Sola Fide is driving me crazy!!

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

Does this seeming sophistry (the difference between absolution and remission) have a precedent in Scripture?

Oh Brian, you know very well that calling someone else’s theology “sophistry” is a last resort of an ineffective argument.

The same could be said by me with regard to Sola Fida and Sola Scripture, which are not found explicit in Scripture, and in my opinion, neither are they found implicitly.

However, a Protestant would say that their theology is implicit in the apostolic deposit of faith, backing it up by quoting their proof texts and their “traditions” of the scholars of the 16th century reformers to present, whereas Catholics would say their theology is implicit in the apostolic deposit of faith, quoting their proof texts and the “traditions” of the Church of the first century to present. Seems to me we both accept traditions, Catholic tradition is simply ancient, whereas Protestant tradition, rather new. At least Catholics (and Orthodox) are willing to honestly state that tradition is authoritative in understanding the deposit of faith, whereas Protestant “sophistry” tends to reject tradition in one breath, and accept it in another. Hence, you reject Vine’s understanding and accept another man’s commentary on what Paul means by buffeting his body. Sola Scriptura seems a bit mythical, more of a slogan than an actual practice, in my opinion.

For example, consider what the preface my Protestant King James Version Bible has to say about extra-biblical “study helps” that are recommended for understanding Scripture:

The reader will want to keep in mind as well. In no instance, however, has the emerging light from these extra-Biblical sources ever done violence to or disturbed the central message of the eternal Word of God. These helps only serve to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter. (*The Open Bible, *preface, Authorized King James Version, Thomas Nelson, Publishers, 1975).

I find this admission rather revealing. It seems that when Protestants use “study helps” from “traditional sources” they “only serve to illuminate and make the brilliant gems of truth even brighter.” Yet, when I say the same thing of Catholic tradition, my Protestants friends charge me with following “traditions of men” or in a similar vain, “sophistry.” I don’t find such a rebuttal at all convincing, however, as I see the hypocrisy behind their charge.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

I’m familiar with Jerome’s opinion, and Cajetan’s opinon of Jerome’ opinion. Before these books were declared formally canonical, they were certainly not considered canonical by Jerome. Yet neither the opinion of Cajetan, nor Jerome, can establish or change a canon of the Church. Only the governing body of the Church can do so.

Similarly, there were some in the first century that thought circumcision was mandated upon all Christians. Yet, their opinion had no binding force. The leaders of the Church were those that decreed what was binding upon the faithful. Those that rejected what was decreed as binding, did so in violation of Heb 13:17. “Obey your leaders and submit to them, for they are keeping watch over your souls and will give an account. Let them do this with joy and not with sighing—for that would be harmful to you.” The reformers had an absurd solution for pretending to not violate Heb 13:17, they simply decreed that their leaders were no longer their leaders. Geee … I wonder why the Circumcision Party didn’t think of that?? Many probably did.

 

[RBushlow]

Reformed Rob:

Works without faith are dead works./QUOTE] I’m having trouble finding this saying in the scripture. Can you cite the scripture please?

 

[brianberean]

itsjustdave1988:

Brian,

I’m familiar with Jerome’s opinion, and Cajetan’s opinon of Jerome’ opinion. Before these books were declared formally canonical, they were certainly not considered canonical by Jerome. Yet neither the opinion of Cajetan, nor Jerome, can establish or change a canon of the Church. Only the governing body of the Church can do so.

I wasn’t addressing changing the canon. I was addressing your distinction between heretical (which you -by citing the Catholic encyclopedia - called Luther) and heterodox (which you -by citing the Catholic encyclopedia - called Cajetan). I demonstrated that the difference between them that you asserted was non-existent. Here is what you said:

Before Trent, if one insisted canonical books ought not to be in the Bible, they were heterodox. If they insisted they are not in the Bible, their assertion was incorrect and illicit (unlawful, contrary to the binding authority of the Church). After Trent, if one insists they ought not OR they are not in the Bible, they are heretical.

