Protestants & Sola Scriptura/Problems with Coherence

[Newsy]

Protestantism was born out of the Great Schism. The East and the West already divided and the East (Rome) continued on its division.

In its origin, most Protestants were in fact Catholics. IMHO, Protestans are the offspring from the East and West divorce. Rebellious offspring from stubborn and unyielding parents.

I fail to see what the Great Schism of 1054 had to do with Luther and the Reformation almost 400 years later. Please explain this to me.

However, I can understand the need at the time to put a fence around what was acceptable outside of Tradition and tradition. Since both are subject to manipulation without the proper knowledge of history.

There in lies the problem, manipulation. Many want to throw out history and re-write or manipulate the story. Many want to push their ideas without looking into the history and context of the Bible and Tradition.

There is nothing that troubles me more than to fight a fellow believer of Christ on doctrinal issues. Like Paul said, be of one mind and one body. But please don’t use Paul’s quote, when the house separated before the children left the house. Those who are free of sin throw the first stone!

How do you know that your doctrinal understandings are correct? How do you know doctrine is important? These areas have caused much conflict and led many people in completely different directions, all under the banner of being “led by the Holy Spirit”.

I don’t struggle to find a Church that fills my needs alone. I struggle to find the absent True Church and I am positive that our Lord is leading me to a journey. And please don’t assume by my forum “non-denomination” label that I am ignorant of Catholic, Apostolic and Roman Tradition. I’ve spent half my life in the Roman Rite, I seriously doubt that it is the same Church that Peter belonged to. It is the same Office (See) but not the same Church.

You are losing me on this one. You acknowledge that the modern Catholic Church is the same Office as Peter, but not the same Church? This makes no sense. If your thoughts here are correct and the True Church is absent, then Christ becomes a liar. He said, “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”, and also, “And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age”. So, you see that His Church must be on Earth today. If His Church exists, which one is it?

Where is the same Church? With Christ of course. Where or who exactly? I don’t know, and it destroys my soul not knowing since I don’t seek personal satisfaction but Christ’s body.

This one is easy to address, Christ’s Body can be found in any Catholic or Eastern Orthodox Church. He’s right there in the Tabernacle. You said you spent half your life in a Roman Rite Church, why did you leave?

 

[JonNC]

=Safia;8791403]What? The Church doesn’t hold SS to be true.

Speaks to our division on the deffineition of Church. I know quite well the CC does not hold to SS.

The question you haven’t answered is how you know what you believe is true. How exactly you came to know it as Truth. Again, logic tells us that both Lutheranism and Catholicism can’t be true.

In the vast areas that we agree, could we not hold that these are indeed true? But to answer your question, by faith.

Personally, it seems as if anything that isn’t Catholicism reflects a need for convenience, as only the Church looks at Scripture cohesively. I could show you the hundreds of ways in which Lutheran teaching – i.e., regarding salvation – is impossible from a Scriptural standpoint without assuming the exegetical end of the CC.

From your POV as a Catholic, I suspect you could.

Except the Confessions really give no rationale whatsoever.

Questions you can’t answer: Who gave Luther the right? How do we know his interpretation is true?

Who said he didn’t have the “right”. If one accepts that scripture is the final norm (which you don’t and I do).

Problem is, Scripture doesn’t teach that the “sole rule and standard” is Scripture. What is the reasoning? Again you’re engaging in the fallacies that I posted at the very beginning of this thread without being able to step outside of them. Scripture relies on the Tradition of the Catholic Church; Scripture came to exist because of the Tradition of the Catholic Church.

From my perspective, the failure of Tradition to maintain a unity of the faith. without that unity, one must depend on the innerrant word of God. Fix the schism, and I’m all in.

You even agreed with me earlier that Scripture is always found within a community of the Church’s Tradition, in which case, it becomes impossible to mediate between the two possibilities – Scripture as relient on the Church, and Scripture in a vacuum.

Take a look at where where our division comes from. Where the Church’s Tradition is split.

You also told me that it’s not the intent of SS to deny that divine teachings existed outside of Scripture, but that’s exactly what Luther does. For example, the Church teaches – from apostolic times! – it’s belief in salvation outside of faith alone (which, as I understand it, some Lutherans disagree with). How can you possibly justify denying the Church on that matter?

Please read the JDDJ.

