Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible

[JesusforMadrid]

That’s a pretty charged accusation, he could just as well looked up the topic amongst the patristic writings and pasted parts of them, you never know.

You should see the argument for sola scriptura, it’s a doozy.

If there was, you probably still wouldn’t accept it since it’s not explicitly spelled out in the bible. You refuse the proof you have been shown, so there’s no reason to think you’d accept those you’d mentioned.

Mary doesn’t seem the type of person to harp on her sinlessness, and take attention away from her son.

There is no clear reference to sola scriptura or sola fide until the 16th century. You were saying?

The protestants want us to believe we’ve had the wrong idea about God for 1500 years and that the Church has no right to interpret the bible even though the Church gave it to them! That strains credibility.

If we showed that the ECF’s rejected sola scriptura and sola fide, would you reject that too? I didn’t think so. To say our beliefs are incorrect because they have little base in the patristic writings, while at the same time holding other beliefs which have zero basis in the patristic writings is rather hypocritical.

Protestant support comes from a single man who held himself a Doctor above all of the papal doctors, and seeked to have his followers become lord and master over the papists. You base your views on far more spurious grounds; attacking the credibility of sources which support our views, and at the same time possessing zero such sources that supports protestant views.

Your version of truth has zero patristic basis, but you accept it.

Our views are supported patristically, which is far more evidence than anything from prostestantism, yet you reject it.

Amazing.

So you agree that both Sola Scriptura and the Immaculate Conception are unsupportable?

 

[Randy_Carson]

What we have for support from tradition is selective, arbitrary and capricious use of citations from post Constantine Christian authors. Thanks for playing but this doesn’t meet the challenge.

Then you might want to spend a little more time reading the scriptures that were quoted.

The Old Testament is the New concealed.
The New Testament is the Old revealed.

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant as the passages indicate.

It’s there if you know what to look for.

 

[runandsew]

I see where you are going with this but it is a bad argument, for the following reasons:

1. Argument from silence is not argument from tradition. The challenge of Sola is an argument from tradition. To say, hey, it wasn’t contested by a heresy in the first two centuries so it wasn’t mentioned isn’t an argument from tradition.
2. Their are 68 pre Constantine Church fathers, according to New Advent, a RC website. Their thousands and thousands of pages of documents discuss the sublime and the banal. That there would be no mention of the immaculate conception until the 4th century when they mention so very much else suggests again that the argument from tradition is extremely weak.

You didn’t answer my question.

 

[Unitas]

So you agree that both Sola Scriptura and the Immaculate Conception are unsupportable?

the Immaculate Conception is patristically supportable, and that support has been provided.

There is no patristic support for sola scriptura.

To reject a supported view (because of its lack of support to your standards) and yet accept an unsupported view is intellectually dishonest.

 

[runandsew]

JesusforMadrid, first of all why would you believe only some of the things that the early fathers taught and not other things?
Do you feel that the Holy Spirit guided them in only the doctrines in which you believe in?

And why is it important that these doctrines should have been written about in the first two centuries,?
Do you feel that the Church went apostate at some point?

Is there a certain cutoff date of doctrine in which if it isn’t written about before that date, then it isn’t true?

My main question would be where did the Fathers get such ideas about the Blessed Mother if they are not found explicitly or implicitly in Scripture or passed on from Christ and His Apostles themselves?

Jesus promised the church the holy spirit to guide her, either the Church is guarded from error in her teaching by the holy Spirit in everthing she teaches, or she is guarded in nothing, and if that is the case, then you might as well through out all christian doctrine, because you would have no assurance that any of it was true.
Though, I guess you could pick and choose those doctrines that tickle your fancy, but I can see that this already did happen a little under 500 years ago.

 

[ncgolf]

My point in bringing up the Immaculate Conception was to concretely point out just how infallability is used and why it is neccesary not for the argument of the subject itself.

Since this is a Catholic website and the dogma of the Immaculate Conception is accepted throughout the worldwide Catholic Church we cannot go there on this thread.