Cajetan says “are not”:
Nor be thou disturbed, like a raw scholar, if thou shouldest find anywhere, either in the sacred councils or the sacred doctors, these books reckoned as canonical. **For the words as well of councils as of doctors are to be reduced to the correction of Jerome. **

I think Cajetan even goes further than simply stating “are not”. He refers to councils and basically says “so what, ignore them, go with Jerome”.

I’ve shown you writings from renowned and respected Cardinals, a bible produced by the sanction and authority of a pope, bibles dedicated to and containing commendatory letters from other popes:

The earliest Latin version of the Bible in modern times, made from the original languages by the scholarly Dominican, Sanctes Pagnini, and published at Lyons in 1528, with commendatory letters from Pope Adrian VI and Pope Clement VII, sharply separates the text of the canonical books from the text of the Apocryphal books. Still another Latin Bible, this one an addition of Jerome’s Vulgate published at Nuermberg by Johannes Petreius in 1527, presents the order of the books as in the Vulgate but specifies at the beginning of each Apocryphal book that it is not canonical. Furthermore, in his address to the Christian reader the editor lists the disputed books as 'Libri Apocryphi, sive non Canonici, qui nusquam apud Hebraeos extant.'194 (Metzger)

Is there any evidence you would accept as convincing that “in reality” (not in theory) the church didn’t have a bindingly settled OT canon until Trent?

The New Catholic Encyclopedia agrees:
St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…**For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent ** (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

You seem to be starting with a conclusion based on official Catholic teaching and trying to force history (the evidence) to agree with it.

Brian

 

[Shibboleth]

Here is a good summary of the Lutheran standpoint…

The central and consistent teaching of Paul that we are justified by grace alone through faith alone on account of Christ is nowhere more beautifully summarized than in Ephesians 2:8-9: “For by grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God–not because of works…” By its very definition “grace” means that human works do not contribute in any way to a person’s salvation or justification, as St. Paul says in Romans 11:6, “But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” Or as the apostle had already said in 3:28, “…a man is justified by faith apart from [Greek: choris] works of law.” Paul said this, of course, in the context of Jewish opinions regarding what was required for salvation. By making circumcision a necessary requirement for one to be saved (See Acts 15:5ff.), the Jews had attacked the Gospel of God’s grace at its very core (see Gal. 5:1-12!).

The faith of which Paul speaks, of course, is a living faith in Jesus Christ that produces, by God’s Spirit, the good works that God wills be done in the Christian’s life. That is why, immediately after his beautiful summary of the Gospel in Ephesians 2:8-9, he continues, “For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them.” Of this living faith, Luther so eloquently said: “Oh faith is a living, busy, active, mighty thing, so that it is impossible for it not to be constantly doing what is good. Likewise, faith does not ask if good works are to be done, but before one can ask, faith has already done them and is constantly active” (Formula of Concord, SD, IV, 10-11). This is precisely what the entire book of James is all about. Genuine faith is a faith that shows itself in good works. Or as Luther again put it once, as an apple tree makes fruit and the fruit does not make an apple tree, so works do not make a Christian, but a Christian does good works.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

I wasn’t addressing changing the canon.

I was. You can argue against a position I don’t hold, if you wish. However, I won’t feel obliged to defend against it.

There’s a difference in having an opinion as to whether canon law should change, and simply ignoring canon law and using whatever Bible you wish to use. Cajetan, like Luther, doubted many books of the NT. Yet, Cajetan translation placed those portions he deemed uninspired in the same place they were before. Others chose to place them in another location of Scritpure (e.g., Luther, Ximenes) while telling us why they are not worthy of a place in their “true canon.” Still others used their “true canon” as the basis of promoting their heretical views (e.g. Luther).

We can whine about our high taxes and write letter after letter to our congressman expressing our opinion regarding the injustice of the high taxes that we pay. Then there’s another option … don’t pay taxes. When I used to live in Montana, there’s a group of folks who simply did the latter. Yet, astonishingly, this group asserted that they were loyal to the true intent of the U.S. Constitution. You might say they were “sola constitution” Americans. There’s a difference in expressing one’s opinion about law, and simply disobeying law.

