More on false gospels

[centuri0n]

… continued from previous …

It seems to me that judging the truth of one’s personal faith based on the accuracy of one’s knowledge of complex theological concepts is contrary to the clear teaching of Scripture that simple faith can save. If asked to explain the theory of the atonement, I’m sure that a beggar or a child would likely make some mistake, yet that does not diminish the saving quality of their faith. Furthermore, even making such judgments on others comes dangerously close to the sin of the Pharisee standing in judgment over the tax collector.

It is always exciting to see Protestant beliefs compared to Phariseeism and/or hypocrisy. The issue here is the definition of the Gospel as Paul speaks to the Galatians and the Hebrews (and all the rest he spoke to, I am sure), and whether saying “you cannot deny the assumption of Mary or you’re out” is in the Gospel Paul preached or if Pius XII added on.

However, I think that people who take responsibility for teaching the faith in New Testament times are subject to a higher standard for theological truth (Jas. 3:1, Heb. 13:17, Gal. 1:8), and they are expected to learn and know the objective faith sufficiently well.

Who ever said otherwise? The objective faith is what it is – it is what is has been from the time of Abel. The only question is if the objective faith has always included the assumption of Mary, or if Pius XII added it on.

For example, the false brethren who are condemned in Scripture are not condemned by simple mistake or error, but for resisting correction and for teaching their mistake to others. But that does not apply to the run-of-the-mill Christian who has not taken pastoral responsibility for others’ spiritual development.

Here’s what Paul says about your assertion:
Gal 1: 6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
7 which is really not another; only there are some who are disturbing you and want to distort the gospel of Christ.
8 But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed!
9 As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you received, he is to be accursed!
It doesn’t appear Paul is condemning stubbornness: he is condemning the false teaching. Nothing about resisting correction there.

 

[DonaNobisPacem]

Brother in Christ Centuri0n,

Sorry, I know I said I was done, please forgive me.

Originally Posted by Catechism of the Catholic Church
“Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

It is a definition any Protestant could agree with. Scripture is what it is not because men say it is but because of who tthe author is. The book of Hebrews was Scripture from the moment it was penned – not from the moment any man recognized it as Scripture. In that, Scripture does not draw its authority from councils but from God Himself.

But we should remeber that Sacred Scripture was written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit as the CCC also states:

106 God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. "To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more."71

I think you are right to say that Scripture draws its authority from God. But I also believe that Scripture draws its authenticity from the councils and the men who declared the canon of the Bible. Who was to say that Hebrews was authentic/inspired? How did God convey what was inspired so that the books could be compiled in the Bible? Who was to say that the “Protoevangelium of James”, or the “Gospel of Thomas” or the “Gospel of Peter” or any of the other numerous spurious writings floating around at the time were NOT inspired??? There must have been those who thought they were.

On another note, and again I apologize for re-hashing this so to speak. Looking at MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS again:

“45. Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith.”

This response is answering a question that is not actually being asked, and is overlooking the clear fact that Pius XII’s statement is cutting the offender off from the faith

I believe you are mistaken about what you believe “fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith” is saying. It does not say it “is cutting the offender off from the faith”. The only way I know (and anyone out there correct me if I am wrong) for a Catholic to be “CUT OFF FROM THE FAITH” is to be ex-communicated. Pius XII does NOT say this, he says “fallen away”. Now I know alot of Catholics who are “fallen away”, who do not go to church, but still call themselves Catholic. The Church does not recognize them as “ex-communicated”!

My family is praying for you, Centuri0n!

 

[centuri0n]

SCTA-1:

My point is simple: I do not doubt the canonicity of Hebrews because the Church declared it so.

That’s fine – as far as it goes. You are still not handling the issue of what makes any books Scripture. Paragraph 81 of the CCC says it is not the church’s declaration (btw, the word the Fathers always used was “recipimus”, which means “we receive” and not “we establish” or “we declare”; imagine a wide end in football saying he made a touchdown because he decalred or established the pass the QB threw to him – it’s laughable) which makes a thing Scripture but God’s authorship which makes it Scripture.