The CC would agree with that first part – that Holy Scripture is superior to any other writing. And if the second part is true, you’d be a Catholic. For there was a certain preservation that lasted for 1500 years. Lutheranism is simply historically improbable.

Until 1054, agreed. Since then, there is disagreement. Tell me who to believe regarding the Filioque, Transubstantiation, but most importantly for me, the extent and nature of the power and primacy of the Pope.

Nothing the Catholic Church teaches is contrary to those creeds. The Athanasian is Catholic. At what point does Luther get to decide what is heresy? He can cherry-pick historical events, per his convenience?

Nothing we tech is contrary to those creeds. It isn’t cherry-picked.

Your argument – and the one in Confessions – is that because controversies/heresies exist, Scripture is the only Truth. That’s irrational/illogical.

Like I said, fix Tradition, and I’m all in.

That’s all I have to say…

Peace, my friend in Christ.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;8793474]Hi, JonNC,

And, nice to chat with you, too. So, let me address a couple of items that we differ on…

This is where being vague is simply not helpful. My guess is you are talking about councils since the 11th century but before Trent? If this is the time range you are addressing, what specific council declarations are you in disagreement with?

Not just before Trent, at least for me. But since the 11th century, there has been no truly ecumenical council. And that’s the point. If all the sees agree with Transub., the IC, the extent and nature of the pope’s primacy, then I will agree too.

I was not really aware that Luther was interested in joining the Orthodox – my guess is that if there were objections from the various German princes about sending money to Italy – I can’t see them agreeing to send it to the Middle East! Any idea why Luther’s efforts failed, or why none of the others in the Revolt never went in the direction of joining the Orthodox?

It wasn’t so much Luther as, I think, Melanchthon. There’s some things on the web, I’ll try to find.

This is really critical: WHY don’t you see it that way? None of those in the Revolt ever claimed Christ appeared to them – much less Christ told any of them that He was revoking His Promise to Peter in Matt 16:18. So, all I can say is that Luther and the others decided they did not like what they were seeing and decided on their own to form man-made religions, that claimed to have Christ as their model, but refused to accept that He could work with sinful men who were leaders of the Church He founded on Peter. Now, that is my view – I’d be interested in hearing what you have to say.

First, Tom, we’d have to come to some sort of agreement regarding the intent of Matt. 16.

You know, one of the more interesting things about Christ are the things that He didn’t do. For example, He did not give Peter a set of ‘blue prints’ on the organizational structure of His Church. And, He did not hand off a ‘Book’ of God-breathed Scripture before He ascended into Heaven. Ultimately, He left it to the Spirit to guide the men He selected to develop the details. And, it is here, in Matthew 16:18 that we find that Christ covered all bases with, “WHATEVER you bind…”. There simply are no limits on this. And, since Christ is God, no one can say that He did not know what was going to happen with such a statement or what the implications would be 1500 years later.

There were no sub-group of ‘protesting Apostles’ coming up with their own doctrine, claiming Peter was not the leader picked by Christ or that God would protect His Church from teaching error.

Oh, I think there are lots who disagree that Peter was Christ’s picked leader, and some who are not protestant.

The ability to claim that SS is not ‘explicit’ in Scripture is a good start. It is not ‘implicit’, either. And, when you get right down to it – SS is directly contrary to the Holy Spirit working with the Church founded by Christ, because everyone can make their own interpretations of Scripture. Here is a practical example – you embrace SS because you think this is acceptable based on what you have been taught and the way you interpret Scripture.
Well, of course its implicit.

You reject the explicit, ‘WHATEVER you bind on earth…’ statement because it simply contradicts SS head on as a tradition of man. I think when you look around – even at other Lutherans – you see major differences on doctrine so that more are coming over to the Catholic Church (Home…) articles.latimes.com/1997/aug/20/news/mn-24210

I think this is an important change – and one not unnoticed by Anglicans and some others.
Actually I don’t reject it. I fully support the understanding that the Church has the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose. I go to confession.

Peace Tom,
Jon

 

[pablope]

Sorry for the delay in the reply. Now, I do not have all of the answers to your questions. The main reason I seem to not be able to agree with the Catholic Church is, because I haven’t seen evidence of Sola Scriptura going against what the Bible says.
How do I know these things are true if goes against what I’ve always been taught, and there’s no evidence for it from the Word of God?

I need evidence to believe. I believe in God, because there is evidence. If I believed in the Catholic Church, I would need evidence of it being Christ’s Church.

