Sola scriptura advocates, just a few of questions.......

[PRmerger]

To the best of my knowledge, the Council of Nicea did not address the canon.

My bad. I forgot the II. Nicea II, not the first council of Nicea.

 

[Augsburg1530]

My bad. I forgot the II. Nicea II, not the first council of Nicea.

Do you have a source in which the canon was addressed by Nicea II? As I understand it, this council met because of the iconoclast heresy.

 

[Augsburg1530]

As you believe in the dogma of the Trinity, I find it curious that you would ask this. The bishop Arius had many bishops siding with him–the majority, actually, on this heresy.

That bishops may have disagreed is not a testament that Sacred Tradition is inefficacious.

And if we rely solely on the authority of the church, how do we tell who possesses apostolic tradition? If I were alive at the time of Athanasius, what was to tell me that Athanasius was correct and the majority of bishops wrong?

I don’t know. One of us is wrong, eh?

And both of you claim to have infallible church bodies. What third infallible authority tells me which of the infallible authorities of the East and West is actually the infallible one?

 

[PRmerger]

Do you have a source in which the canon was addressed by Nicea II? As I understand it, this council met because of the iconoclast heresy.

source here.

The Second Council of Nicaea (787) formally ratified the African Code, which contained what Trent would name “canonical,” while the Council of Florence (1441) defined a list of inspired books identical to both. Although only Trent used the words “canon” and “canonical,” its list was identical with every list the Church had provided since the late 300s. Trent’s Sacrosancta decree (April 8, 1546), the first formal canonical definition of Old and New Testament Scripture, was the third formal affirmation of their inspiration in ecumenical council and at least the eighth affirmation overall.

 

[Augsburg1530]

That is not what I have been professing, Augsburg.

What I have said is
-you do not believe in Scripture Alone if you accept the canon of Scripture, for that cannot be found in Scripture. You needed the Church to discern this. Something *besides *Scripture.
-this Church used Sacred Tradition to discern those books which were theopneustos.

Thus, anyone who quotes from Scripture believes in Sacred Tradition and rejects Sola Scriptura.

And if they believe that the Church did not err in this proclamation, then they believe the Church has been given the charism of infallibility.

This argues against a position I do not hold, however. You are here more accurately arguing against solo scriptura.

 

[PRmerger]

This argues against a position I do not hold, however. You are here more accurately arguing against solo scriptura.

Fair enough.

Then you are not recusant to the authority of the CC, for which you would not know the Scriptures?

 

[PRmerger]

And if we rely solely on the authority of the church, how do we tell who possesses apostolic tradition? If I were alive at the time of Athanasius, what was to tell me that Athanasius was correct and the majority of bishops wrong?

When one bishop speaks, it would be authoritative.

(That one bishop, of course, is the Bishop of Rome.)

And both of you claim to have infallible church bodies. What third infallible authority tells me which of the infallible authorities of the East and West is actually the infallible one?

From my POV, you would be free to believe either one. One is the right lung; the other is the left lung.

 

[PRmerger]

When one bishop speaks, it would be authoritative.

(That one bishop, of course, is the Bishop of Rome.)

And just to pre-empt any tangent that might develop, of course I mean when this one particular bishop speaks, within certain parameters, it is authoritative.

Thus, if he stated “I think I’d look pretty good in a toga” that’s not to be taken authoritatively.

 

[Augsburg1530]

Fair enough.

Then you are not recusant to the authority of the CC, for which you would not know the Scriptures?

Only when such authority is set into conflict with Scripture. That is, when the authority of the church (and not just the Roman Catholic Church, but any other) is set alongside and/or above the authority of the Scriptures. On this, since it’s quite a long topic, see Augsburg Confession Article XXVIII and *Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.
*

 

[Augsburg1530]

When one bishop speaks, it would be authoritative.

(That one bishop, of course, is the Bishop of Rome.)

Yet that bishop did not speak during the latter period of Athanasius when the Arians gained predominance, except to sign an Arian confession of faith, (granted under duress, for which he may not have been held liable). So what then? Time and history proved Athanasius right, but that wouldn’t have helped the average layman alive in the mid 4th century.

From my POV, you would be free to believe either one. One is the right lung; the other is the left lung.

Yet they both hold doctrines which are mutually exclusive. Two contrary infallible teachings cannot be correct. Both will appeal to their authority to prove themselves the truly catholic party.

 

[PRmerger]

Only when such authority is set into conflict with Scripture. That is, when the authority of the church (and not just the Roman Catholic Church, but any other) is set alongside and/or above the authority of the Scriptures. On this, since it’s quite a long topic, see Augsburg Confession Article XXVIII and *Treatise on the Power and Primacy of the Pope.
*

Can you give an example of a Catholic dogma/doctrine that you feel is in conflict with Scripture?

 

[PRmerger]

Yet that bishop did not speak during the latter period of Athanasius when the Arians gained predominance, except to sign an Arian confession of faith, (granted under duress, for which he may not have been held liable).

Could you provide a source for this please?