Granted, Hebrews was written early as was much of the N.T.,but many writings were not acknowledged as canon for a long time.Even though all 27 books of the N.T. were written by 100 A.D.,not all of them were recognized as scripture.

Please make you point clearly, because I am frankly not very smart and I don’t want to misrepresent you: are you saying that (as an example) the people to whom Paul write Hebrews did not follow his instructions in that letter – or were not obliged to do so – because Rome had not stamped “recipimus” on it yet?

Or are you saying that whoever they handed that letter on to – the next group who read it after the Hebrews Paul was primarily addressing were done with it – had no obligation to follow it because the letter had not been accepted by a Council as Scripture?

Or have I missed your point?

You had many other writings that were recognized as scripture at that time.You needed an Authority to sort it out.If you were a Christian in 250A.D. and rejected the Book of Hebrews as “Scripture”, you still would have been a Christian in good standing.Matter of fact,you could have given Hebrews up to the pagan emperor to be burned and not be considered an apostate.

You have completely missed the point. Go to cathechism paragraph 81, and tell me what it says is the definition of Scripture is.

 

[centuri0n]

BobCatholic:

What part of the deposit of faith that Christ handed down to his Apostles was affected by that? Nothing.

An apostle making a mistake does not mean they weren’t infallible. You’re confusing infallibility with impeccability.

No, I’m not. I’m not saying, “because Paul was being testy with Barnabas (where was his fruit of the spirit?), he was demonstrating fallibility.” I am saying, “because Paul denied John Mark’s usefulness to the Holy Spirit in evangelism, Paul made an error which demonstrates his fallibility on matters of faith.”

You guys quite often get one good line and then abuse the pants off of it. There are plenty of examples of confusing (name removed by moderator)eccibility with infallibility – like complaining about Popes who had mistresses. However, one cannot hide behind that objection when the issue is a matter of faith and morals – and in opposing Barnabas over John Mark, Paul made what can only be called a fallible choice on a matter of the faith.

Wonderful. There are thousands upon thousands of sola-scripturist interpretations of scripture. Using scripture alone, which one of the thousands are is the correct one?

Waitaminit – let me hand you a violin so you can play it sadly and softly for me …

What if I told you that none of them had a perfect interpretation – that all of them possessed fallible interpretations? How would that advance your argument?

Who determines that the “details were rightly framed”?

Um, God who wrote Acts 15? The facts of Acts 15 simply don’t all show up when you guys cite it. When you make your case from Acts 15, and you overlook that it was not merely 12 guys but a council of both the Apostles and the Elders, and when others consider the debate of the council but not the written instructions of the Council, it is always fascinating to consider that the Catholic advocate claims to respect the text of Scripture as God-inspired.

I’m not. Protestantism acts similar to agniosticism/atheism in one key area: There is no way to determine which one of the thousands of interpretations is the correct one. So what is the solution? Instead of finding out the true and correct interpretation and come together on it, the solution is schism, schism, schism, schism…basically “it is OK for you, but not for me”

That is both reductive of Protestant theology and frankly uninformed on the matter of sola Scriptura.

Actually, doctrinal relativism wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for protestantism.

Oh, I love that one! The first time I ever heard that was about 5 years ago when I traded some e-mail with Dr. Robin Berhoft, and he made the exact same blanket assertion – with not a single example or logical argument to support such a thing.

The father of moral relativism is Protagoras, a Greek philosopher from the 5th century BC. The only way to make your assertion stick is to say that because David Hume grew up in the Church of Scotland as a Calvinist, Calvinism is responsible for modern moral relativism. The problem, of course, is that if we apply this kind of logic to John Calvin, Martin Luther, and John Knox, the cause of the Reformation is Catholicism as all these men were ordained Catholic priests. If Catholicism is the cause of Protestantism, it is the ultimate cause of relativism – and we can’t have that, can we?