My original point did revelation on the Scriputures end with the Canon’s creation? The primary source for revelation was set but not the revelation from within the Scriputres. If any revelation not yet fully explained or understood existed how could it be revealed to all people. For Catholics it comes from the Magesiterium and if it does then it can be absolutely trusted. For Protestants it cannot come from a body but only from yourself since you have no one to trust.

 

[JesusforMadrid]

Then you might want to spend a little more time reading the scriptures that were quoted.

The Old Testament is the New concealed.
The New Testament is the Old revealed.

Mary is the New Ark of the Covenant as the passages indicate.

It’s there if you know what to look for.

So, you would like to discuss the Scriptural support for the Immaculate Conception, because you concede that the argument for tradition is weak? So many people here are so quick to change the subject.

 

[Philthy]

Yes it does by our definition. The Catholic viewpoint is that Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition and the teaching authority of the Magesterium are all necessary for the fullness of God’s revelation. SS only needs Scripture. The resources needed to study Sacred Scripture are not the issue.
The problem is that Catholics see all three areas (SS, ST and Magestirium) as fully necssary. The Chuch stands on those three pillars. We argue all 3, you argue 1 … we start in 2 different places. So if you cannot accept the other 2 there is no ground zero. I dont intend that you accept the teaching but at least try to understand it. It is not unreasonable nor is it beyond what is possible. I am not even arguing that one cannot gleam some of God’s reveleation from Sacred Scripture but that for the fullness and richness of God’s plan it cannot happen with Scripture alone…

Excellent post overall! I have bolded this last statement because I believe it to be a teeny bit overstated. It is probably better to say that the fullness of God’s plan is possible to be known through Sacred Scripture, but no individual can know that they actually have received that fullness of truth - unless, of course, it is revealed by divine personal revelation - and that that is the function of the Church in upholding the Truth of Scripture.

 

[Jennifer_J]

So, you would like to discuss the Scriptural support for the Immaculate Conception, because you concede that the argument for tradition is weak? So many people here are so quick to change the subject.

I hesistate to post here, because I’m a bit out of my depth, but find it interesting none-the-less (and find my Catholic faith bolstered by reading all the protestant arguments):

The inerrant Scriptural support for the Immaculate Conception is part of the basis for the Tradition/Doctrine and is taught and maintained through the infallibible Magesterium. As someone much smarter than me said, Sacred Scripture, Tradition and the Magesterium are 3 legs to Catholic belief. They each support each other.

Jennifer

 

[Sixtus]

SolaScritura wrote:

SolaScriptura

Is infallible knowledge of the Canon possible …
Whose position of the canon is the most consistent? I would argue that my position is and the Catholic position is illogical.

If you knew the answer to the question then why did you bother to ask it!

 

[Subrosa]

Yeah, but can you do the same for the Immaculate Conception? Not only can’t you do it from Tradition, but you can’t even make a decent argument from Scripture either.

Hi Sola -

The whole point of the Church’s Magesterium, that is the teaching and reminding of the Advocate that Jesus promised and delivered at Pentecost, is that the Church needs no such support.

Now, given what I just said, the Church developed the doctrine from Tradition by a real examination of history and scripture.

Some early church fathers…

“He was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle was exempt from putridity and corruption.”
Hippolytus,Orat. Inillud, Dominus pascit me(ante A.D. 235),in ULL,94
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God, is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one.”
Origen,Homily 1(A.D. 244),in ULL,94
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“Let woman praise Her, the pure Mary.”
Ephraim,Hymns on the Nativity,15:23(A.D. 370),in NPNF2,XIII:254
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair, there is no flaw in thee and no stain in thy Mother.”
"Ephraem,Nisibene Hymns,27:8(A.D. 370),in THEO,132
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“Mary, a Virgin not only undefiled but a Virgin whom grace has made inviolate, free of every stain of sin.”
Ambrose,Sermon 22:30(A.D. 388),in JUR,II:166
http://www.cin.org/users/jgallegos/res/dot_clr.gif
“We must except the Holy Virgin Mary, concerning whom I wish to raise no question when it touches the subject of sins, out of honour to the Lord; for from Him we know what abundance of grace for overcoming sin in every particular was conferred upon her who had the merit to conceive and bear Him who undoubtedly had no sin.”
Augustine,Nature and Grace,4236,in NPNF1,V:135

Subrosa

 

[runandsew]

So, you would like to discuss the Scriptural support for the Immaculate Conception, because you concede that the argument for tradition is weak? So many people here are so quick to change the subject.

