N
Nicea325
Guest
Nice try! You are merely isolating a passage from the entire context in order to prove an agenda. Try again.
- Status
P
PRmerger
Guest
'zactly.
And, sadly, they couldn’t proffer any magisterial documents to the contrary, right?
N
Nicea325
Guest
Sorry,no amount of responses changes the fact Jesus referred to purgatory. By the way, purgatory was taught by orthodox Jews. If purgatory is false and invented,then tell us what year and by whom? Names…
C
Copperway
Guest
I’m sorry, I’m trying to find where Jesus made reference to it and I have been unable thus far. Could you show where he did?
P
pablope
Guest
This is a very exhaustive explanation…it may take you several readings before you can fully comprehend it…with the all be biblical references…OT and NT…Purgatory Holy Fire…catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0091.html
A
Aefensang
Guest
I am an evangelical Anglican first and foremost because I believe all infallible might & authority is vested in the Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ by God the Father, whose Word He is, and Who spoke to us by His Holy Spirit through the prophets and the apostles. This apostolic tradition of the Gospel being enclosed totally in the divine Scriptures, I cannot see the need for another infallible authority super-added to the Bible.
I am protestant because I do not believe there is sufficient evidence in the divine Scriptures, the Apostolic Fathers, or the Ante-Nicene & Post-Nicene Fathers, to warrant the claim of total authority by one national church over another. The Church of Rome claiming this for herself over the entire world, I personally cannot be a Roman Catholic in good conscience.
I would provide quotes from across the earliest Christian times, but I do not wish to scandalise anyone serving the Lord Jesus in the Roman Church. This is not a place for contentions, this holy sealed tabernacle that is our Christian love for one another.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Firstly, welcome to the CAFs, Aefensang.
Now, as to whether Christ is the only infallible authority…in one sense, that is true.
However, unless you believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, David, Moses, Peter, Paul and the other inspired authors erred, then you must believe that they were given the charism of infallibility.
And you also must believe that the Catholic Church, which discerned for you that Matthew’s gospel was theopneustos, but that Thomas’ gospel was not, was infallible, also.
Unless you believe that the Church erred somewhere in the discernment process, then you believe in the charism of infallibility of the CC, at least as it applies to the canon of Scripture.
True, this. But it is also a place for dialogue, and arguments, when charitable, are also means of gathering truth and coming to a consensus of understanding.
S
SteveVH
Guest
Why do you believe that the Apostolic Tradition is “enclosed totally in the divine Scriptures”? I’m sure you’re acquainted with the story of Jesus speaking with some of his disciples on the road to Emmaus. While walking with them he explained all of the scriptures to them. That’s what it says in the New Testament: "And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself." (Luke 24:27) What it doesn’t say is what exactly Jesus expalined. I mean wouldn’t you want to have attended that Bible study? Do you think that those disciples just kept to themselves what was said to them by Jesus? These are the things that are not in the Bible but exist in Sacred Tradition. The ritual for Mass is not spelled out in the New Testament, yet we know, according to other sources, that it was practiced then in very much the same way as it is today (see Justin Martyr). Sacred Scripture is simply that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing.
Read the 16th chapter of Matthew. It is not the “Church of Rome” claiming this, it is Christ himself who claimed this for his Church, which is the Catholic Church, not the “Church of Rome”.
Well thank you for being so charitable.
A
Aefensang
Guest
Thank you! I wish you much peace and many blessings.Firstly, welcome to the CAFs, Aefensang.
You are right. I apologise for that. Christ’s holy Spirit ensured the fidelity of the message in His chosen Apostles. Paul certainly makes a distinction between the authority of an Apostle and that of a regular episkopos.
We do indeed know that Thomas’ Gospel is heretical only because the infallible Apostles passed on the Truth which contradicts the sayings in that book. I don’t think history proves it was the hierarchy that made the canon of the Testaments, however. That which has been believed always, everywhere, and by all (the whole Church, being more than just the college of bishops) is the standard. Whenever Athanasius, Rufinus, or others list the books of canon, they more often say something like “that which has been received by us from the Apostles” - less often “from the Church”. .