The canon of scripture. You guys accept it 100% correctly, and agree that the Holy Spirit played a huge part in it, but get wrong by what mechanism it was determined.

Paragraph 81 of the current Catholic Catechism says you’re wrong.

 

[SCTA-1]

Actually,Hebrews,Two and Three Peter,Jude,Two and Three John,James and Revelation were not even considered scripture and the Epistle of Barnabas,Didache,Shephard of Hermas,1and 2 Clement and a host of others were considered '“Scripture”. Now,how come we don’t recognize Barnabas and those “other” writings anymore when at one time they were recognized? Who took them out and who put in the other’s when they were out? Complexed? yes. That’s why we have Church Authority.Now we know for sure what belongs in the Canon and what does not.Can you image if there wasn’t any Church pronoucement? Any one would be able to place any old book in the Canon.And how would you know if they were right?

 

[SCTA-1]

Sorry,forgot to say to look at part 120 CCC.

 

[JPrejean]

centuri0n:

If I understand your objection here, you are saying that I am confusing the idea of the deposit of faith (that is, divine revelation) from the actual faith which saves.

Correct.

To Pius, to have fallen away from the faith is to incur the wrath of God. That’s not merely talking about a set of teachings, but of the salvific consequences of affirming or denying this doctrine…
Yet Pius XII has said if one denies it, one is outside of the faith and in the wrath of God.

But from the Catholic perspective, which is the perspective from which the document must be read to be understood correctly, you must be actually aware (or morally obliged to be aware) of something’s doctrinal status before you can be morally culpable for violating it. In other words, one can’t really deny the doctrine if one is not aware that contradicting those words is contradicting the protection of the Holy Spirit over the Church. From your perspective, you are simply denying some man’s opinion with which you are free to disagree with impunity. From our perspective, that renders you morally incapable of contradicting the doctrine in the way that Pope Pius describes. Basically, Pope Pius is telling Catholics that a Catholic who culpably denies it is outside the faith. If you aren’t Catholic, then it depends on whether your reasons for not being Catholic are sinful or not.

I don’t think anyone has to have a published thesis on systematics to be saved – but the question is whether that faith that saves them is a faith which is, by definition, inclusive of faith in the assumption of Mary. The Gospel does not include the matter of Mary’s assumption – not in any version presented in the NT.

You just mixed up objective and subjective faith again. Subjective saving faith does NOT by definition include the assumption of Mary; many saved people lived before Mary ever did. Thus, you can clearly be saved even if you don’t believe in the assumption of Mary. Again, the question in determining whether denial of a tenet of objective faith impacts salvation is WHY you don’t believe in the tenet. Is it ignorance, mistake, or willful denial of something that you ought to have believed?

The issue here is the definition of the Gospel as Paul speaks to the Galatians and the Hebrews (and all the rest he spoke to, I am sure), and whether saying “you cannot deny the assumption of Mary or you’re out” is in the Gospel Paul preached or if Pius XII added on.

To reiterate, the actual statement is “if you are a Catholic, and you willfully deny the assumption of Mary after I, the Pope, have said that you can’t deny it, you are out.” As far as how Paul defines the Gospel, 1 Cor. 15 includes this nice summary of the things of “first importance” “that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve.” Taking that and recognizing that Christ is the Son of the living God, I’d say that a false Gospel is a denial of explicit or implicit truths in any of these statements. For example, if one erroneously thought that following the Judaic law established righteousness before God (like, say, the Judaizers), that seems to me to deny the “died for our sins” part.

The objective faith is what it is – it is what is has been from the time of Abel. The only question is if the objective faith has always included the assumption of Mary, or if Pius XII added it on.

The latter question is the right one, but the first statement is wrong. The objective faith was not completed until the death of the last Apostle. Up until that point, new teaching was still being added to the objective faith.

It doesn’t appear Paul is condemning stubbornness: he is condemning the false teaching.