JesusforMadrid,
I know that there are many posts and you can’t reply to each and every one.
I haven’t changed the subject in my questions, you sort of side stepped the first one without answering it, and you didn’t reply to my second answer. It kind of seems that if you don’t want to answer something you tend to call it a weak or bad argument and then you don’t answer the question.
We are not asking you if you deem our question worthy of your answer, and we don’t want the answer side stepped, all we want are the questions answered.

1.Was there a heresy in the first two centuries of the Church concerning Mary not being born sinless, that the early church fathers would have felt it necessary to write something to refute this heresy?

----A simple yes or no would suffice. ----

2.Where did the Fathers get such ideas about the Blessed Mother if they are not found explicitly or implicitly in Scripture or passed on from Christ and His Apostles themselves?

----- A brief explanation would be greatly appriciated. ----

 

[rtconstant]

Sometimes, I’m glad for threads like this. It helps to confirm to me that my decision to leave the evangelical movement and come home to The Church was the correct one.

 

[BrianH]

1.Was there a heresy in the first two centuries of the Church concerning Mary not being born sinless, that the early church fathers would have felt it necessary to write something to refute this heresy?

----A simple yes or no would suffice. ----

Why would they refute a nonexistent belief?

2.Where did the Fathers get such ideas about the Blessed Mother if they are not found explicitly or implicitly in Scripture or passed on from Christ and His Apostles themselves?

----- A brief explanation would be greatly appriciated. ----

When is the first specific mention of this belief? 300 years later??
People started having erroneous beliefs during the time of Pauls writings!!!
i know you did not ask me BUT well
BH

 

[runandsew]

Why would they refute a nonexistent belief?
When is the first specific mention of this belief? 300 years later??
People started having erroneous beliefs during the time of Pauls writings!!!
i know you did not ask me BUT well
BH

(1) How do you know that they were not erroneous in their beliefs when it came to the Trinity and the nature of Christ, and also when it came to the canon of scripture,?

(2) When is the first time the word Trinity is mentioned, something like 160 years later or something like that, and why was it defined, because of a heresy?

(3) But these are not just your average “people” they are the Church fathers who defined what Christianity is.

With the vast majority of the writings of the church fathers, they are not just writing to give us their insights of the spiritual meaning of scripture, they are giving the literal meaning of scripture which was handed down to them by Sacred Tradition to refute the Heresies and false teaching that were arising at the time.
So when the immaculate conception is written down some 300 years later, it is not because they were incorporating some erroneous belief, they were countering some erroneous belief that would have said that Mary was born with sin.

Any logic to the contrary just doesn’t make sense to me if the church was indeed given the Holy Spirit to guide them in their teaching.
And I see that this promise didn’t die with the last apostle, because Jesus said he would be with them until the end of time, and I don’t believe that time has happened yet.

 

[BrianH]

(1) How do you know that they were not erroneous in their beliefs when it came to the Trinity and the nature of Christ, and also when it came to the canon of scripture,?

Long before I read any theologian, attended a single church, I read the Bible as a teenager and developed a view of the Trinity quite similiar to what the church dogmatically defined hundreds of years later. Likewise the nature of Christ. The official defintions of councils a thousand plus years ago is more of a concern for others. I do not consider those councils infallible. Why should I? I consider it what it really was. Men hundreds of years after the fact attempting to dogmatically define what they believe those ancient words to mean. Does this mean that I do not find them edifying or useful? No, not at all.
As far as the canon, I do not believe that Hippo or Carthage were binding for the whole church, that Trent is when it was first defined for the Catholic church. A closed canon or the lack of a closed canon is not of concern to me. If they found a gospel in the dirt that could be proven to come from one of the Apostles, I would take it ever bit as serious as the other four.

