In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity

[Erich]

You and I know that, but the OP claims to “personally believe in sola scriptura over apostolic succession.” If the OP believed everything that was professed in the liturgy of 100 AD, he too would be Catholic.

Come to think of it, in 100 AD, the ink was barely dry on some of what was later canonized as the New Testament (John’s Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation). And on the first Pentecost Sunday, when not a word of the New Testament had yet been written, “about three thousand were added to their number that day.” Clearly, none of them “personally believed in sola scriptura over apostolic succession.”

 

[guanophore]

You and I know that, but the OP claims to “personally believe in sola scriptura over apostolic succession.” If the OP believed everything that was professed in the liturgy of 100 AD, he too would be Catholic.

Come to think of it, in 100 AD, the ink was barely dry on some of what was later canonized as the New Testament (John’s Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation). And on the first Pentecost Sunday, when not a word of the New Testament had yet been written, “about three thousand were added to their number that day.”** Clearly, none of them “personally believed in sola scriptura over apostolic succession**.”

That is a myth easily dispelled by the most simple reading of the Early Fathers. That is what caused me to revert back.

John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, “To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”

 

[KathleenGee]

My daughter married into a Calvary Temple, Four Square Gospel family because she was going to a non-denominational, Mars Hill type gathering while in college.

I told her to know this is good what they are doing…unbeknownst to me, she got more involved with the leadership, and you know, the big prize is getting a Catholic to leave their faith. She saw great conversions. She saw these young adult leaders speaking to all these young people on their level, and challenging them about choices and what it means to be a man and woman. I thought that great.

You go in and the lobby had latte and cappucino machines, treats, and you go in to listen and hear rock music band play Christian music.

They were reaching the young at their level and with clear cut right and wrong, that was taken out of Catholic catechesis because of fear the Catholic youth would become fundamentalist and start condemning other people. I know, I was a DRE and heard it at a meeting. Even though…there are age groups in the teen age years, that psychologically need clear sense of right and wrong before they step out into all sorts of opposing positions.

I really love my son -in law, but this past year, I found out he and his mother, who is heavy into Kenneth Copeland, et al, were telling my kids behind my back that religion is the cause of lack of faith in God. My younger daughter came back to the Church and told me all about it. The mother has been rebuking me in the past and wants to know nothing of my faith. It gives me the impression if I say anything, I am speaking in the spirit of religion and falsehood…and with the Copeland positive thinking religion, silents me. So I just be quite and polite and move on.

But what I find pernicious is the fact that my daughter and I can no longer speak openly of God and our faith like we had before. We can no longer prayer together or worship together…and ‘John Paul II was a great guy’…and so on.

She has become totally closed minded to anything that would make her think or want to learn history and she has several college degrees. I know a Presbyterian man whose daughter and son in law went into fundamentalism and the mainline values we share, they invalidate.

I cannot call this the movement of the Holy Spirit. The whole situation has caused me much grief. In the meantime, the son in law’s mother is younger than me, and is having all sorts of physical infirmities. I pray for her. But I am going to contact my daughter and let her know, and may be the mother needs to pray as to what is causing all of this to happen in the past few years.

So, what I have personally experienced, seeing the fruit of it all, has hurt me most profoundly. My daughter and I have very loving conversations, and she always applauds the witness of faith she has seen in me. But we are now separated in faith and spirit. I see the ongoing work of some Protestants always going out after Catholics. It is questionable to me and I certainly don’t like it or how it has whittled down the faith my family once had.

I would also say the clergy scandal and the fractious behavior of some Catholics moving here were great counter witness to my children’s faith. Pastors really have to work on their own parishioners who are cliquey and want to run the parish and hurt other people behind the pastor’s back. All of this hurts faith.

 

[nicolakirwan]

You and I know that, but the OP claims to “personally believe in sola scriptura over apostolic succession.” If the OP believed everything that was professed in the liturgy of 100 AD, he too would be Catholic.

Come to think of it, in 100 AD, the ink was barely dry on some of what was later canonized as the New Testament (John’s Gospel, Epistles, and Revelation). And on the first Pentecost Sunday, when not a word of the New Testament had yet been written, “about three thousand were added to their number that day.” Clearly, none of them "personally believed in sola scriptura over apostolic succession."

Well, none of them believed in the Immaculate Conception or Papal Infallibility either, which dogmas the Church has now used to delineate the boundaries of the “true Church.” I think the question ultimately posed by this thread is what precisely unites one to that Church that Christ founded? Is it faith in that Person, Jesus Christ, or is it submission to the Church authority? They needn’t be in contradiction, but one may have the former without the latter.

Later in Acts, Luke praises the Bereans for accepting Paul’s message and searching the Scriptures daily “to see if these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) Paul did not have an expectation that his words would be accepted simply because he was an apostle. Rather, both he and Peter pointed the people back to Scripture and performed miracles to confirm that they had the power and anointing of God. In Corinthians Paul spoke of the need for the miracles to attest to his authority so that the people’s faith would not be in the wisdom of men, but rather in the power of God.

The Apostles referred people back to the Hebrew Scriptures and also to the signs they performed to confirm that they were indeed men of God. People were allowed to verify whether or not they should be trusted to speak for God. Their teachings became the New Testament Scriptures.

So what I hear in “sola scriptura-ists” is that they have accepted Paul and Peter’s authority (along with that of the other apostles) but not the that of the present-day claimants to apostolic authority. Perhaps rather than arguing over sola scriptura versus tradition, the conversation should focus more on why apostolic succession is a valid concept.