One reason I find the R.C. argument (that it delivered the God-breathed Scripture) tenuous is simply that it never defined its canon officially until Trent. Though 393 and 397 are often given as dates for the finalisation of canon for the whole Church, we have John of Damascus listing the books of the Old Testament using the Hebrew (Protestant) canon, for example, as late as the 8th century. (chapter 17, here). He states his knowledge of this as being from the Church, yet it is not the same Canon as that delivered by Rome today. However individual or private John may have been, it is still an historical source.
Since Scripture was indeed a very crucial thing to verify, no one can be averse to the idea that God inspired the Apostles to know exactly what the true writings were. Since all the works of the N.T. are by Apostles or men instructed by the Apostles, we can be sure of their authenticity. I believe the first criteria the early Church used when defining Canon, was to look at whether a certain book was written by an Apostle or a disciple of an Apostle. They knew that the Gospel of “Thomas” was not by that apostle (via the testimony of history & letters from other churches), and that was their first reason for rejecting it.
Notably, all the known Epistles of Paul are written “to the Church”, by “an Apostle of Jesus Christ”. I’ve always found this personally convincing, that the Church did not write or deliver the New Testament, but it was delivered to them by the Apostles & Evangelists.
Well, ok then.
Code:
[quote="SteveVH, post:514, topic:292882"]
Why do you believe that the Apostolic Tradition is "enclosed **totally** in the divine Scriptures"?
[/quote]
I believe the Apostolic Tradition is enclosed totally in the divine Scriptures because the divine Scripture itself says that each man can be instructed *unto salvation* by scripture (re. the famous 2 Timothy 3:15). Salvation being our goal, end, and highest good as human beings, and if scripture instructs us unto our highest good... well, that's that.
I also believe it because the sound human authority of the Church Fathers declares it in many places, which I can give later if you want (see below for why I didn't do it immediately).
> I'm sure you're acquainted with the story of Jesus speaking with some of his disciples on the road to Emmaus....] Do you think that those disciples just kept to themselves what was said to them by Jesus? These are the things that are not in the Bible but exist in Sacred Tradition.
Sorry to cut your text down, but there's only so much room in a post!
Just a thought: do you ever think it odd that Luke did not include what Christ said at Emmaus, if it was so important? The fact that Luke mentions the event but does not describe what Christ explained to the two disciples, either means that Luke thought it sufficiently clear already in his history/gospel, or he didn't think it particularly necessary to record.
I have no answer otherwise. Is that ok?
> The ritual for Mass is not spelled out in the New Testament, yet we know, according to other sources, that it was practiced then in very much the same way as it is today (see Justin Martyr). Sacred Scripture is simply that part of Sacred Tradition committed to writing.
First, let me say that "**Sola** scriptura" means we receive the truths of salvation from the Scripture alone. It does not mean that every small detail is laid out fully in the Bible and everything not contained in it is prohibited - that would be **solo** scriptura. The Church of Rome itself defines the bare necessities for a consecration: "This is my Body", and "This is the chalice/cup of my Blood". Ironically that's a very Solo-scriptura requirement for validity - for these are simply the words of the Lord in the Bible.
The Martyr's order of holy Communion is very general, and may as easily describe the Liturgy of Basil, that of Chrysostom, the Lutheran divine service, or the Book of Common Prayer's Administration of the Lord's Supper.
So, if a Roman Catholic may justly quote Justin Martyr for his Mass, then an Anglican may quote the martyr's theology of the Eucharist in [Chapter 65](http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.viii.ii.lxv.html) of his first Apology, which is decidedly Anglican in its description of the "bread" and "wine" after the prayers have been said over them.
> Read the 16th chapter of Matthew. It is not the "Church of Rome" claiming this, it is Christ himself who claimed this for his Church, which is the Catholic Church, not the "Church of Rome".
Well of course the implicit contention of an Anglican is that the Church of Rome makes itself out to be (the essential component of) *the* Catholic Church, rather than simply a member of it. Are you familiar with Irenaeus of Lyons' saying "Where the Bishop is, there is the Catholic Church"? Whatever the Church of Rome claims for itself, I personallybelieve it is objectively a member of the Church Universal, and not the seat of its head. That's the whole contention, isn't it?