As for Luther being a heretic. I don’t consider that he was viewed as heretical by the Church due to his view of Scripture. He was profoundly heretical because of many other things, as described in the Bull *Exsurge Domine. *You won’t find anything in this bull with regard to his view of the canon of Scripture. If Luther’s only error was his view of the canon of Scripture, he would not have been excommunicated for heresy.

One of the big difference between Luther and Cajetan, et. al, is that Luther justified his heresy based upon his novel canon of Scripture. This is no different than the ancient heretic, Marcion. The Church did not find a problem with many within 2nd and 3rd century Christianity, (and 4th-16th centuries), affirming a different list of Sacred books. For example, Origen described the Shephard of Hermas as “inspired” text. It was only when individuals used their own “true canon” as the basis of asserting their heretical views that forced the Church to condemn them (e.g. Luther, Gnosticism).

As I stated ealier, before Trent one was not heretical for holding heterodox opinions regarding the inspired nature of canonical books because it was at Trent that the dogma became definitive. Consequently, Luther, Cajetan, Ximenes, Erasmus, etc. held heterodox opinions, not strictly heretical opinions regarding Scripture (prior to Trent). That they were certainly heterodox is proven by the historical testimony of the universal Church at the Ecumenical Council of Florence, which stated:

Council of Florence, Session 11, 1442:

[Pope Eugenius IV], bishop, servant of the servants of God, for an everlasting record. Sing praises to the Lord for he has done gloriously; let this be known in all the earth. … we have delivered in the name of the Lord in this solemn session, with the approval of this sacred ecumenical council of Florence, the following true and necessary doctrine.

… that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament — that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel — since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows.

Five books of Moses, … Tobit, Judith, … Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, … Baruch, … two books of the Maccabees… Apocalypse of John.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

When Protestants want to prove their Scripture is the true canon, all they can do is cite the private opinions of individuals. What a very “Protestant” way of viewing authority.

Catholics, on the other hand, cite all the most ancient synods regarding the canon of Scritpure in 4th century, and also the decree of an Ecumenical Council a century prior to the reformation affirming those ancient synods, and the definitive decree of the Council of Trent in the 16th century. These are not mere opinions of men which Protestantism clings to, albeit some saintly, yet some not so much. They are the formal judgment of the Church. That prior to Trent it was not a definitive judgment makes it no less the formal judgement of the church, binding upon all those within the jurisdiction of the synod or ecumenical council. Catholicism asserts the binding judgment of the church as authoritative, not the individual opinion of members of the Church, even if they happen to be popes or saints.

St. Jerome, when questioned by Rufinius about changing his views and accepting the Theodotian recession of the Book of Daniel (which Protestants reject), he stated “what sin have I committed” citing the “judgment of the churches” as his authority. So when Protestants claim to merely follow Jerome’s scholarship, they are not at all convincing. St. Jerome had opinions that were indeed contrary to the orthodox judgment of the Church, yet it was the judgment of the churches that Jerome accepted as authoritative, given the Scriptural exhortion of Heb 13:17. If Luther and the Protestants after him actually did use St. Jerome as their role model, there would be a heck of a lot less division within Christianity.

 

[Pax]

brianberean:

…
Is there any evidence you would accept as convincing that “in reality” (not in theory) the church didn’t have a bindingly settled OT canon until Trent?..

No, because your evidence is no evidence at all. The canon was established. We have the councils of Rome, Carthage, and Hippo. Subsequent to these we have the Council of Florence in 1442 which made the final definitive statement concerning the canon and it agrees with the earlier councils. Trent did the same thing by reiterating the same books in response to Luther and others.

 

[brianberean]

itsjustdave1988:

When Protestants want to prove their Scripture is the true canon, all they can do is cite the private opinions of individuals. What a very “Protestant” way of viewing authority.