Actually, Paul is condemning the man doing the teaching, which was my point. I was presumed from the fact that he was teaching “contrary to” the Gospel implies that he knows the Gospel and is obstinately teaching against it, which seems reasonable to me. I suppose that could be questioned as well.

 

[centuri0n]

… and say, “because the church has done such-and-such”, that simply does not change the definition of Scipture as stated by paragraph 81 of the catechism, and it does not change the fact that I have already stated in this thread that I believe that the church can err.

All you you chasing the rabbit of how I personally “know” what is and is not Scripture have to ask yourselves: how did a Jew in 10BC know what was and was not Scripture? There was no Pope, and there was certainly no infallible magisterium as the Priests can be demonstrated time and again in Israel to teach and practice blashphemy. Yet there were Scriptures.

How is that possible?

Or how about this one: Theodoret says that the Fathers of the church have always interpreted “the Apostles and the Prophets” (that is, their writings; scripture) to oppose heresy. Theodoret lived 50 years after Nicea – but the list of men he includes as doing this date back to Ignatius, who lived approxiamtely from 50-117 AD. (The citation is from Theodoret’s letter #89, for those who care to review it).

How is it possible that Ignatius of Antioch – also called Theophoros – could use Scripture to refute heresy when there had never been a council to that date on the matter?

Your view of how and when and under what circumstances the early church possessed and utilized Scripture is, at best, fortutious.

SCTA-1:

Actually,Hebrews,Two and Three Peter,Jude,Two and Three John,James and Revelation were not even considered scripture and the Epistle of Barnabas,Didache,Shephard of Hermas,1and 2 Clement and a host of others were considered '“Scripture”. Now,how come we don’t recognize Barnabas and those “other” writings anymore when at one time they were recognized?

Because they were found to be fraudulent by 170 AD? You should consider the contents of the Muratorian fragment before you rail on any further.

Who took them out and who put in the other’s when they were out? Complexed? yes. That’s why we have Church Authority. Now we know for sure what belongs in the Canon and what does not.Can you image if there wasn’t any Church pronoucement?

Yes, I can – I can provide examples of how that worked. I have already provided the example of Ignatius.

 

[SCTA-1]

What authority found those writings fraudulent in 170 A.D. which were accepted as Scripture? Using Ignatatius doesn’t solve anything,he only accepted 8 books and didn’t even consider the other 19.I do consider the contents of the Muratorian Canon which only had 22 books and includes the Apocalypse of Peter.What about the Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century which has the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas in the Canon? Now,open your Bible and count the N.T. books.You will have 27 books.Why not 22? why not 8? Why doesn’t it have the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepard of Hermas which these writings were not found fraudulent in 170A.D. because they were in the Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century! Some authority removed them and placed the canon of the N.T. at 27 books.Who?

 

[Tom]

All you you chasing the rabbit of how I personally “know” what is and is not Scripture have to ask yourselves: how did a Jew in 10BC know what was and was not Scripture? There was no Pope, and there was certainly no infallible magisterium as the Priests can be demonstrated time and again in Israel to teach and practice blashphemy. Yet there were Scriptures.

How is that possible?

It’s possible because there were in fact Scriptures, the OLD Testament! and yes there were some "writings"of the Apostles, but also very fresh ORAL teachings of the Apostles!!! NOT WRITTEN

Or how about this one: Theodoret says that the Fathers of the church have always interpreted “the Apostles and the Prophets” (that is, their writings; scripture) to oppose heresy. Theodoret lived 50 years after Nicea – but the list of men he includes as doing this date back to Ignatius, who lived approxiamtely from 50-117 AD. (The citation is from Theodoret’s letter #89, for those who care to review it).

How is it possible that Ignatius of Antioch – also called Theophoros – could use Scripture to refute heresy when there had never been a council to that date on the matter?

