R
Randy_Carson
Guest
:clapping:
If the Bible is a 'Catholic book', are Protestants, by default, under Catholc authority whether they reject the Catholic Church or not?
- Status
A
alwayswill
Guest
the context of the this threadWere YOU at the councils that confirmed the canon? :nope:
Or were they attended by the Bishops of the Catholic Church? :yup:
This is a matter of historical record.
#5 AW>The Bible is a collection of all known God breathed writings (aka Scriptures)
#59 PRm> So how was it “known”?
Who “knew” that 3 John and Hebrews and Mark was theopneustos but that Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas and epistles of Clement were not?
#62 RC> Um…Catholic Bishops led by the Holy Spirit?
#74 AW >The Sheep (aka the ekklesia) led by the Holy Spirit
which brings us to this point:Randy:
Is it your view The Sheep (aka the ekklesia) led by the Holy Spirit did not know what was Scripture?
Is it your view that ONLY the Bishops of the Catholic Church knew?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
With the following caveat, and at the expense of a ninja accusation, I would agree. The caveat is an acceptance that the term Catholic Church includes more than those in communion with the Bishop of Rome.
You realize, of course, that if we are under the authority of the Catholic Church that we are Catholic- Anglo-Catholics, Evangelical Catholics are indeed Catholic. Some folks on both sides might not like that.
Jon
If I may…my view is that there is only one Church because Jesus only has one body.
That one Church has a name: the Catholic Church.
So, anyone and everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord or is to be saved and in heaven for eternity will part of the one Body of Christ, the Catholic Church.
There are, however, many who are not formal members of the Church in this life (which is normatively necessary) but who are nonetheless members in a looser sense.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Which is kinda why the Councils were held to formally nail this down.
Councils of the Catholic Church attended by Catholic Bishops.
I mean, it’s not like the members of the Southern Baptist Convention voted on the canon, ya know?
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree with your premise that the faithful “know” through the witness of the HS within. Catholics call this the sensus fidelum**. You are right that not all the faithful agree, just as not all the Bishops agree. Where we might differ is that Catholics believe the HS works through the Teaching Authority instituted by Christ to arrive at the Truth.
What evidence do you have that Paul wrote this letter after the Gospel was written? I think it is equally possible that this was an oral tradition that pre-dated the written gospels.
Even the document often referred to by critics as Q, which may have predated the synoptics, I think would have been considered Scripture before any of the Gospels were written. We will never know how many fragments of Jesus’ sayings may have been lost, all of which would have been considered “scripture”.
Yes, of course. The modifiers of καθ’ and ὅλης came to be used as a proper name. Acts 9:31 is the first place we have those words in writing describing the Church founded by Christ.
Of course! Did someone imply otherwise?
You may not wish to be, but if you are validly baptized, you are.
G
guanophore
Guest
One of the criteria for canonization was whether the writing was used in the liturgy (the work of the people).How many non-clerical sheep attended the Councils wherein the Canon of scripture was being established?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Fair enough. But did they also attend the councils in large numbers or did the Bishops report on whether the sheep had accepted each book in their respective dioceses?
P
PRmerger
Guest
I just want to be clear: it is your belief that men and women in the earliest days of Christianity were given a special charism to be able to read (or hear) a text and know if it was inspired or not?
If this is your belief, can you tell me where you get this from?
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well, yes. It is by faith in the Catholic Church. That’s the point we’re trying to make here.
God used some entity…some group of people…to discern the 27 book canon of the NT.
So, if you believe that the Epistle to the Hebrews is correctly discerned to be inspired and that the Shepherd of Hermas is not, this is because you have faith in…
the Catholic Church,
(under the direction of the Holy Spirit, of course).
And that means you are NOT Sola Scriptura.
And that also means that you believe that the charism of infallibility was given to the CC, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT>
G
guanophore
Guest
Code:
[1. The sensus fidei as an instinct of faith](http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_cti_20140610_sensus-fidei_en.html#1._The_sensus_fidei_as_an_instinct_of_faith)- The sensus fidei fidelis is a sort of spiritual instinct that enables the believer to judge spontaneously whether a particular teaching or practice is or is not in conformity with the Gospel and with apostolic faith. It is intrinsically linked to the virtue of faith itself; it flows from, and is a property of, faith.[62] It is compared to an instinct because it is not primarily the result of rational deliberation, but is rather a form of spontaneous and natural knowledge, a sort of perception (aisthesis).
P
PRmerger
Guest
Yes, it appears so. And not just with sensus fidei, but also with our understanding of Sacred Tradition: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13818414&postcount=98Actually alwayswill has adopted a very Catholic position.
and infallibility: forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13818153&postcount=85
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Kinda makes me wonder why some people refuse to baptize infants.1. The sensus fidei as an instinct of faith
Actually alwayswill has adopted a very Catholic position.
- The sensus fidei fidelis is a sort of spiritual instinct that enables the believer to judge spontaneously whether a particular teaching or practice is or is not in conformity with the Gospel and with apostolic faith. It is intrinsically linked to the virtue of faith itself; it flows from, and is a property of, faith.[62] It is compared to an instinct because it is not primarily the result of rational deliberation, but is rather a form of spontaneous and natural knowledge, a sort of perception (aisthesis).
A
alwayswill
Guest
as an overall group (the ekklesia); yes;
as an individual, no
John 10:4
When he has brought out all his own, he goes on ahead of them, and his sheep follow him because they know his voice.
John 10:16
I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd
John 10:27
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.