This is just misleading. These admonitions against the deuterocanonicals were in official commentaries in official bible editions produced by the sanction and authority of the pope. Admonitions against each deuterocanical book were found in offical commentaries of another official bible dedicated to and endorsed by two other popes. The Gloss Ordinaria as it was produced and used could also hardly be called “the opinion of individuals” by anyone concerned with maintaining credibility. To say that they are merely “private opinions of individuals” is nonsensical and appears desperate.

Catholics, on the other hand, cite all the most ancient synods regarding the canon of Scritpure in 4th century, and also the decree of an Ecumenical Council a century prior to the reformation affirming those ancient synods, and the definitive decree of the Council of Trent in the 16th century.

I see where you’re coming from and you have a point. But, on the other hand, I think you are close to making a good point against Catholicism also. Catholics tend to view history through their councils and papal decrees instead of what actually happened. Catholics are right to do this when defending official Catholic dogmas and doctrines, but when a discussion about the OT canon comes up and Catholics respond that the canon was settled in the 4th century…well that’s just plain anti-historical.

That’s like saying government sanctioned oppression of African Americans ended in the United States when the North won the Civil War. Its like someone making the claim that schools in black neighborhoods in the South in the 50’s were equal to those in white schools because the official law said, “Seperate but equal”. That’s how Catholics (generally) seem to view church history. Protestants respond by not immediately accepting the “official line” but looking deeper into what actually happended and what life was like in reality.

These are not mere opinions of men which Protestantism clings to, albeit some saintly, yet some not so much. They are the formal judgment of the Church. That prior to Trent it was not a definitive judgment makes it no less the formal judgement of the church, binding upon all those within the jurisdiction of the synod or ecumenical council. Catholicism asserts the binding judgment of the church as authoritative, not the individual opinion of members of the Church, even if they happen to be popes or saints.

In other words, the fact that an official rule written on an official piece of paper existed, overrules evidence that it was ignored or at least “in practice” not considered settled even by the popes themselves? I disagree.

Brian

Brian

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The formal judgment of the Church is not to be found documented in bible commentaries and glossaries. It is documented in synods, councils, and papal encyclicals and decrees.

Catholics tend to view history through their councils and papal decrees instead of what actually happened.

We tend to listen to the magisterium when attempting to learn and discern the teaching of the magisterium. We’re funny that way.

We also tend to distinguish between the Teaching Church and the Taught Church. The Taught Church often abandon the deposit of faith, just as Jesus himself had disciples abandon him. All of the ***Taught ***Church may be under the mistaken impression that Arianism, for example, is among the true deposit of faith. That doesn’t make Arianism the *de facto *teaching of the Church, does it? The Teaching Church has and will always stubbornly insist upon the orthodox deposit of faith, without fail, no matter the faithfulness of the Taught Church. Our Church, just as in apostolic times, is headed by Christ who placed one guy as the chief minister, Peter. We are a hierarchical Church, just as Christ established. We are to submit to the hierarchy of the Church. It’s a kingdom of God, not a democracy of God.

I cannot find a single canon of any synod in 2000 years that limits Scripture to your 66 books. Fact is, even today, the majority of Christianity (~60%), Catholic, Orthodox, and even some Protestants accept all of the Catholic books as Scripture. Why? Because this was the jugment of the churches. Attempts to revise history to the contrary are unconvincing.

Catholics respond that the canon was settled in the 4th century…well that’s just plain anti-historical.

It depends upon what you mean by “settled.” The mind of the Church gave its common consent in the 4th century. Canon law was no less binding in the 4th century than today. It’s not like St. Augustine offered the canons of Hippo as “optional.” He considered the matter settled, as the Bishop of that region. No general council afterward differed from that judgment. In other words, it was decided by the synods of Rome, Hippo, and Carthage, for the Christians in those jurisdictions, yet not immutable law. Most of the Catholics who differed (e.g. mainly eastern Catholics, like St. John of Damascene) were not among those jurisdictions. Yet, even in the west, canon law was binding, but not immutable. So you have others, like Cajetan, who although abiding by the canons of the Church, expressed his opinion (heterodox as it was) with regard to the inspired nature of what the Church decree as the Bible. When the Ecumenical Council of Florence declared what the universal church held to be the canon of Scripture, it was still binding (universally) yet not immutable. The heterodox opinions within the Church and by heretics such as Luther forced the Church to declare at Trent definitively what the contents of Sacred Scripture has been and forever will be. It was the same as the synodal canons decreed in the 4th century.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Protestants respond by not immediately accepting the “official line” but looking deeper into what actually happended and what life was like in reality.