Again NOT written, but ORAL teachings, (you are the one inserting “their writings”)! You are the one insisting they were written, at that time very little was written, the vast majority of teachings were oral tradition, which continued in His Church until today.

 

[centuri0n]

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

It was by the apostolic Tradition that the Church discerned which writings are to be included in the list of the sacred books.

This is an exquisite statement of Catholic doctrine – because what it says and what some (perhaps not you personally, SCTA) are trying to make it say are two different things.

This paragraph – which goes in to enumerate the books the Magisterium demands to be the complete list of Scripture – does not say, “These are the books which are made into Scripture because the Tradition recognized them”; it does not say, “These are the books which no one could tell were Scripture except by the assertion of council.”

This paragraph says the church discerned which books were Scripure – which no right-minded Protestant would disagree with. What is interesting is that the CCC says the method of discernment was “apostolic Tradition” (which is an interesting use of grammar, as I think a Protestant would say “Apostolic tradition”).

When the Catholic employs his term, he means that Scripture was identified by a supernatural method – that is, that there was no way but through the direct intervention of the Holy Spirit that the Scripture could have been known or could have been separated from false gospels. Some here will even emote that the books were not even Scripture until the Church decided – which is not Catholic doctrine but is a plainly lay-Catholic view of how important the Tradition is in practice. The accent is on the Tradition – the handing down or apparent pedigree – and makes the adjective “apostolic” simply descriptive of who else taught these things.

When the Protestant employs his term, he is saying that the Apostles promugated the whole Gospel, and when we are in agreement with their promugation – which is 100% complete in the writings that are now called the New testament – we conform to the Apostolic tradition. The adjective “Apostolic” is meant to describe the point of original and (so to speak) its template which measures the orthodoxy of anything claiming to be from the same source.

There is a great article on how early the NT was in use as a refutation of the DaVinci Code in this month’s Christianity Today. CT is not the greatest source of information as it tends to be blindly ecumenical, but this article is a must-read for anyone who is advocating first- and second-century skepticism about the NT canon as a basis for affirming Catholic models of authority.

 

[centuri0n]

SCTA-1:

What authority found those writings fraudulent in 170 A.D. which were accepted as Scripture? Using Ignatatius doesn’t solve anything,he only accepted 8 books and didn’t even consider the other 19.I do consider the contents of the Muratorian Canon which only had 22 books and includes the Apocalypse of Peter.

What is said about the Apocalypse of Peter is, “We receive only the apocalypses of John and Peter, though some of us are not willing that the latter be read in church.” This statement is also made as the writer has changed over from affirming the list of right books to mentioning books in use or in circulation – and in that, he makes it clear that tthe book you here say was “included” in the canon was not allowed to be read in church. That’s a very odd definition of something being included.

As for the question “what authority found…”, the issue is not that the authority discovered it: it is that the true form exists at all. If, for example, somebody handed you something that looked like money but had the denomination of $3 stamped on it, there would be no question that the money was fake – because a $3 bill is by definition phoney. But if someone handed you a $1, you could know it was real by comparing it to a known $1.

The $1 is real because it is issued by the proper authority – the only entity authorized to issue it. In the case of Scripture, that entity is God – not the Church. Even the CCC recognizes that Scripture exists because God is the author of it – not because the church recognized it.

What about the Codex Sinaiticus from the 4th century which has the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas in the Canon? Now,open your Bible and count the N.T. books.You will have 27 books.Why not 22? why not 8? Why doesn’t it have the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepard of Hermas which these writings were not found fraudulent in 170A.D. because they were in the Codex Sinaiticus in the 4th century!

It really doesn’t matter if some codex has 100 books in it that do not match what we recognize as Scripture today; being listed ina codex is not what makes something Scripture: being authored by God is what makes it Scripture.

Some authority removed them and placed the canon of the N.T. at 27 books.Who?