Sorry for coming late to this discussion…but I hope this article will shed more light to you…and the other readers.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

More Excerpts:

The Church has this charism because the Church is the Body of Christ, and He, the Truth, is the Head of the Body. That ontological reality underlies Christ’s promise that the gates of Hades will never prevail against His Church,34 that His Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth,35 and that He will be with her to the end of the age,36. It underlies the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.37

The indefectibility of the Church is a gift from Christ to the Church by which she is preserved to the end of the age as the “institution of salvation.” She can neither perish from the world nor depart from “her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy.”38 The gift of indefectibility does not imply that the members of the Church, even members of the Magisterium, cannot sin or err. But it does entail that the Magisterium of the Church can never lose or corrupt any part of the revelation of Christ, which includes both matters theological and moral. This gift of indefectibility is essential to Christ’s purpose in establishing His Church as the means of continuing His saving work to all the nations and peoples of the world until the end of the age. Regarding this purpose, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “What did Christ the Lord achieve by the foundation of the Church; what did He wish? This: He wished to delegate to the Church the same office and the same mandate which He had Himself received from the Father in order to continue them.”39

The commission Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 did not end with the death of the last Apostle, because this commission was given not only to the Apostles, but to their successors and the whole Church. The task of taking the Gospel to all nations and the ends of the earth goes beyond what the Apostles could accomplish in their own lifetime. In the same way, the promises of Christ do not extend only to the Apostles, but to their successors and all in union with them. This understanding of Christ’s promise to the Church provided a basis of assurance for the Fathers that Christ would preserve and guide the Church through apostolic succession. The pattern revealed through Christ’s relation to the Father is the pattern that is to endure until Christ returns.

 

[pablope]

Sorry for coming late to this discussion…but I hope this article will shed more light to you…and the other readers.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Excerpts:

How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it.** For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.**

The problem with the pick-and-choose approach is that it is entirely ad hoc insofar as one picks and chooses from among Church Fathers and councils only those statements one agrees with, to be ‘authoritative.

A further and particularly significant implication of this ad hoc approach to the tradition is that it undermines the basis for believing the canon of the Bible to be correct. If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.9

As a result, those who claim that the Church deviated from orthodoxy at an early point in history, and use Scripture to show this, undermine the very basis for their assurance that the book they hold in their hand is canonically inerrant. They must either turn to critical scholarship, or resort to some internal voice that they perceive to be from the Holy Spirit, in order to verify the canon, before they can use the canon to evaluate the tradition of the early Church.

If the Catholic Church did not apostatize, then Protestants would not be justified in separating from her. So in order to justify separating from the Catholic Church, Protestants must hold that the Catholic Church apostatized, either earlier in her history, or later. Hodge seeks to distinguish his position from the Restorationists by delaying and diminishing the degree of apostasy. But he faces the following dilemma. The first horn of the dilemma is this: if he claims that the Church apostatized early on, then his position is equivalent to that of the Restorationists. The second horn of the dilemma is this: if he claims that the Church faithfully maintained orthodoxy for 1,500 years, then there is a much greater likelihood that (a) the Church has continued to preserve orthodoxy and he is mistaken than (b) that he is correct and that the Church, after a millennium and a half, has finally fallen into apostasy. The second horn of the dilemma is not open to Hodge, because his theology would be unchanged if he claimed that the Church fell into utter apostasy by AD 500. That is because his theology is for the most part not formed and shaped by the rulings of the ecumenical councils between AD 500 through AD 1,500. So that leaves him on the first horn, with no principled difference between his position and that of the Restorationists.

The distinction between these two kinds of faith follows from the distinction between the Gnostic conception of the Church and the biblical conception of the Church as a living and hierarchically unified Body. When we come to see “the act of faith in Christ and the act of faith in the Church [as] one act of faith,” then we have to let go of ecclesial deism.