I’ve had many a discussion with Christadelphians who assert the same thing with regard to their unitarian beliefs. It is no less convincing with regard to Arianism than with regard to the canon of Scripture. This sort of methodology is no more certain that that used among the revisionists selling us their “Da Vinci Code” version of history. In fact, there was more disagreement with regard to Christology than to canonicity of Scripture in the history of the Church. Yet, don’t you accept the “official line” of the Church in condemning Arianism?

Not accepting the official line is a violation of Heb 13:17. I know of some protestants asserting “reincarnation” as the “reality” of Christianity as opposed to the “official line” which *certainly *can’t be trusted as history was changed by those wilely Catholics to coverup the true “reality” of Christianity. You look for verification of your Bible by looking at traces of a minority opinion (as do the Unitarians, as do the Universalists, etc), looking for like-minded protestors of Church judgment. That’s not how one ought to discern what the judgment of the churches has historically been. That’s not how St. Jerome responded to the judgment of the Churches.

Here’s an excerpt from Protestant patristic scholar J.N.D. Kelly, from his book *Early Christian Doctrines, *Harper Collins Revised Edition, San Francisco CA, 1978, 52-56.

It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive than the … books of the Hebrew Bible of Palestinian Judaism.… It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called Apocrypha, or deutero-canonical books. The reason for this is that the Old Testament which passed in the first instance into the hand of Christians was not the original Hebrew version, but the Greek translation known as the Septuagint…. most of the Scriptural quotations found in the New Testament are based upon it rather than the Hebrew….
In the first two centuries at any rate the Church seems to have accepted all, or most of, these additional books as inspired and to have treated them without question as Scripture. Quotations from *Wisdom, *for example, occur in *1 Clement *and *Barnabas, *and from 2 (4) *Esdras *and *Ecclessiasticus *in the latter. Polycarp cites *Tobit, *and the *Didache Ecclesiasticus. *Irenaeus refers to *Wisdom, *the *History of Susannah, Bel and the Dragon *and *Baruch. *The use made of the Apocrypha by Tertullian, Hippolytus, Cyprian and Clement of Alexandria is too frequent for detailed references to be necessary. Towards the close of the second century, when as a result of controversy with the Jews it became known that they [the Jews] were united in repudiating the deutero-canonical books, hesitations began to creep in…. For the great majority, however, the deutero-canonical writings ranked as Scripture in the fullest sense.

 

[Catholic4aReasn]

brianberean:

Catholics tend to view history through their councils and papal decrees instead of what actually happened.

Can you give an example of this? Please cite your sources the for “what actually happened” part.

Catholics are right to do this when defending official Catholic dogmas and doctrines, but when a discussion about the OT canon comes up and Catholics respond that the canon was settled in the 4th century…well that’s just plain anti-historical.

What is the historical account, in your understanding?

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions!!

In Christ,
Nancy

 

[GoodSamaritan]

I think it was CS Lewis who made a great analogy regarding faith and works in justification. He compared them to a pair of scissors. In other words, both blades are NECESSARY to getting the paper cut. One blade alone is not scissors but merely a sharp blade that won’t cut anything. Put the two blades together and you have all that is required to cut.

In other words, there’s a sort of organic unity between faith and works in which one without the other is dead. Someone had it right when they called ‘sola fide’ a misnomer. For, if it is ‘saving faith’ that is present, then works flowing from this faith and of God alone must necessarily be present too. To claimt that works of any kind have no role in our justification is to ignore Scripture. The key is in finding what role each plays and in acknowledging that both must exist or both must fall TOGETHER.

