another Sola Scriptura thread. But this subject came up on the Karl Barth thread, and I’d like to hear what others think about this.

This would include ALL Protestants from those closest to the CC, like Episcopal and Lutheran, to the most anti-Catholic fundamentalist.

I look at it from the perspective that there is only One Body. It is not invisible, it is like a city on a hill. It is not cities on a hill, or even cites on hills, it is One City on One Hill. Therefore in my opinion all the protestant churches are “protestant Catholic Christian”. They are sitting just outside the wall of the city, with their back to the city, They build their own camp fires, they wander around each others camp-fires, sometimes split their camp-fires, sometimes join camp-fires together, lots never seen inside the walls of that City, but many have stories about the content of that City. Some draw close to that City, some leave that City. But one thing is certain. There can never be two Cities on this One Hill.

I am more convinced of this than the unusual alternative, which would be that the City has been usurped, as some seem to think.

 

[ComplineSanFran]

I look at it from the perspective that there is only One Body. It is not invisible, it is like a city on a hill. It is not cities on a hill, or even cites on hills, it is One City on One Hill. Therefore in my opinion all the protestant churches are “protestant Catholic Christian”. They are sitting just outside the wall of the city, with their back to the city, They build their own camp fires, they wander around each others camp-fires, sometimes split their camp-fires, sometimes join camp-fires together, lots never seen inside the walls of that City, but many have stories about the content of that City. Some draw close to that City, some leave that City. But one thing is certain. There can never be two Cities on this One Hill.
.

Or perhaps one City, lots of neighborhoods.

 

[adf417]

How is it a Roman Catholic book? Moses and King David certainly would not be considered Roman Catholic. The Apostles and Gospel writers wrote in the first century. They were Christians and got their authority from God, not from Rome.
Just because a council centuries later made a formal ruling about what would be NT Scripture, it doesn’t mean that the NT was invented then. The Scriptures were recognized as Scripture at the time they were written. 1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul cites 2 Scriptures including Luke. 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture.** There may have been a few questions, but it was largely recognized immediately as being Scripture**.

The bolded statment above is the very reason there had to be a decision to clear up ALL questions. I don’t know about you but 90% is not good enough for me when it comes to “which books belong in the bible”.

Peace!!!

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Okay, that is what I am trying to explore.
Catholic authority proceeds from Scripture.
Protestants accept the Bible, but reject tradition (to varying degrees depending on the denomination).
They follow Scripture Alone, which by itself is not without some kind of authority. That authority being the basic tenants of the faith. Those basic tenants of the faith proceed from the Catholic Church.

Does that make sense? Or do I need less flu medicine?

No reformation stream Denys tradition except for the fringe parts, and the reason Scripture is the final authority is that it has the backing of the Holy Spirit

 

[JB_Brother_4446]

No reformation stream Denys tradition except for the fringe parts, and the reason Scripture is the final authority is that it has the backing of the Holy Spirit

And the reason Scripture has authority is because God through His One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church decided which books should be in His Holy Scripture.

 

[po18guy]

The** Bible is a collection** of all known God breathed writings (aka Scriptures)

The Books of Moses, the Book of Isaiah, The book of Acts, The Book of Revelation, etc are not Catholic books

To which of the reformers were they revealed? It is undisputed that all of the reformers split from the Catholic Church. You could say they also split from communion with the Orthodox Churches. I for one, do not suppose to know better than the Church founded by Christ. I try, with varying success, to deny myself and avoid falling into “us versus them” team sports thinking as applied to theology.

 

[pablope]

No reformation stream Denys tradition except for the fringe parts, and the reason Scripture is the final authority is that it has the backing of the Holy Spirit

Can you demonstrate how the Holy Spirit backs up Scripture?

And your statement or declaration goes against what is written in the Bible…Jesus would sent the HS to guide them and His Church…no mention of the Bible…

 

[pablope]

But Scripture did exist prior to the 4th Century; right?

Polycarp, who was martyred in A.D. 155, quoted from 16 NT books and** referred to them as “Sacred Scriptures.”**

Irenaeus of Lyons, one of the most able defenders of the faith, around A.D. 180 quoted over 1,000 passages from all but four or five New Testament books, and** called them “the Scriptures”** given by the Holy Spirit.

Tertullian of Carthage, around A.D. 200, was the first serious expositor and used almost all the NT books. They were equated with the Old Testament, and he referred to “the majesty of our Scriptures.” He clearly possessed a canon almost, if not wholly, identical to ours.

By A.D. 240, Origen of Alexandria was using all our 27 books, and only those, as Scripture alongside the Old Testament books.

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was asserted by Irenaeus, c. 160, who referred to it directly. An insistence upon there being a canon of four gospels, and no others, was a central theme of Irenaeus of Lyons

Scripture did exist prior to the 4th Century; right?

Yeah…and what did Origen,Tertullian, Irenaeus, Polycarp call the Church they belong too?

And does this same church exist today? And notice too…these guys had one faith, one belief…not several thousand different interpretations…

 

[pablope]

How is it a Roman Catholic book? Moses and King David certainly would not be considered Roman Catholic. The Apostles and Gospel writers wrote in the first century. They were Christians and got their authority from God, not from Rome.
Just because a council centuries later made a formal ruling about what would be NT Scripture, it doesn’t mean that the NT was invented then. The Scriptures were recognized as Scripture at the time they were written. 1 Timothy 5:18 - Paul cites 2 Scriptures including Luke. 2 Peter 3:16 Peter refers to Paul’s letters as Scripture. There may have been a few questions, but it was largely recognized immediately as being Scripture.

And what church did those who did the recognizing belong too?

 

[Darryl_B]

Or perhaps one City, lots of neighborhoods.

In the analogy neighbourhoods are the Rites of the Catholic Church, my Episcopalian-protestant-Catholic-Christian friend.

 

[alwayswill]

To which of the reformers were they revealed? It is undisputed that all of the reformers split from the Catholic Church. You could say they also split from communion with the Orthodox Churches. I for one, do not suppose to know better than the Church founded by Christ. I try, with varying success, to deny myself and avoid falling into “us versus them” team sports thinking as applied to theology.

the Reformation was in the 1500s:

Genesis was revealed to Moses around 1400BC

 

[susanlo]

And what church did those who did the recognizing belong too?

The universal or catholic church. It wasn’t Roman Catholic yet.