> Well thank you for being so charitable. :rolleyes:
I hope you find strength in the idealistic parts of your heart to take this love seriously, and not roll your eyes at the idea - even if it does sound like an excuse not to debate. I mean to come here in *charity*. Now, had I not seen certain words by the Fathers, I would have remained a Roman Catholic myself and not been scandalised into doubts about my faith. There's no use plastering some quotes here incautiously for some other poor soul to get confused and possibly become an atheist at the end of it all. Caution, safety... :)
J
joe370
Guest
Perhaps I overlooked the passages that say: “This apostolic tradition of the Gospel being enclosed totally in the divine Scriptures.” Chapter and verse…?
If the bible is the final authority (not any one particular church) then who is its rightful interpreter? The bible (a collection of books) cannot interpret itself. Is it each and every individual?
You are so right. However, it is a place for good ol’ friendly dialogue.
P
pablope
Guest
G
GKC
Guest
P
pablope
Guest
A
Aefensang
Guest
Sorry if I start to mix-up my responses or lag behind. It’s difficult being the only Anglican in a sea of R.C.s, but
Perhaps I overlooked the passages that say: “This apostolic tradition of the Gospel being enclosed totally in the divine Scriptures.” Chapter and verse…?
If the bible is the final authority (not any one particular church) then who is its rightful interpreter? The bible (a collection of books) cannot interpret itself. Is it each and every individual?
You are so right. However, it is a place for good ol’ friendly dialogue.
that’s what I signed up for: to talk with my brethren! Too late for excuses now! 
- For apostolic tradition being totally enclosed in Scripture (i.e. the Apostles handed down of everything we need to know for salvation), see my 2 Timothy 3:15 bit above.
- Your question about interpretation assumes that the Bible requires interpretation. In fact, there’s a quote from almost every church Father which plainly says that the Bible interprets itself. “Out of context” they may be, but if you care to read the context, I can provide it with links. For example:
J
joe370
Guest
“Obey your leaders and submit to their authority. They keep watch over you as men who must give an account. Obey them so that their work will be a joy, not a burden, for that would be of no advantage to you.” Hebrews
The church is called the pillar and foundation of truth and Paul also reminds us of the preceding. I don’t understand why protestants ignore these passages, insisting that the bible is the Christians final authority.
The bible being the Christians final authority makes each and every Christian the rightful interpreter, which is not scriptural at all.
P
PRmerger
Guest
Indeed.
So men are (that is, can be) infallible.
We have established that.
Are you willing, then, to amend your statement, “I believe all infallible might & authority is vested in the Lord & Saviour Jesus Christ” to “I believe that God has permitted certain men, under specific parameters, to enjoy the charism of infallibility.”
Yes?
[/quote]
P
PRmerger
Guest
This proclaims that all Scripture is inspired by God. To which Catholics give a hearty
But it says nothing at all about Scripture being the ONLY means of God’s revelation.
Curious, this.
You proffer in the first comment that all we need to know is found in Scripture, yet in the above paragraph you quote, NOT SCRIPTURE, but rather an ECF.
How do you reconcile this apparent contradiction?
A
Aefensang
Guest
As my beloved brother in Christ Ambrose of Milan often said, “Jesus did X according to His human nature, but did Y according to His divine nature”. By His divine perfection, He is God everlasting, but by His human nature, He receives things that are divine (see the end of Luke 2; He grew in wisdom and understanding). Anyway, this is in the divine Scripture: all authority is given Jesus Christ in heaven and on earth, and this is what He says directly for the whole world to hear, in Matthew.
Please keep reading my response to you above.
Almighty GOD.
Don’t you think it’s inconsistent to quote Irenaeus, Clement, and Ignatius “out of context” and then say your opponent is about to do exactly the same thing, to his own discredit?
Come, let us reason together. - Isaiah 1:18
Don’t worry, GKC. It’s a Christian’s job to confront what he sees as error, and to defend on his home ground.
- Status