(2) When is the first time the word Trinity is mentioned, something like 160 years later or something like that, and why was it defined, because of a heresy?

 

[Bishopite]

JesusforMadrid;1877283]Hey, nice cut and paste from some Roman Catholic apologetics website.

I think it is absolutely shocking how really weak the argument from tradition really is, as the above shows. No citations from the 1st and 2nd centuries, from the literally thousands of pages of Christian writings that we have today from the likes of Clement, Irenaeus, Ignatius, Barnabas, Tertullian and others. Nothing in the Didache, the first Christian document written about this time. Shocking that those who would be closest to Mary would not note something of seemingly great importance. They could have simply added, “Oh, and by the way, Mary was born sinless”. But they did not. Nothing.

Weak? Your first problem is that you think the early Church fathers had to say something directly as you want to hear it so you will believe. Their writings are often written making referrence to truths without actually saying it, sometimes because of common knowledge, and that their isn’t extensive writing on Mary is because it was already known and unchallenged so the Church fathers mainly wrote on disputed issues. And if you know anything of Scripture, you’d know Jesus didn’t point blank come out and say “I am God” did He?But used inferences and words that proved His divinity without actually specifically and explicitly saying He was God. You need to understand that or you will always see the Church father’s writings and Scripture with blinders.
Your other problem is your false premise…that everything has to be written down and yet the Bible contradicts that false premise. Where does it say in Scripture that everything had to be written down? Nowhere. 2 Thes 2:15, 3:6, 1 Cor 11:2 all are verses speaking of Apostolic Tradition passed down not always in writing or being inscripturated but by “word of mouth,” which happened through the liturgy, the common faith and common practice of the faith and it is the beholder of that Apostolic Tradition which informs you and I of what is Tradition; that’s why the Catholic Magisterium authoritatively recognized the canon which was recognized precisely from Tradition.
And perhaps you need to be reminded about the early Churh’s creed, i.e., the Apostles creed which says…“one holy Catholic and Apostolic Church” traced back by Protestant and Catholic scholars to the 2nd and some say the 1st century. The Apostolic creed says “One holy, Apostolic and Catholic Church” not a plethora of competing “evangelical” ones.

The RC church wants us to believe that the Christian writers took 300 years before it finally dawn upon them that the Immaculate Conception was of great significance. This strains credibility. And there was no conciliar reference to it until the 12th century!

What you don’t understand is, the early Church was in its infancy and therefore dealt with christological disputes, even the dispute of Mary’s theotokos (Mother of God) was a christological dispute.

And I find it interesting that you and evangelical would be so interested in the authority of Catholic councils?

Here are two Catholics giving us the Tradition of Mary’s immaculate conception. Here is evidence from Tradition on Mary’s immaculate conception…

Irenaeus

Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).

Origen

This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244])
Hippolytus…

He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (*Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 *ante [A.D. 235]).

 

[ncgolf]

Excellent post overall! I have bolded this last statement because I believe it to be a teeny bit overstated. It is probably better to say that the fullness of God’s plan is possible to be known through Sacred Scripture, but no individual can know that they actually have received that fullness of truth - unless, of course, it is revealed by divine personal revelation - and that that is the function of the Church in upholding the Truth of Scripture.

You make a good point. Sometimes unintentional hyperbole gets the best of me. I will keep your comment in mind in articulating future posts.

 

[ncgolf]

Long before I read any theologian, attended a single church, I read the Bible as a teenager and developed a view of the Trinity quite similiar to what the church dogmatically defined hundreds of years later. Likewise the nature of Christ.

 

[Bishopite]

So, you would like to discuss the Scriptural support for the Immaculate Conception, because you concede that the argument for tradition is weak? So many people here are so quick to change the subject.

Who wants to change the subject? This is for another thread, this one is for the canon.