The problem comes when Luther says James and Paul contradict and that we are allowed to commit adultery a hundred times a day and we remain in God’s friendship. This is a big mistake and decidedly unbiblical. When Jesus forgave the woman caught in adultery, He didn’t tell her to go forth and do the same sin over and over since you are ‘saved’. He told her to go and sin no more.

GS

 

[brianberean]

Catholic4aReasn:

Can you give an example of this? Please cite your sources the for “what actually happened” part.

This comment is made in the context of my discussion with Dave. All the sources and examples are contained in that discussion and in my posts in the Protestant Bibles thread.

What is the historical account, in your understanding?

"St. Jerome distinguished between canonical books and ecclesiastical books. The latter he judged were circulated by the Church as good spiritual reading but were not recognized as authoritative Scripture. The situation remained unclear in the ensuing centuries…For example, John of Damascus, Gregory the Great, Walafrid, Nicolas of Lyra and Tostado continued to doubt the canonicity of the deuterocanonical books. According to Catholic doctrine, the proximate criterion of the biblical canon is the infallible decision of the Church. This decision was not given until rather late in the history of the Chruch at the Council of Trent. The Council of Trent definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon. That this had not been done previously is apparent from the uncertainty that persisted up to the time of Trent (The New Catholic Encyclopedia, The Canon).

The OT canon was not settled until Trent.

Brian

 

[SojournerOf78]

brianberean:

Dave,

To my knowledge, my “binding” comment was made concerning the OT canon. If you look at the evidence I provided, whatever you say about the authority of all councils and popes who “set” the OT canon before Trent, in reality, many RCs in good standing did not consider it “binding”. You might have a point about the idea of what is binding, but history and practice has disproven your argument.

Brian

Brian,

Youre now flailing around with your arms outstretched.

Were all trying to tell you what we believe and help you understand the Church’s teachings but youre denying us the ability to do so and interjecting your twists and slants on our own commentators…youre telling us what our faith is yet not believing what we say about it, thats just not going to work. If you ask us what we believe, listen to our answers and accept them, if not there is no point in asking.

 

[brianberean]

SojournerOf78:

Brian,

Youre now flailing around with your arms outstretched.

That’s because I’m trying to get your attention to pull your head out of the sand…

Were all trying to tell you what we believe and help you understand the Church’s teachings but youre denying us the ability to do so and interjecting your twists and slants on our own commentators…youre telling us what our faith is yet not believing what we say about it, thats just not going to work. If you ask us what we believe, listen to our answers and accept them, if not there is no point in asking.

As far as I can tell I am simply challenging your answers with evidence, and for the most part, that evidence is being dismissed or ignored or being wrongly deemed irrelevent. Catholics here seem to want to view history by what a few regional and other non-ecumenical councils said instead of addressing the actual practice of Cardinals, Popes, official bible editions, other church fathers, etc. I’m not talking about the actions of a few heretics, but the actual practice of those who were part of the magistereum.

Brian

 

[SojournerOf78]

brianberean:

That’s because I’m trying to get your attention to pull your head out of the sand…

As far as I can tell I am simply challenging your answers with evidence, and for the most part, that evidence is being dismissed or ignored or being wrongly deemed irrelevent. Catholics here seem to want to view history by what a few regional and other non-ecumenical councils said instead of addressing the actual practice of Cardinals, Popes, official bible editions, other church fathers, etc. I’m not talking about the actions of a few heretics, but the actual practice of those who were part of the magistereum.

Brian

Brian,

Youre assuming that you can wade through 2000 years of history and decipher all sorts of documents in order to make claims on what is being stated…are you trained in Canon Law?? Are you a Certified Historian with counselors assisting you in properly interpreting the information you are reading??

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

The OT canon was not settled until Trent.

The quote from the New Catholic Encyclopedia you cite says “definitively settled” at Trent. That’s correct. For Catholics, there’s a distinction between settled and *definitively *settled. The former is binding but not immutable. That latter is binding and immutable.