 

[pablope]

pablope;8800285:

Sorry for coming late to this discussion…but I hope this article will shed more light to you…and the other readers.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

More Excerpts:

The Church has this charism because the Church is the Body of Christ, and He, the Truth, is the Head of the Body. That ontological reality underlies Christ’s promise that the gates of Hades will never prevail against His Church,34 that His Holy Spirit will guide her into all truth,35 and that He will be with her to the end of the age,36. It underlies the Apostle Paul’s statement that the Church is the pillar and ground of truth.37

The indefectibility of the Church is a gift from Christ to the Church by which she is preserved to the end of the age as the “institution of salvation.” She can neither perish from the world nor depart from “her teaching, her constitution and her liturgy.”38 The gift of indefectibility does not imply that the members of the Church, even members of the Magisterium, cannot sin or err. But it does entail that the Magisterium of the Church can never lose or corrupt any part of the revelation of Christ, which includes both matters theological and moral. This gift of indefectibility is essential to Christ’s purpose in establishing His Church as the means of continuing His saving work to all the nations and peoples of the world until the end of the age. Regarding this purpose, Pope Leo XIII wrote, “What did Christ the Lord achieve by the foundation of the Church; what did He wish? This: He wished to delegate to the Church the same office and the same mandate which He had Himself received from the Father in order to continue them.”39

The commission Christ gave to the Apostles in Matthew 28:19 did not end with the death of the last Apostle, because this commission was given not only to the Apostles, but to their successors and the whole Church. The task of taking the Gospel to all nations and the ends of the earth goes beyond what the Apostles could accomplish in their own lifetime. In the same way, the promises of Christ do not extend only to the Apostles, but to their successors and all in union with them. This understanding of Christ’s promise to the Church provided a basis of assurance for the Fathers that Christ would preserve and guide the Church through apostolic succession. The pattern revealed through Christ’s relation to the Father is the pattern that is to endure until Christ returns.

V. An Objection

One possible objection to my argument against ecclesial deism is that God in His providence might allow the Church to fall into heresy or apostasy in order to bring about a greater good. According to this objection, by letting the Church fall into heresy or apostasy God could be teaching the Church a lesson. This is a good objection, but it does not undermine the fundamental reason why ecclesial deism must be false. It presupposes some form of ecclesial Docetism, as though the Church is a merely human institution to which Christ is related extrinsically. The Church is not a merely human institution; it is the Body of Christ, who is divine. He is the greatest good, the good than which there can be none greater. So God could never separate Christ from the Church in order to lead the Church to something greater than Christ. The promises of Christ to the Church are not accidentally tacked on to the Church; they flow from the very identity of the Church as the Body of Christ. The Church cannot fall into heresy because she is the Body of Christ, and Christ cannot fall into heresy or apostasy. The Holy Spirit, who is the very Soul of the Church, cannot be led into heresy or apostasy. The essential holiness (i.e. purity of doctrine) and unity of the visible hierarchy of the Church50 entail that God will never allow the Church to fall into heresy or apostasy. The four marks of the Church are not accidents that can be variously gained or lost; they are intrinsic to the very nature of the Church.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

I really did not understand your responses. Seriously, before we can get an understanding about the meaning of Matthew 16, we will need to come up with a practical and working definition of ‘vague’ as something to avoid and ‘clear’ as something to have. Let me demonstrate what I mean by this in my responses to you - but my very first question is: “What is a ‘evangelical catholic’ (lower case) LCMS (upper case)?”

Now, on to the business at hand.

Not just before Trent, at least for me. But since the 11th century, there has been no truly ecumenical council. And that’s the point. If all the sees agree with Transub., the IC, the extent and nature of the pope’s primacy, then I will agree too.

So, if not ‘…just before Trent…’ do you means Councils that happened after Trent?
What do you mean by there not having been a ‘truly ecumenical council’ since the 11the Century? Actually, there were quite a few - here are just
the first five after the 11th Century:
Lateran III (1159-1181)
Lateran IV (1198-1216)
Lyons I (1243-1254)
Lyons II (1274)
Vienne (1311-1312)
here is link that lists them all: catholicism.org/the-ecumenical-councils-of-the-catholic-church.html

Are you saying that all the sees are not in agreement with the Real Presence? If so, please name them. (and by the way, what does “IC” mean? Immaculate Conception? If so, please identify the sees that are not in agreement with this Article of Faith)

It wasn’t so much Luther as, I think, Melanchthon. There’s some things on the web, I’ll try to find.

Take your time.

First, Tom, we’d have to come to some sort of agreement regarding the intent of Matt. 16.

