I would like to ask a question. In Mathew 16 when Jesus tells Peter that upon this rock he will build his Church. If the word Church means the called out ones, then what kind of exegesis are you using to support your argument that he was referring to the cc. Is not Jesus the head of the Church, and those that are being saved are added to his Church.
Once again Irish, my definition of SS is that all of the information we need for our salvation is contained within the pages of the bible. You apparently disagree with that idea. You say above “evidently some details of truth contained in orally inspired teachings Paul chose not to put in written revelation,” Now since you disagree with the idea of SS, that everthing that we need for salvation is not in the bible and when it says in 2Tim.3:15"And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus." that this salvation in Christ that we find out about in scripture is not really enough or sufficient and that these “details of truth” that you talk about must be the missing information that we need to complete our salvation, yet you seem reluctant to divulge not only what those “details” are but where we can find them? Is this elusive “oral tradition” that you talk about still oral or is it written down somewhere and if it is written down would it be considered scripture and the inspired word of God like the bible? If this information is necessary for our salvation, don’t you think that you should be telling everyone what it is?
Your answer to this question will give me a better perspective: If I started a church tomorrow and said that my church (the called out ones) - is the church founded by Jesus, would I be right?
No tradition; got it. Your definition of SS is that all of the information we need for our salvation is contained within the pages of the bible via private judgment or the judgment of the church?
Yes…I will send you a PM.Nice to see you and I are on the same page at least.
I’m sorry I haven’t been around for a while, and I have not read through the thread, so I don’t know if anyone has brought this up.So I’ve done a lot of thinking…perhaps too much as it has led me to question the Catholic Church.
But not in a negative way. I have faith in the Church, that she has a response to my questions and issues; I just don’t know what it is.
My problem is infallablity. My issue is that I don’t see where in Acts of the Apostles we see anybody speak of infallability. So how do we know that the Church was always understood to have it?
Now, don’t get me wrong. Nowhere in Acts is infallability contradicted. Theoretically it is a possibility, since nobdy erred on what the CC has defined as an infallible statement. But doesn’t it strike ou as…IDK…careless, perhaps, not to simply tell us that the Church had infallible authority? I mean, clearly the whole Church didn’t know that it was infallible, since a lot of Bishops (the direct successors of the Apostles) disagree with this and now belong to the Orthodox Church.
It’s hard to vocalize my thoughts here…actually come to think of it, I happen to agree kind of with JonNC, sort of.
No, JonNC is not responsible for me questioning the Church, so don’t hurt him. I’m just saying that when I see his views on matters regarding the early Church they sort of look like how I view the early Church-that councils were normally called to settle disputes and that nobody ever really claimed to be infallible and when disputes arose, a Council was called to resolve it, with Peter heading the council.
IDK. I sound very…Orthodox, don’t I?
I’m interested to see what both Catholics and non-Catholics have to say on the issue.
No one questions that there was for a short time an oral tradition that existed until the Gospels could be wrtten as codices.
Actually as a fallible individual it is obvious to me that GOD’s Word is infallible. It doesn’t take an infallible scientist to recognize truths in science. Was it Edison who pointed to all his failed inventions were recognized as a great inventor?
Actually the idea of Jesus’ Church having different parts is in Scripture.Hey Schaick…
I agree with you; the important thing is the Blood of the New Covenant.
Well, I respectfully say: I don’t have to, for the simple fact that I am not a sola scriptura advocate. I embrace the tradition of the CC as well. You, however, are a sola scritpura advocate, and if I remember correctly, you reject sacred tradition, so therefore, the word branch, as a reference to Jesus’ church must be found some where in sacred scripture, to be believed. However, if you want to call Jesus’ church a branch, that’s cool.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Schaick, seven books, without doubt, were doubted as to their authenticity, in certain parts for the first 300 ears of Christianity, and the CC, without doubt, decided that these seven books were to be part of the canon of scripture. This I learned long ago as a former non-Catholic, and yes, I agree with you regarding the following:
“What the Catholic Church did that must be given full recognition was securing, preserving, saving and protecting Scripture from destruction.”