Well, you have a problem with your argument here based on the evidence you are presenting. The transcription of Codex Sinaiticus is contemporary with Carthage and Hippo – these three events all take place withing a 50-year window, with only Sinaiticus’ precise date unknown. If Siniaticus was transcripted prior to Hippo, why was it preserved after Hippo’s pronouncement on the canon? If Sinaiticus was transcripted after Carthage, why wasn’t it in compliance with that council’s promugation of the canon? Your argument is that church authority set the canon – but the canon was clearly taught by these two councils and Sinaiticus contradicts them both.

The only answer, of course, is that these council did not determine canon: they reported a canon, and confessed a set of books as canon, but did not impose a canon.

You might here run after the argument that only Trent set the canon – but then we have the problem of men as early as Ignatius reporting to know something about a NT canon.

Which, of course, has nothing to do with whether the assumption of Mary is in the Gospel of Paul or not.

 

[BobCatholic]

centuri0n:

I am saying, “because Paul denied John Mark’s usefulness to the Holy Spirit in evangelism, Paul made an error which demonstrates his fallibility on matters of faith.”

Wonderful. What part of the Deposit of Faith that Christ and the Apostles was dealt with here? You didn’t answer it.

The father of moral relativism is Protagoras, a Greek philosopher from the 5th century BC.

However, the results of Sola Scriptura, is doctrinal relativism. Please show me, which one of the thousands of biblical interpretations out there are the correct ones? Show me that the choice you make is infallible.

The problem with Sola Scriptura, is that it is practiced as if it were Sola Mirrora. How?

Who determines that something is biblical? I DO
Who determines that something is not biblical? I DO
Who determines that the Catholic Church is wrong on [doctrine]? I DO
Who determines which interpretation of the Bible is correct? I DO
Who determines which doctrine I should accept? I DO
Who determines which doctrine I should not accept? I DO

The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Richard_Froggat]

centuirOn: But keep this in mind: even if there is no evidence in the OT that Abraham believed these things, that does not overturn the exposition of Heb 11-12 that says he in fact did have faith in exactly the same things Paul and the other present believers had faith in. It’s the same faith, of which Jesus Christ is the author and the finisher.

As has been pointed out, you are confusing faith with knowledge. Our knowledge now includes that which was not known to some of these clouds of witnesses, such as Abraham.

To use Adam as an example, He did not believe/know that Enoch was taken up by God, yet, assuming he was in the faith, this would not place him outside of the faith. Yet if you were to deny this where would it place you?
Knowing that this denial would not be a denial of the substitutionary death of Christ as an essential of the faith, but would have other implications, such as the truthfulness of God and his word, or even the faith we put in the one who is reporting this for God.

So, in other words, what you say are additions to the gospel, are not additions but rather things which, if they were denied, would lead to implications on the essential articles of faith.

In JMJ, Richard

 

[BobCatholic]

centuri0n:

Scripture is what it is not because men say it is but because of who tthe author is. In that, Scripture does not draw its authority from councils but from God Himself.

We believe this as well.

The problem is: Discernment.

C’mon, please show me the divinly inspired proof that the Book of Mormon is not Scripture, or the Qu’ran is not Scripture, or that the Deuterocanonicals (what you call “Apocrypha”) are not Scripture.

Show me, how with 300 different scrolls in front of you, how we shoud reject 90+ percent of them and accept only 27 of them for the New Testament? In the early Church, there were 300 different scrolls floating around which were considered scripture to varying degrees.

 

[centuri0n]

Tom:

All you you chasing the rabbit of how I personally “know” what is and is not Scripture have to ask yourselves: how did a Jew in 10BC know what was and was not Scripture? There was no Pope, and there was certainly no infallible magisterium as the Priests can be demonstrated time and again in Israel to teach and practice blashphemy. Yet there were Scriptures.

How is that possible?

It’s possible because there were in fact Scriptures, the OLD Testament! and yes there were some "writings"of the Apostles, but also very fresh ORAL teachings of the Apostles!!! NOT WRITTEN

Shouting does not make your point.

