Protestant Explanation

[St_Stephen_1]

Based on some of the answers received, I think I might have asked the wrong questions. Therefore, I’m going to ask two different ones.

1. 
   *]Why don’t protestants accept those aspects of Tradition other than the Holy Scriptures? Why only Scripture? (Assuming you belong to a protestant community that does this.)
   *]If you’re a protestant, which ecumenical councils do you reject, and why? (I’m guessing most would accept the first 4-7 councils.)

 

[billt9]

You anticipated incorrectly I wasn’t going to ask that! One point I will pick upon you mention you don’t see the patristic writers as being infallible, unless I’m wrong neither do Catholics. I’ll have to start calling you non-Chalcedonian. I think it’s the Oriental Orthodox and the Church of the East who don’t accept any but the first four councils and because, if my memory serves me well, they rejected the teachings of the council at Chalcedon. Therefore, they’re called non-Chalcedonians (I’m hope that’s not an offensive term - that’s not my intention.)

So my prophecy powers (and most everything else, sad to say) are weak

No, I think Chalcedon was number 4, and I said I accept at least the first 4, so I am Chalcedonian, whew!

PS. First time in my life I have thought about whether I was “Chalcedonian.” Learn something new every day, don’t we?

My curiosity aroused, i had to look at 5-7. What I read (Wiikipedia, that’s always true, right?) says 5 just confirmed the first 4 (so I’m OK there), 6 said two wills, human and divine, so OK with that, 7 said icons (uh, protestants not too big on icons).

so i learned even more

 

[St_Stephen_1]

So my prophecy powers (and most everything else, sad to say) are weak

No, I think Chalcedon was number 4, and I said I accept at least the first 4, so I am Chalcedonian, whew!

PS. First time in my life I have thought about whether I was “Chalcedonian.” Learn something new every day, don’t we?

My curiosity aroused, i had to look at 5-7. What I read (Wiikipedia, that’s always true, right?) says 5 just confirmed the first 4 (so I’m OK there), 6 said two wills, human and divine, so OK with that, 7 said icons (uh, protestants not too big on icons).

so i learned even more

You have inspired me to done checking myself. You’re Chalcedonian! Chalcedon was no. 4. I don’t know why I thought it was no. 5. I don’t recognise the infallibility of Wikipedia so I did my checks with New Advent’s Catholic Encyclopedia. They seem to give the same info you found.

I wouldn’t expect protestants not to be big on icons. They’re an eastern Christian sacred image. We in the west use statues but I know protestants aren’t big on them, either.

I did think protestants accepted the first 7 ecumenical councils. I suppose it’d be more accurate to say Anglicans recognise them. Well, at least, the Church of England does.

 

[Cicero54]

Oh, the gentle reproof wasn’t aimed at anyone in particular, my friend. Of Newman, I recently read that the two best witnesses to the Christian religion the Church of England had ever produced, John Wesley and John Henry Newman, both deserted it in different directions. That’s something I can agree with. With compromise comes much good, and much that isn’t so good.

What do you make of the Christ within, or the inner light movement, such that whatever one does is excused under an antinomian head? Some of those positions were those delt with under Cramner and the result was out right repression of these positions. I think of the Anababtists, ranters, and the prophetical verses the martyriological antecendence of the reformation. They come to mind when restling with this major problem of Protestant authoritarianism. So that Protestant objections of Papal authority seems a bit of cavil when viewed from the view point of pure administrative authority on the part of thier various sects.

You do remember George Fox of the Quakers and so forth, in his contradictory assertion of authority on behalf of his movement. It, as you know, resulted in the complete discrediting of the Quakers and all the rest.

You do have views on this, and I for one look forward to hear them.

God Bless you Always

Cicero54

JMJ

 

[Cicero54]

No doubt you have a Knox bible at hand. I suspect that you know this, but the Knox Bible has just recently gone back into print in the States, and is also available on-line at a notably protestant site, along with the Douay-Rheims 1899 and a few others who offer the dreaded “apocrypha.”

As well, a cheery welcome to CAF.

Is there a dread in the “apocrypha” given the late appearance of it in the second “Knesset Gedula?” I think that you have read enough hebrew literature to understand that the apocrypha wasn’t included within the hebrew canon due to it’s late arrival due to political and travel restrictional reasons when the Hebrew canon was decided. In fact in the Palistinian Talmud, this very thing is alluded to.

This, I assume, was taken into consideration at the third Council of Carthage which canonized the complete writ which included the apocrpha in 397 A.D.

So that the details of our salvation won’t disturb the sensibilities scripturally of our salvation within the Catholic Church, when read in the context of the complete canon. That is, until the better educated in the reform decided otherwise!

I hope that we can discuss this as it is very important in the debate about Sola Scriptura.

God Bless you as always

Cicero54

JMJ

 

[Cicero54]

Precisely why we reject this model, and it is not sola scriptura, as SS is the practice of the (Lutheran part of) Church.

Such as the Magisterium?
Simply, as the early Church did, bring it to a council. But to have a truly ecumenical council, it would take all the patriarchates.

True, as the conflicts we have seen since at least 1054.

My point is that whether on uses Scripture and Tradition as a model of hermeunetics, or scripture aided by Tradition, we must put our faith in the Church, not in ourselves. Then pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.,

His blessing also with you.

Jon

 

[Cicero54]

Precisely why we reject this model, and it is not sola scriptura, as SS is the practice of the (Lutheran part of) Church.

Such as the Magisterium?
Simply, as the early Church did, bring it to a council. But to have a truly ecumenical council, it would take all the patriarchates.

True, as the conflicts we have seen since at least 1054.

My point is that whether on uses Scripture and Tradition as a model of hermeunetics, or scripture aided by Tradition, we must put our faith in the Church, not in ourselves. Then pray for the guidance of the Holy Spirit.,

The clash, as it were, of the elites in this case, were of one body and gave no arguement as to the jurisdictional differences that might have given rise to arguements about one church verses another church on any issue, as does the Protestant denominations do today. There never was a group, in lets say Alexandria, Rome, Constantinople, Nicea, or anywhere else claiming personal authority for themselves as do the Protestants.

They all gave allegiance to the final decision of the early councils no matter where they were. Contrast this with any decision made by any protestant confession trying to draw others into a sort of agreement under the authority of the panel as it were, and you will have the only uniformity that they are capable of, and that is dessention!

The Protestants reflect thier beginnings. And those beginnings were a violent fight over personal as opposed to authoritative reformist views over what must be held, since that they had no papal authority.

We know the history, we also know the words of Our Lord who said that “He who does not gather with me scattereth.”

His blessing also with you.

Jon