So, in the end, how was it that Arianism was declared a heresy (who declared it so, if not the pope?) and the dogma of the Trinity, as we believe it, was preserved?

Time and history proved Athanasius right, but that wouldn’t have helped the average layman alive in the mid 4th century.

How do you know that Athanasius was proved right?

Really, you believe in the Dogma of the Trinity only because it’s been proclaimed by the Catholic Church, no? For it cannot be deduced by reason. It cannot be found in Scripture (did not Arius provide many a verse which supported his heresy?)

You only know Athanasius was “proved right” because you acknowledge, again, the authority of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

Yet they both hold doctrines which are mutually exclusive. Two contrary infallible teachings cannot be correct. Both will appeal to their authority to prove themselves the truly catholic party.

I’m not aware of any doctrines which are mutually exclusive between Catholicism and the Orthodox. Could you cite one please and we can discuss?

 

[PRmerger]

For you would not know that Hebrews is a piece of divine revelation, were it not prepared for you by the Church.

Augsburg, are we agreed that were it not for the authority of the CC you would not know that Hebrews is inspired?

I just want to make sure I understand you correctly.

 

[PRmerger]

But does it seem to give a bit more….credibility (for lack of a better word) if there were a church that could trace its existence from its current leaders, all the way back for 2000 years to Christ and the apostles? Does that not seem to up the ante (again, words are not coming to me that truly hit the spot) a bit for you?

Augsburg, could you address the above post, please?

 

[PRmerger]

Not sure what you mean by “the entire church”. Do you mean to include the average Christian peasant in, say, Carthage? He was inspired to discern the canon of Scripture?

Also, could you please address this point?

We are agreed on this, Augsburg? There is no error in the decisions made, on numerous occasions, by Catholic bishops regarding the canon of Scripture?

And this point?

Thanks!

 

[JonNC]

I’m not aware of any doctrines which are mutually exclusive between Catholicism and the Orthodox. Could you cite one please and we can discuss?

Hi PR. I do not want to inject myself into your very lively and charitable discussion with Augsburg, but this may be a good starting place for your above question.

ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Jon

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR. I do not want to inject myself into your very lively and charitable discussion with Augsburg, but this may be a good starting place for your above question.

ocf.org/OrthodoxPage/reading/ortho_cath.html

Jon

Interesting article, Jon in North Carolina. (That is what your screenname indicates, yes?)

And there is no need to apologize for “interjecting”. That is the* raison d’etre* of the CAFs, is it not?

I will address a few points from the article “WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM?”

The first: the article states that, “Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason.”

For this article to support your proposition that there are mutually exclusive doctrines that exist between the CC and OC, the Orthodox belief would be, “The OC rejects human reason.”

That, clearly, is not the case.

The second: the article states, “The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time;”

This is commensurate with Catholic teaching. The CC, also, does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time!

The third: The article proffers: “Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist”

For the Catholic Church to have a mutually exclusive doctrine, it would have to proclaim, “The knowledge of God is NOT planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist.”

Clearly, the CC does not proclaim this.

I am resting my case right now, after only 3 points. :curtsey:

 

[JonNC]

=PRmerger;7442861]Interesting article, Jon in North Carolina. (That is what your screenname indicates, yes?)

And there is no need to apologize for “interjecting”. That is the* raison d’etre* of the CAFs, is it not?

Yes, not “Jon non-catholic” as someone once thought.

I will address a few points from the article “WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ORTHODOXY AND ROMAN CATHOLICISM?”

The first: the article states that, “Roman Catholicism, on the other hand, places a high value on human reason.”

For this article to support your proposition that there are mutually exclusive doctrines that exist between the CC and OC, the Orthodox belief would be, “The OC rejects human reason.”

That, clearly, is not the case.

The second: the article states, “The Orthodox Church does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time;”

This is commensurate with Catholic teaching. The CC, also, does not endorse the view that the teachings of Christ have changed from time to time!

The third: The article proffers: “Following the Holy Fathers, Orthodoxy teaches that the knowledge of God is planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist”

For the Catholic Church to have a mutually exclusive doctrine, it would have to proclaim, “The knowledge of God is NOT planted in human nature and that is how we know Him to exist.”

Clearly, the CC does not proclaim this.

I am resting my case right now, after only 3 points.

Of course,* they* make the claim, not me. But you make an admirable case for unity between Rome and Orthodoxy. Pray that it happens.

Jon

 

[joe370]

Augsburg1530 was it a fallible decision on the part of the Catholic church, regarding the correct inclusion of books in the sacred canon, and the correct exclusion of books from sacred canon?

Do you agree with the following?

NT books which are now included/accepted by Christians, but which were, for a time rejected by some CC leaders, necessitating the need for the CC to convoke as a council and officially define the canon of sacred scripture: Hebrews, James, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, Revelation.

NT books, now excluded from the canon, but which are found in some of the older manuscripts of the NT: Shepherd of Hermas, Epistle of Barnabas, 1 Clement, 2 Clement, Paul’s Epistle to Laodiceans, Apostolic Constitutions.