How is it possible for a Jew in 10BC to know that the OT was Scripture? You simply don’t answer the question – because in your model, the Jew in 10BC does not have a Pope, does not have an infallible interpreter, and does not have any church councils. All he has is the scrolls in the temple.

How does he know those are Scripture? The device which you demand that is necessary for him to “know” does not exist.

Or how about this one: Theodoret says that the Fathers of the church have always interpreted “the Apostles and the Prophets” (that is, their writings; scripture) to oppose heresy. Theodoret lived 50 years after Nicea – but the list of men he includes as doing this date back to Ignatius, who lived approxiamtely from 50-117 AD. (The citation is from Theodoret’s letter #89, for those who care to review it).

How is it possible that Ignatius of Antioch – also called Theophoros – could use Scripture to refute heresy when there had never been a council to that date on the matter?

Again NOT written, but ORAL teachings, (you are the one inserting “their writings”)! You are the one insisting they were written, at that time very little was written, the vast majority of teachings were oral tradition, which continued in His Church until today.

The quote from Theodoret 89 clearly says that the fatherstheodoret is refering to were interpreters of their writings – not bearers of an oral tradition, or bearers of a secret teaching, not bearers of anything but the same faith that the apostles and prophets shared.

As for your assertion that at the turn of the fifth century when Theodoret was writing that there was “very little written” is on it face false. You’ll have to read up a little more on the existence of what writings were at-hand for guys in the 3rd and 4th century before you try your hand at this subject any further.

And this, of course, has nothing to do with Pius XII’s doctrinal assertions about Mary and whether they are an addition to the Gospel Paul preached.

 

[centuri0n]

Not even your Popes and magisterium say that knowledge and affirmation of Enoch’s translation is necessary for saving faith. You example is completely different than then one in question.

As for having perfect knowledge, the argument I think you are making is that because Abraham did not openly deny the assumption of Mary, that doesn’t mean he didn’t have the faith which includes belief in the assumption of Mary.

If that’s so, I’d like to say that the Pope must believe that UFOs exist, and his faith includes that anyone who ever denies it is going to hell. How can I possibly say that? Well, the Pope has never denied that UFOs exist. It is only logical that if he did not deny it he must have had a faith which includes it, even if only implicitly.

Does that example make clear how untenable the argument you are proving is? It is the exact same argument from silence.

 

[centuri0n]

As a person gifted with the Spiritual Gift of sarcasm, Bob, I’d like to congratulate you on your obvious gifting as well.

BobCatholic:

Wonderful. What part of the Deposit of Faith that Christ and the Apostles was dealt with here? You didn’t answer it.

Here’s the definiton of the Deposit of the Faith, from the CCC:
84 The apostles entrusted the “Sacred deposit” of the faith (the depositum fidei), contained in Sacred Scripture and Tradition, to the whole of the Church. “By adhering to [this heritage] the entire holy people, united to its pastors, remains always faithful to the teaching of the apostles, to the brotherhood, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. So, in maintaining, practising and professing the faith that has been handed on, there should be a remarkable harmony between the bishops and the faithful.”
Consider the underline text: the holy people remains faithful to the brotherhood by adhering to the Depositum Fidei. That means it knows who is and who is not inside the faith, who is and is not rightly used as a minister – infallibly, by your account. That Paul did not have this infallible knowledge in regard to John Mark indicates that something is wrong either with Paul or the definition. Since you and I would agree that there is nothing wrong with Paul – he is an apostle as he claimed to be – there must be something wrong with the definition, something wrong with the notion that the Apostles were infallible and that they left an infallible line of successors.

However, the results of Sola Scriptura, is doctrinal relativism. Please show me, which one of the thousands of biblical interpretations out there are the correct ones? Show me that the choice you make is infallible.

Do you not understand that the doctrine of sola Scriptura does not say that men infallibly know everything Scripture teaches, but that Scripture teaches without any errors, and because its teqaching is error-free, it is the only standard which is not subject to correction?