If the CC got it wrong about other things, a claim made by many, then how can we know for sure that the CC preserved scripture? How can we be certain that the book of Revelation or Hebrews are in fact the genuine word of God, considering the fact that they were rejected early on by some ECF’s? Some ECF’s didn’t think they should be read.
Eusebius saysin Ecclesiastical History 3.25.1-7:
“Among the spurious books must be reckoned also the Acts of Paul, and the Shepherd, as it is called, and the Apocalypse of Peter; and, in addition to these, the extant Epistle of Barnabas, and the Teaching of the Apostles [Didache] , as it is called. And, in addition, as I said, the Apocalypse of John, if it seems right. (**This last as I said, is rejected by some, but others count it among the recognized books.) And among these some have counted also the Gospel of the Hebrews, with which those of the Hebrews who have accepted Christ take a special pleasure.” **
In th end, the CC, as a council, settled the matter, and it did not happen quickly or at one convocation.
Of course not. Jesus is no longer here to settle disputes and interpret the bible for us. Schaick, who was entrusted with the authority to interpret the bible and settle differences, such as ours, when the bible is of no help in settling our differences?
That makes no sense to me. No evangelizing took place??? Evangelizing means to preach the gospel to others. Who is preaching truth and who is not? You and I agree regarding the Eucharist but many think that we are wrong, Again, who, through the guidance of the holy spirit, was entrusted with the authority to interpret the bible and settle differences, in a world where there is so much division vis-a-vis Christianity, such as Eucharistic division, when the bible is of no help in settling our differences?
All Christian and quasi-Christian groups at least imply their own infallibility-how else could they believe anything? I’d rather be associated with a Church that at the very least recognizes the need for this charism and unashamedly claims possession of it.Hmm, perhaps I’m being more Protestant than Orthodox?
Anyway, as far as I know the Orthodox Church does not claim to be infallible…does it?
If it does then I suppose my Orthodox analogy is wrong.
My apologies to all Orthodox in advance just in case I misrepresented their faith.
I’m not sure what you are asking here. I don’t think I need someone to tell me that the bible contains the words of salvation. The bible contains the information I need for my salvation whether I say it does or whether the CC says it does.
You share the SINGLE TRUTH!
No. I believe you can not start a Church, but you can add to it. I think the Bible is clear in Acts 2 when the birth of the Church started. Now if you gathered with a group of people who have confessed with their mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord and believed in their heart that God raised him from the dead and you gathered to Worship your Lord and Savior, then i believe you would be part of Jesus Church, the called out ones.
So, men like Martin Luther (Lutheran church) - and king Henry VIII (Anglican church) - and John Smyth (Baptist church) - can start their own church but I can’t?
Richard, the question is:
Schaick, who put that table of contents in the bible?
Neither Paul nor any other writes, have given any statement which commands that the Church retire oral revelation, either during the writing of Scripture or once Scripture was completed. Since you are required to form your doctrine only from mandates found in Scripture, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders, to show that Scripture teaches that the propagation of apostolic oral revelation must cease with the completion of Scripture. Catholicism finds no such command in Scripture, and, in fact, finds Scripture mandating a continuing propagation and preservation of the original apostolic oral teachings. Honestly, the debate should stop here, until the you can furnish the Scriptural proof for your position, using Scripture required to give answers from sola scriptura, not answers based on what you think is correct or logical.
Like I have already stated previously, the “Burden of proof is yours”.
What do you mean discerned truth joe?
To know if a particular teaching found in the holy bible is true or untrue. You believe that the bible is the Christians one and only source of truth and final authority. Is truth (of the Christians one and only authority) - knowable, with certainty, via private judgment or the judgment of church leadership?