Let me be clear:
God the Father gave Peter the correct answer to Christ’s question, Christ acknowledged Peter’s correct answer and then Who gave him the correct answer - and then Christ put Peter in charge with him being the first with the power to bind ad lose (Matt 18 brings in the other 11) and the unique symbol of authority - the Keys (only one set of them and not 11 copies),
Your attention is directed to the Catechism of the Catholic Church at items 857 - 870 for additional details and footnotes. Here is the link:scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#857

That is my understanding. What is yours?

Oh, I think there are lots who disagree that Peter was Christ’s picked leader, and some who are not protestant.

See above.

Well, of course its implicit.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no merit in this man-made doctrine, that no only is not supported (explicit or implicit) but is condemned in 2Peter. Here is an interesting link that gives further reasons why SS is explicitly condemned by the Catholic Church: cuf.org/FileDownloads/sola.pdf

So, if you are claiming ‘implicit’ support from Scripture for SS, then please provide the documentation.

Actually I don’t reject it. I fully support the understanding that the Church has the power of the keys, the power to bind and loose. I go to confession.

Actually, this is the response I found most problematic to my understanding… and this is because it seems to fly in the face of your previous responses. So, while I am delighted that you reject SS, believe in the Primacy of Peter and are a practicing Catholic - I just do not understand what point you are trying to make.

Looking forward to your clearly worded responses to my questions.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, JonNC,

I thought I’d respond to your response to me, first … and then move on your response to Sifia’s post. Excuse the fact that this puts the responses a bit out of order…

Who said he didn’t have the “right”. If one accepts that scripture is the final norm (which you don’t and I do).

This is an interesting statement - especially after writing that you do not believe in SS… Believe me when I say, you really can not have it both ways. The line in the ground has been drawn a long time ago and we are all expected to decide which side we are standing on. Plainly said: if you believe in SS (as in a later post you said you don’t) there is an issue here.

This issue orbits around the question on who makes the definitive interpretation of what Scripture means? Would you care to answer that? And, if your answer is the Catholic Church, what do you mean by Luther having a ‘right’ and you believe in SS?

The Catholic Church prior to the time of Luther had already closed the Canon of Scripture and determined that only the teaching authority of the Church could determine the meaning of Scripture. So, Luther did not have the right to take this teaching authority to himself. The Catholic Church does not accept Scripture as the ‘final norm’ - rather it is one leg of a three-legged stool: the Church, Sacred Tradition, and Scripture. This is actually a chronological ranking: Christ taught and instructed the Apostles to teach and baptize, we have actions of the Apostles that were not written down and their successors and then finally about the year 400AD we have the Canon of Scripture being identified and then closed.

From my perspective, the failure of Tradition to maintain a unity of the faith. without that unity, one must depend on the innerrant word of God. Fix the schism, and I’m all in.

Here is an example of a response that I find vague. Exactly what, “…failure of Tradition…” are you addressing? Did Christ ‘fail’ when Judas committed suicide? The Devil is a not only a reality but one with power. Men freely chose temptation and freely sin. Yes, the unity of faith has been damaged - with every heresy - but, there is no way you can blame the Catholic Church for providing clarity and guidance about doctrine.

Well, let’s see … there is still a schism (Orthodox), and then we have these apostate groups. Both exist today and I guess this means that the schism and other problems with unity are not ‘fixed’. So, does this mean you are not ‘in’? And, if so, ‘in’ what? If you are saying you are not in the Catholic Church, what is this statement you made about going to confession? Maybe this is just being totally misunderstood by me - but, as I see it, your posts are confused and self-contradictory.

Nothing we tech is contrary to those creeds. It isn’t cherry-picked.

OK, I’ll bite - who is the “we” in this sentence you have just written? I will reserve my opinion on the ‘cherry-picking’ issue until I see some responses to my prior posts. But, really, the issue with Protestants and Scripture is context.

Remember the goal is clarity of expression - not necessarily brevity.

God bless

 

[tqualey]

Hi, CopticChristian,

I must confess … it did take me a while to compose myself… ‘Judge Judy’!.. That was pretty good!

My hope is that Telesstia gives us the answers … 'Inquiring minds want to know…!"

Now, I would appreciate a clarification on an item you wrote. Do you have a source for speculating about Jerome having, " … Manichean ways …"?