 

[Erich]

Later in Acts, Luke praises the Bereans for accepting Paul’s message and searching the Scriptures daily “to see if these things were so.” (Acts 17:11) Paul did not have an expectation that his words would be accepted simply because he was an apostle. Rather, both he and Peter pointed the people back to Scripture and performed miracles to confirm that they had the power and anointing of God.

The Bereans were basically clueless as to Jesus being the Messiah, based upon their own understanding of the Old Testament scriptures. Paul had to explain the Scriptures to them. They didn’t get it on their own. They needed an infallible teacher to explain it to them. Paul would say something like: “It somewhere says…” and then he would quote the Scriptures, and they would merely go and see if what he was saying was actually in there. They weren’t trying to compare Paul’s interpretation vs. their interpretation, they were looking to see if what Paul was saying was really in the Scriptures! Paul kept telling them all these things that were in their Scriptures which referred to Jesus, and they had to go “search” in the Scriptures to make sure Paul was telling them the truth. In other words, they weren’t all that familiar with their Scriptures. Furthermore, they obviously didn’t have a proper understanding of their own Scriptures if Paul had to explain the meaning to them.

And how did the Gentiles come to believe in Christ? Was it based on their own understanding of the Scriptures? No! They didn’t have the Scriptures. They had to rely on the authoritative teaching of the Apostles and those appointed by the Apostles.

The early Christians were not “Bible only” people when it came to their acceptance of Christ and their understandings of the teachings of Christ. They relied on infallible guides. They were like the Ethiopian eunuch who, when asked, “Do you understand what you are reading,” replied, “How can I unless someone guides me?!” They needed a guide for the proper understanding of Scripture. They needed a guide…an infallible guide…in order to properly understand and live out the teachings of Christ. An infallible guide who could authoritatively decide matters when disputes on theology arose.

 

[KathleenGee]

Likewise, as most was completed in the foundation of the Church as an institution by 100 AD, the dogma of the Immaculate Conception was not declared until the mid 1800’s and then another, the dogma of Mary’s Assumption into heaven, note, assumed – was decreed in 1954, almost 2,000 years of reflection.

This reflection paralleled the history of sanctification among universal Christians (Catholic/Orthodox). As there came about a consistent and systematic presentation of ascetic spirituality, that which forms sanctification in perfection which is union with God, as Mary was conceived without sin, her walk was different than ours in that she did not go through the purgative and illuminative stage, but was united in God for her entire life.

The wages of sin are death. But as Mary was not conceived with sin, her entry into heaven assumed glorification without death. But as sinners we will go through more processes and death in following her but some day likewise be glorified with her in heaven.

Such asceticism and its understanding can only be fully understand through faith based on apostolic succession, the oral tradition, and a life sustained by the sacraments.

 

[nicolakirwan]

The Bereans were basically clueless as to Jesus being the Messiah, based upon their own understanding of the Old Testament scriptures. Paul had to explain the Scriptures to them. They didn’t get it on their own. They needed an infallible teacher to explain it to them. Paul would say something like: “It somewhere says…” and then he would quote the Scriptures, **and they would merely go and see if what he was saying was actually in there. They weren’t trying to compare Paul’s interpretation vs. their interpretation, they were looking to see if what Paul was saying was really in the Scriptures! ** Paul kept telling them all these things that were in their Scriptures which referred to Jesus, and they had to go “search” in the Scriptures to make sure Paul was telling them the truth. In other words, they weren’t all that familiar with their Scriptures. ** Furthermore, they obviously didn’t have a proper understanding of their own Scriptures if Paul had to explain the meaning to them.
**

One, I don’t know if this paragraph really contradicts anything I said. Though I would note that Luke specifically calls the Bereans “noble” without implying that they were ignorant in any way. But the point is not that they were comparing interpretations, but they were verifying what Paul said by Scripture without question. And more importantly, Paul accepted this.

And how did the Gentiles come to believe in Christ? Was it based on their own understanding of the Scriptures? No! They didn’t have the Scriptures. They had to rely on the authoritative teaching of the Apostles and those appointed by the Apostles.

Again, if we read Paul’s letters, what does he do and say? In his letters to the Corinthians–Greek gentiles–Paul refers them not merely to himself as an authority, but to the power of God in his ministry to validate his authority. “…and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.” 1 Cor. 2:4-5

The early Christians were not “Bible only” people when it came to their acceptance of Christ and their understandings of the teachings of Christ. They relied on infallible guides. They were like the Ethiopian eunuch who, when asked, “Do you understand what you are reading,” replied, “How can I unless someone guides me?!” They needed a guide for the proper understanding of Scripture. They needed a guide…an infallible guide…in order to properly understand and live out the teachings of Christ. An infallible guide who could authoritatively decide matters when disputes on theology arose.

Yes, a guide for the proper understanding of Scripture. I think your last paragraph may have unintentionally contradicted what you said above. But that’s my point–the eunuch was reading Scripture. I am not a sola scripturaist, and people on CAF tend to jump on anything that they think could possibly be a “Protestant mentality.” My point is that the message of the apostles was never unchained from Scripture. There was constant reference back to it in explicating its meaning.

What I hear you and the above poster arguing is that the authority of the apostles was just accepted because they had apostolic authority. But that’s somewhat circular. People had to verify that they had good reason to trust their authority. Whether because they could look at what they said about Scripture and see that what they were saying made sense and was true, or also because of the power of God working through them.

Anyone can come up with some interpretation of Scripture and point people to it saying that their doctrine derives from it. Plenty of heretics and cults have done so. So yes, authority does come into play. But trust in authority cannot be self-referential (What I say is authoritative because I’m the authority and I’m the authority because what I say is authoritative.) Which is why I put in italics that what many sola scripturists are grating against is the validity of the Church’s authority, which is why making stronger arguments for the Church’s authority through apostolic succession would do more for the discussion.