Wouldn’t you say that abstaining from eating strangled meat and blood was settled (binding) in the Book of Acts ch 15 verse 20? Would you say it was *definitively settled *(immutably binding)? Catholics assert the former, but not the latter. I presume most Protestants do not feel bound to eat of only kosher meats either.

This is discussed by St. Augustine:

For, allowing that the apostles did on that occasion require Christians to abstain from the blood of animals, and not to eat of things strangled, they seem to me to have consulted the time in choosing an easy observance that could not be burdensome to any one, and which the Gentiles might have in common with the Israelities, for the sake of the Corner-stone, who makes both one in Himself; while at the same time they would be reminded how the Church of all nations was prefigured by the ark of Noah, when God gave this command,–a type which began to be fulfilled in the time of the apostles by the accession of the Gentiles to the faith. But since the close of that period during which the two walls of the circumcision and the uncircumcision, although united in the Corner-stone, still retained some distinctive peculiarities, and **now that the Church has become so entirely Gentile that none who are Outwardly Israelites are to be found in it, no Christian feels bound to abstain from thrushes or small birds because their blood has not been poured out, or from hares because they are killed by a stroke on the neck without shedding their blood. **(Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, Bk XXXII, 13)

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Brian,

I’m not talking about the actions of a few heretics, but the actual practice of those who were part of the magistereum.

We’re talking about the actual documented collective judgment of the Church, the canon law of that magisterium as a whole, whereas you are talking about the theological opinions of a few.

As an analogy, Sen. Kerry may be a U.S. Senator, but his opinion does not necessarily reflect the official decisions of the U.S. Senate. Likewise, there might be an occasion in which President Bush may blurt something out to the press or in a book which is contrary to his formally stated policy, yet private discussions are not official presidential decrees.

The sources of Catholic dogma are the councilar and papal decrees. Sorry if that pops your polemical balloon, but that’s the facts of Catholicism. One need only open Denzinger’s *Sources of Catholic Dogma *and you’d find that his citations are exclusively from General Councils and Papal decrees. These are called teachings of the solemn magisterium. The ordinary teaching of the Church comes from the Bishop of one’s diocese (he is called the “Ordinary”). The ordinary universal teaching of the Church are those *ordinary teachings *which are taught ***universally ***by the body of Bishops throughout the world who are in communion with the Pope.

For example, a quote from St. Augustine, insofar as he was Bishop of Hippo, is a quote from someone who was vested with magisterial authority. His teachings are considered ***ordinary teachings *of the magisterium. However, his teachings do not equate to the teachings of the solemn magisterium. We have many examples of bishops who taught (and are teaching) contrary to the doctrines of the Church (e.g., Nestorian, Cyprian). Nor does St. Augustine’s teachings necessarily equate to ordinary universal teaching of the magisterium unless it can be supported by other evidence of the universality of such teaching, especially agreement with the Roman Pontiff.

What you are asking is that we see the Church through your protestant viewpoint. I find nothing valuable in doing such a thing. I’ve already been a protestor. I’ve had way too much experience disregarding Heb 13:17. I’ve studied the sin of Korah’s rebellion (Num 16; Jude 11) and I’m convinced Protestantism continues to commit such a sin. I’ve already been at that crossroad in my journey of faith. I find no need to go back. I’ve chosen the most ancient Christian path for my soul. It is there that I find rest.

Jer 6:16 "Thus says the Lord: Stand at the crossroads, and look, and ask for the ancient paths, where the good way lies; and walk in it, and find rest for your souls."

 

[brianberean]

SojournerOf78:

Brian,

Youre assuming that you can wade through 2000 years of history and decipher all sorts of documents in order to make claims on what is being stated…are you trained in Canon Law?? Are you a Certified Historian with counselors assisting you in properly interpreting the information you are reading??

So unless one meets the above qualifications one should sit down, shut up, and take the Catholic Church’s word for everything?
If the Catholic Church says black is white, don’t question it?

Brian