Thanks

God bless

Wow Telestia,

You have a real problem here. Augustine was a dead beat dad. Now Judge Judy, formerly a family law judge, would have a few words about that. Since you are no fan and you point out why this creates more of a problem. I don’t know if you are aware but the so called Reformers based their theology, yup, Protestant theology is based on the retrospectosopic view of Augustine and that is what produced Protestant thinking that you accept…

So you are in a quandry. You cannot be Catholic because you are no fan of Augustine as you say and yet you know the Protestant paradigm that you are part of is based on Augustine. You just can’t go right or left here. What is a Christian to do? All your Christian theology is either the Catholic Church with Augustine as part of it or Protestant Thought with what is said to be the proper understanding of Agustine that produces the Protestant thought you embrace. Whoa nelly…now what?

Jerome has doubts. Who doesn’t have doubts and concerning his Platonic and Manichean ways that is something.

What you are saying here is that there are just a bunch of sinners here. Have you looked at the Geneology of Jesus…filled with sinners…and then after that if we look at Calvin he was a murderer, Zwingli was an admitted fornicator before leaving the Church and since then we have had Ted Haagard, Jim and Tammy Baker, Jimmy Swagart and who knows what else…

What are you to do…you sure got me wondering how one person can solve any of this…

By the way show me how it is you came to understand this blood of Jesus and how one gets in on the action. What do you tell somebody they need to do to be transformed and to get the indwelling…I sure want to know.

Also I don’t know if anyone told you that there are no original Scriptures around and all you have is a translation. How can you be sure that you have a proper translation? How can you be sure that what you read is truly Scripture? Where is the authority as we all know Scripture does not say it is Scripture and after all many of the books have no author. How do you know that what you have is truly the word of God?

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;8800456]Hi, JonNC,

I really did not understand your responses. Seriously, before we can get an understanding about the meaning of Matthew 16, we will need to come up with a practical and working definition of ‘vague’ as something to avoid and ‘clear’ as something to have.
Come on, Tom. You know what I mean about Matt. 16.

Let me demonstrate what I mean by this in my responses to you - but my very first question is: “What is a ‘evangelical catholic’ (lower case) LCMS (upper case)?”

Think of it in terms of High Church. This wiki link isn’t bad.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholic

So, if not ‘…just before Trent…’ do you means Councils that happened after Trent?
What do you mean by there not having been a ‘truly ecumenical council’ since the 11the Century? Actually, there were quite a few - here are just
the first five after the 11th Century:
Lateran III (1159-1181)
Lateran IV (1198-1216)
Lyons I (1243-1254)
Lyons II (1274)
Vienne (1311-1312)
here is link that lists them all: catholicism.org/the-ecumenical-councils-of-the-catholic-church.html

Which of these included all of the sees, and are accepted by Orthodoxy?

Are you saying that all the sees are not in agreement with the Real Presence? If so, please name them. (and by the way, what does “IC” mean? Immaculate Conception? If so, please identify the sees that are not in agreement with this Article of Faith)

No, of course they all agree with the RP. So do we, but I was talking about Transubstantiation. On the IC, which Orthodox see accepts the IC. With a western view of Original Sin, I’m probably more inclinded to accept the IC than the east.

Let me be clear:
God the Father gave Peter the correct answer to Christ’s question, Christ acknowledged Peter’s correct answer and then Who gave him the correct answer - and then Christ put Peter in charge with him being the first with the power to bind ad lose (Matt 18 brings in the other 11) and the unique symbol of authority - the Keys (only one set of them and not 11 copies),

Not a problem with the first part. On the second, we need to be clear about what “put in charge” means. The fact is the power is that of the Church, the congregation of saints, and not one man or Bishop.

Your attention is directed to the Catechism of the Catholic Church at items 857 - 870 for additional details and footnotes. Here is the link:scborromeo.org/ccc/p123a9p3.htm#857

Thanks, I’ll take a look. I have scborromeo bookmarked.

As far as I can tell, there is absolutely no merit in this man-made doctrine, that no only is not supported (explicit or implicit) but is condemned in 2Peter. Here is an interesting link that gives further reasons why SS is explicitly condemned by the Catholic Church: cuf.org/FileDownloads/sola.pdf

So, if you are claiming ‘implicit’ support from Scripture for SS, then please provide the documentation.
Ps. 119:105: Thy Word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path. And St. Paul: Though an angel from heaven preach any other gospel unto you, let him be accursed, Gal. 1:8.

I know it is condemned by the Catholic Church.