Who Chose the Gospels?
by C. E. Hill
But there’s more! The Apostolic Fathers also give us information concerning the status of the Gospels in the early church. And this is the subject of chapter 9. Taking his cue from the 2005 two volume edition of the Oxford study of the New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, Hill explores citations and allusions in the Fathers to the New Testament. He carefully, albeit briefly, navigates the reader through the thorny issues of how to determine what is a quotation or an allusion to a written NT text, as opposed to a quotation or allusion to an oral or source tradition. He survey’s the Epistle to Diognetus (possibly written by Polycarp of Smyrna), a document probably written between 140-150 AD. There is also the Letter of Barnabus (perhaps written between 90-130 AD), the letter of Polycarp to the Philippian church (110 AD), Ignatius of Antioch’s seven letters, The Didache, and 1 Clement (90’s AD). From these sources he concludes rather boldly: “The religious apparatus, so to speak, the view of the rightful location and transmission of religious authority which made the reception of the four Gospels, as well as the rest of the New testament, possible (if not inevitable), was in place already in the late first century.” (204).
But now, Hill has saved the best for last! He traces an endorsement of the four Gospels from a reference in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History to Papias of Hierapolis and his Exposition of the Lord’s Oracles, written between 110-130 AD. This reference makes mention of John the Elder as well as John the Apostle. Its reported that the latter “welcomed,” “received,” and “testified” to the truth of the other three Gospels. Hill concludes that “this would make the aged apostle John the earliest ‘chooser,’ endorser, or ‘canonizer’ of the four Gospels.” (p. 224). But there is even more! Hill reasons that it appears as if the church in no way sat in judgment over the Gospels. Rather, it seems, the Gospels “imposed” themselves on the church. Hill says, “we have no evidence that the church ever sat down collectively or as individual churches and composed criteria for judging which Gospels it thought best suited its needs,” so that “the church essentially did not believe it had a choice in the matter” (231). This means that the church recognized or received the Gospels, and did not sit in judgment over them, thus evincing that the Gospels possessed a kind of self-authenticating nature. Hill summarizes thus: “With Scripture as a self-attesting first principle, the only response for the church is to recognize what God has revealed.” (244, emphasis mine). And then concludes with this question and answer: “What gave these books containing Jesus’ words their self-attesting quality? Such a question, if it can be answered, clearly cannot be answered in the abstract but, I am sure second-century Christians would say, has to be answered from an encounter with that truth itself” (245).
P
PRmerger
Guest
Well! I am certainly heartened to see this, always! This sounds like you have endorsed the idea of a Magisterium, to which individual Christians must submit: the Church leaders make a decision, and individuals must obey.
Again, a very Catholic idea you’ve embraced!
P
PRmerger
Guest
You do realize, always, that what this man is saying is:
-Sacred Tradition came first. Then came the Scriptures (i.e. the New Testament).
-the Church was given a special charism in which she was prevented from declaring something to be theopneustos which was not.
Both of these concepts are, indeed, very Catholic.
W
wildrumpus
Guest
Those basic tenants of the faith proceed from GOD.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?
A
alwayswill
Guest
“And that means you are NOT Sola Scriptura.”
Nope
That is not the definition/description of Sola Scriptura as used by
Catholic.com, New Advent, Wiki, or Protestant apologeticists , or myself
**From Catholic.com
**“Even the principle of sola scriptura (“Scripture alone”), according to the sharpest Protestant scholars, means that the Bible is the ultimate authority—above councils and popes and any tradition—but not that no commentary or tradition may be cited or utilized.”
web.archive.org/web/20100330002353/http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0402fea3.asp
From NEWADVENT.org
"." **Protestantism, however, by no means despises or rejects church authority as such, but only subordinates it to, and measures its value by, the Bible"
From wiki**.
Sola scriptura (Latin ablative, “by Scripture alone”) is the Protestant Christian doctrine that the Bible is the supreme authority in all matters of doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura does not deny that other authorities govern Christian life and devotion, but sees them all as subordinate to and corrected by the written word of God.
Sola scriptura, however**, does not ignore Christian history and tradition when seeking to understand the Bible.** Rather, it sees the Bible as the only final authority in matters of faith and practice.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_scriptura
** From James White**
…,** it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. **I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture
from me
Until Christ returns, the only infallible inerrant authority we have on earth; is Scripture alone.
Not the only authority, but the only infallible inerrant authority.
I agree with the above descriptions of SS; do you?
I not asking if you agree with the doctrine (obviously you do not)
but can you at least agree to use the descriptions as provide by 2 Catholic sources?
“And that also means that you believe that the charism of infallibility was given to the CC, at least as it applies to the canon of the NT”Nope: being correct does not mean being infallible (incapable of error)
A
alwayswill
Guest
I know you think Ekklesia means some type of formal. hierarchical, organizational structure:
I do not
All; every single person who is a true believer is part of the ekklesia (called by Christ)
A
alwayswill
Guest
nope that is not what he said
He said Scripture came first
Then the recognition of the Scripture by believers
Then the collection; known as the New Testament
A writing does not become Scripture when it was collected into the NT
We have already been through this: and Catholics agree
The writing was Scripture BEFORE it was recognized. as being Scripture
P
PRmerger
Guest
And this is a man-made tradition you’ve been duped into believing, always.
Scripture doesn’t say it’s the only infallible inerrant authority, so your paradigm is self-refuting.
Then you believe that Luke, for example, was fallible when he wrote his gospel?
Or do you believe, as the Catholic Church professes, that Luke was infallible in his encyclical?
- Status