I cannot show you that my choices – or the choices of the elders in our church – are infallible. The really sad thing is that neither can you, but you ignore that problem.

The problem with Sola Scriptura, is that it is practiced as if it were Sola Mirrora. How?

Who determines that something is biblical? I DO
Who determines that something is not biblical? I DO
Who determines that the Catholic Church is wrong on [doctrine]? I DO
Who determines which interpretation of the Bible is correct? I DO
Who determines which doctrine I should accept? I DO
Who determines which doctrine I should not accept? I DO

The proof is in the pudding.

That’s a nice soliloquy. It’s not an argument which does not render the same result for your own system of belief.

 

[Richard_Froggat]

Not even your Popes and magisterium say that knowledge and affirmation of Enoch’s translation is necessary for saving faith. You example is completely different than then one in question.

Why does the Pope have to say that affirmation of the translation of Enoch is essential? Are you saying it’s not essential to believe Enoch was translated?

As for having perfect knowledge, the argument I think you are making is that because Abraham did not openly deny the assumption of Mary, that doesn’t mean he didn’t have the faith which includes belief in the assumption of Mary.

My argument has nothing to do with perfect knowledge, in fact it was quite the opposite. It has to do with what is believed about what is revealed.

If that’s so, I’d like to say that the Pope must believe that UFOs exist, and his faith includes that anyone who ever denies it is going to hell. How can I possibly say that? Well, the Pope has never denied that UFOs exist. It is only logical that if he did not deny it he must have had a faith which includes it, even if only implicitly.

If you wish to believe in UFO’s that is fine by me, but has nothing to do with my argument.

Does that example make clear how untenable the argument you are proving is? It is the exact same argument from silence.

If by some slight chance UFO’s are revealed by God to the Church, Why would that be a problem? Because someone chooses not to believe it? And would this mean the cloud of witnesses had a different faith because they did not believe the exact same things. (bolded words are your own)

Grace to you, and Peace,
~centuri0n

And also with you, In JMJ, Richard

 

[centuri0n]

Richard Froggat:

Why does the Pope have to say that affirmation of the translation of Enoch is essential? Are you saying it’s not essential to believe Enoch was translated?

Yup. That’s what I’m saying. I’m saying one can deny that Enoch was translated and still have saving faith. I’m not saying I deny it: I’m saying that a person could deny it and not be rejecting the Gospel of Christ.

My argument has nothing to do with perfect knowledge, in fact it was quite the opposite. It has to do with what is believed about what is revealed.

Try addressin the meat of the statement and not the inadequate introduction: “the argument I think you are making is that because Abraham did not openly deny the assumption of Mary, that doesn’t mean he didn’t have the faith which includes belief in the assumption of Mary.” That’s my summary of your argument, and if it’s wrong you ought to correct the summary.

If you wish to believe in UFO’s that is fine by me, but has nothing to do with my argument.

… which ignores my point …

If by some slight chance UFO’s are revealed by God to the Church, Why would that be a problem? Because someone chooses not to believe it? And would this mean the cloud of witnesses had a different faith because they did not believe the exact same things. (bolded words are your own)

I’m sorry – your words in bold are not mine. You can’t find them in this thread.

My case is that Paul has already said that the Gospel he preached was all that was necessary for saving faith, and that Paul also defined the faith as that which is shared with the great cloud of witnesses. Do we know particular detals of the Gospel which Abraham did not? Of course. It’s possible, for example, that Abraham did not know that the personal name of the Messiah would be Jesus. But he had faith in the Messiah, the Christ which God would send. Same faith: different perspective in time.

Now look at the difference between that example and the example of the assumption of Mary. You’re saying that we (ought to) believe that Jesus had a mother who’s name was Mary, and that Mary ended her earthly life by being bodily assumed into heaven – and that to deny such a thing is tantamount to denying the resurrection.

I find it hard to believe that you or any Catholic advocate cannot see the vast difference between these two things.