Actually, this is the response I found most problematic to my understanding… and this is because it seems to fly in the face of your previous responses. So, while I am delighted that you reject SS, believe in the Primacy of Peter and are a practicing Catholic - I just do not understand what point you are trying to make.

Where did I say that I reject SS, or accept a primacy of Peter reflected in current Catholic teaching but which contradicts Nicea canon 6? If the CC willing to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as was accepted there, I’m with you. IOW, western jurisdiction, and first among equals.

Jon

 

[passer_by]

Come on, Tom. You know what I mean about Matt. 16.

Think of it in terms of High Church. This wiki link isn’t bad.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholic

Which of these included all of the sees, and are accepted by Orthodoxy?

No, of course they all agree with the RP. So do we, but I was talking about Transubstantiation. On the IC, which Orthodox see accepts the IC. With a western view of Original Sin, I’m probably more inclinded to accept the IC than the east.

Where did I say that I reject SS, or accept a primacy of Peter reflected in current Catholic teaching but which contradicts Nicea canon 6? If the CC willing to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome as was accepted there, I’m with you. IOW, western jurisdiction, and first among equals.

Jon

Hi Jon,

I still see a lot of energy being expended by you to defend your system using things inside the system. Needless to say, this is futile. You can’t defend something using circular logic.

So I hope you will come around to realizing this and try to first show justification for believing IN THE SYSTEM you/Luther/or someone else proposed.

If you cannot provide such reasons, needless to say, there is no reason for anyone to be Protestant

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Pablope,

This is truly an excellent link! Thanks for sharing it!

God bless

pablope;8800285:

Sorry for coming late to this discussion…but I hope this article will shed more light to you…and the other readers.

calledtocommunion.com/2009/07/ecclesial-deism/

Excerpts:

How does Mohler deal with this dilemma? He adopts a pick-and-choose approach. This approach attempts to avoid the dilemma raised above by methodologically, though not explicitly, counting as ‘traditional’ [as in “traditional Christian orthodoxy”] only whatever the Church said and did that agrees with or is at least compatible with one’s own interpretation of Scripture. ‘Tradition’ becomes whatever one agrees with in the history of the Church, such as the Nicene Creed or Chalcedonian Christology.

This pick-and-choose approach to the tradition shows that it is not the fact that an Ecumenical Council declared something definitively that makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler. What makes it ‘authoritative’ for Mohler is that it agrees with his interpretation of Scripture. If he encounters something in the tradition that seems extra-biblical or opposed to Scripture he rejects it.** For that reason, tradition does not authoritatively guide his interpretation. His interpretation picks out what counts as tradition, and then this tradition informs his interpretation.**

The problem with the pick-and-choose approach is that it is entirely ad hoc insofar as one picks and chooses from among Church Fathers and councils only those statements one agrees with, to be ‘authoritative.

A further and particularly significant implication of this ad hoc approach to the tradition is that it undermines the basis for believing the canon of the Bible to be correct. If the Church erred in so many doctrines and practices, then we have no basis for believing that the Church got the canon right. It would be ad hoc to trust that the Church got the canon right while believing that the Church got so many other things wrong during that same period of time.9

As a result, those who claim that the Church deviated from orthodoxy at an early point in history, and use Scripture to show this, undermine the very basis for their assurance that the book they hold in their hand is canonically inerrant. They must either turn to critical scholarship, or resort to some internal voice that they perceive to be from the Holy Spirit, in order to verify the canon, before they can use the canon to evaluate the tradition of the early Church.

If the Catholic Church did not apostatize, then Protestants would not be justified in separating from her. So in order to justify separating from the Catholic Church, Protestants must hold that the Catholic Church apostatized, either earlier in her history, or later. Hodge seeks to distinguish his position from the Restorationists by delaying and diminishing the degree of apostasy. But he faces the following dilemma. The first horn of the dilemma is this: if he claims that the Church apostatized early on, then his position is equivalent to that of the Restorationists. The second horn of the dilemma is this: if he claims that the Church faithfully maintained orthodoxy for 1,500 years, then there is a much greater likelihood that (a) the Church has continued to preserve orthodoxy and he is mistaken than (b) that he is correct and that the Church, after a millennium and a half, has finally fallen into apostasy. The second horn of the dilemma is not open to Hodge, because his theology would be unchanged if he claimed that the Church fell into utter apostasy by AD 500. That is because his theology is for the most part not formed and shaped by the rulings of the ecumenical councils between AD 500 through AD 1,500. So that leaves him on the first horn, with no principled difference between his position and that of the Restorationists.

The distinction between these two kinds of faith follows from the distinction between the Gnostic conception of the Church and the biblical conception of the Church as a living and hierarchically unified Body. When we come to see “the act of faith in Christ and the act of faith in the Church [as] one act of faith,” then we have to let go of ecclesial deism.

 

[tqualey]

Hi JonNC,

Looks like you want to play games … I don’t. Now, if you don’t want to answer questions just say so - but this teasing with answers has run its course with me. Really, maybe others are interested in this approach of yours, but I ran out of time and patience.

If you are claiming to be a Roman Catholic then your entire argument is corrupted. If you are claiming to be something else but dispute SS, then fine. But, you keep on going back and forth on this - and, it really makes no sense. Unless you are trying to cobble your own church together as the ultimate cherry-pick experience.

Glad to help with the scborromeo bookmark.

Tell 'ya what - Pablope did us a a good turn with this link: calledtocommunion.com/200…clesial-deism/ it is no substitute for an after dinner brandy - but, I think it would be helpful in seeing how an argument can progress with clarity.

God bless

Come on, Tom. You know what I mean about Matt. 16.

Think of it in terms of High Church. This wiki link isn’t bad.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelical_Catholic

Which of these included all of the sees, and are accepted by Orthodoxy?

No, of course they all agree with the RP. So do we, but I was talking about Transubstantiation. On the IC, which Orthodox see accepts the IC. With a western view of Original Sin, I’m probably more inclinded to accept the IC than the east.

Not a problem with the first part. On the second, we need to be clear about what “put in charge” means. The fact is the power is that of the Church, the congregation of saints, and not one man or Bishop.

 

[Newsy]

Jon is Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, LCMS. This is a very conservative assembly of the Lutheran Church. They accept Transubstantiation and, I believe, they still use a confessional. I don’t think he’s trying to confuse you.

 

[tqualey]

Hi, Newsy,

Thank you.

God bless

Jon is Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, LCMS. This is a very conservative assembly of the Lutheran Church. They accept Transubstantiation and, I believe, they still use a confessional. I don’t think he’s trying to confuse you.

 

[Nicea325]

Where did you find your definition of sola scriptura?

And here is where the issue lies. When,where and who decided what is true definition of SS?

 

[Newsy]

And here is where the issue lies. When,where and who decided what is true definition of SS?

So, we’re back to the heart of the argument… authority. Who did Jesus give authority to? Each of us to go our own way, or to the Apostles to teach the rest of us?

Submission to authority has always been man’s problem.

 

[Nicea325]

So, we’re back to the heart of the argument… authority. Who did Jesus give authority to? Each of us to go our own way, or to the Apostles to teach the rest of us?

Submission to authority has always been man’s problem.

Yes…the Devil and his clan of rebellious angels had the same issue w/God.

 

[Newsy]

Yes…the Devil and his clan of rebellious angels had the same issue w/God.

At least it’s not an isolated problem.

 

[JonNC]

=tqualey;8800990]Hi JonNC,

Looks like you want to play games … I don’t. Now, if you don’t want to answer questions just say so - but this teasing with answers has run its course with me. Really, maybe others are interested in this approach of yours, but I ran out of time and patience.
Tom,
I’m truly sorry you feel this way. I in no way was intending to play games, though my time has been short of late. I think my reputation here bears out the fact that that isn’t my M/O.
I think part of the problemis you may be expecting me to speak of SS in a way that just isn’t our belief.

If you are claiming to be a Roman Catholic then your entire argument is corrupted. If you are claiming to be something else but dispute SS, then fine. But, you keep on going back and forth on this - and, it really makes no sense. Unless you are trying to cobble your own church together as the ultimate cherry-pick experience.

No where, anywhere, have I claimed to be Latin Catholic. I don’t understand what you mean, I keep going back and forth. I think I’ve been consistent in presenting the Lutheran understanding.

Glad to help with the scborromeo bookmark.

Appreciated.

Tell 'ya what - Pablope did us a a good turn with this link: calledtocommunion.com/200…clesial-deism/

it is no substitute for an after dinner brandy - but, I think it would be helpful in seeing how an argument can progress with clarity.

God bless
Brandy is good, but I’ll look in on it when time allows.
And may His blessing be with you, my friend.

Jon