Sola Scriptura & Epistemology

[steve_b]

Steve , think about this. You’re comparing saints like John of Damascus to Judas?
Really?

I was making a distinction based on who you used as an example

Re:* your reference to “Rufinus being just one.”
*
There were many who were called Rufinus. newadvent.org/cathen/13221b.htm , Which Rufinus are you talking of who spoke of the canon?

Jerome wasn’t born till ~340. There was a Rufinus who commented about the canon in his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed , while the date can’t be exact but thought to be ~307 a.d, that is 80 years before the canon was settled by pope Damasus .

Therefore* before *the canon is settled one CAN hold different positions. The purpose of settling the canon however, is to prevent differing opinions.

So the point is, and I’ve made this point many times before, we didn’t have an official bible till we had a definite and official canon.
J:

.
Agreed. The Church is, and many great members of the Church held similar views to these two. And they were allowed to.

after the canon is settled, it’s settled.
J:

Apparently not. The EO has always had a different canon, numerous saints and Fathers held different views after 382. Clearly, they thought they were allowed to

When they were Catholic they held the same canon.

As an aside,
Can you give me the first time, in history, properly referenced, where the name “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing,?

I’ve asked that question in many different ways, over many years on these forums with no satisfactory answer…YET. But I’m waiting. Maybe you know the answer.
J:

I take them seriously. The men whom I mentioned took them seriously. Clearly they still thought they had the Catholic liberty to express dispute of certain books.

Please Show me the dates, references, properly referenced, for your position that you have been arguing
J:

All irrelevant to his excommunication. All of his views were his own, had been held by others, all under Catholic liberty to do so.

Florence was an ecumenical council. It defined the same canon as pope Damasus I in 382 as did Trent, a direct response to Luther et al
J:

Florence and Trent only apply to that part of the Church in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

By definition, If one isn’t in communion with the chair of Peter they are NOT Catholic and NOT the Catholic Church.
J:

It’s important, but not ecumenical.

Florence was an ecumenical council.

1. 
   *]The pope determines when a council is ecumenical.
   *]Many Eastern Churches that were part of the schism returned to communion with the chair of Peter at that council.
   J:
   

   Regardless, that’s not the point. I see it as difficult to take Trent’s limits and project them backward on to people who clearly believed they were within their Catholic liberty to hold those views.
   
   Jon

   liberty ≠ license

 

[guanophore]

I was making a distinction based on who you used as an example

Re:* your reference to “Rufinus being just one.”
*
There were many who were called Rufinus. newadvent.org/cathen/13221b.htm , Which Rufinus are you talking of who spoke of the canon?

Jerome wasn’t born till ~340. There was a Rufinus who commented about the canon in his Commentary on the Apostles’ Creed , while the date can’t be exact but thought to be ~307 a.d, that is 80 years before the canon was settled by pope Damasus .

Therefore* before *the canon is settled one CAN hold different positions. The purpose of settling the canon however, is to prevent differing opinions.

So the point is, and I’ve made this point many times before, we didn’t have an official bible till we had a definite and official canon.

after the canon is settled, it’s settled.

When they were Catholic they held the same canon.

As an aside,
Can you give me the first time, in history, properly referenced, where the name “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing,?

I’ve asked that question in many different ways, over many years on these forums with no satisfactory answer…YET. But I’m waiting. Maybe you know the answer.

Please Show me the dates, references, properly referenced, for your position that you have been arguing

Florence was an ecumenical council. It defined the same canon as pope Damasus I in 382 as did Trent, a direct response to Luther et al

By definition, If one isn’t in communion with the chair of Peter they are NOT Catholic and NOT the Catholic Church.

Florence was an ecumenical council.

1. 
   *]The pope determines when a council is ecumenical.
   *]Many Eastern Churches that were part of the schism returned to communion with the chair of Peter at that council.
   
   liberty ≠ license

1. 
   orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

 

[Goya]

orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

Interesting:

*The differences with the Protestant canon are based on the 16th century misunderstanding of Martin Luther. When he was translating the Old Testament into German, he mistakenly believed that the oldest source for the Old Testament would be in Hebrew, so he found and used the so-called Masoretic Text (MT), a 9th century Jewish canon compiled largely in reaction to Christian claims that the Old Testament Scriptures belonged to the Church. The MT is thus also the basis for the Old Testament text of the 17th century Authorized Version in English (the “King James Version”). There are multiple differences between the LXX and MT. *

 

[steve_b]

orthodoxwiki.org/Septuagint

as I said in that post

Therefore before the canon is settled one CAN hold different positions. The purpose of settling the canon however, is to prevent differing opinions.

So the point is, and I’ve made this point many times before, we didn’t have an official bible till we had a definite and official canon.

after the canon is settled, it’s settled.

Therefore, when Pope Damasus I, settled the canon in 382 rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html
That’s the canon The Catholic Church accepts, and has accepted in councils, 2 of which were ecumenical councils, down to this day. As a point of reference, there was no other Church at the time, called the “Orthodox Church” in 382.

As an aside,
In that same post, JonNC hasn’t responded yet to my question for him. Since you quote orthodoxwiki, I thought I would ask you the same question as well. I hope you have the answer.

Here’s my question

Can you give me the first time, in history, properly referenced, where the name “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing,?

I’ve asked that question in many different ways, over many years on these forums with no satisfactory answer…YET. But I’m waiting. Maybe you know the answer.

 

[eddie_too]

if i may summarize mr. patton’s argument, at least to the extent it has been presented in the OP, it boils down to, NO ONE KNOWS OR HAS THE TRUTH.

if he is correct, than Jesus Himself becomes nothing more than a guy who claimed to have the Truth, but could not pass that truth on to future generations of mankind. that is a conclusion i reject completely and without hesitation.

believe whatever you want, but I REFUSE TO BELIEVE that: 1) no one has the truth; and 2) that Jesus, whom i believe is the Truth Incarnate, could not ensure His children would have the truth available to them for all generations.

i recognize and accept that the way that Jesus chose to preserve His Gospel, the fullness of truth in this world, and ensure it would be present to all subsequent generations of His flock is by doing exactly what He did, select from all of His disciples twelve (the Twelve Apostles) whom He would personally instruct in the Divine Mysteries revealed to mankind in, by and through Him and to whom He would send the Holy Spirit to dwell for all generations in their (the Twelve and their successors) midst.

 

[guanophore]

Interesting:

The differences with the Protestant canon are based on the 16th century misunderstanding of Martin Luther. When he was translating the Old Testament into German, he mistakenly believed that the oldest source for the Old Testament would be in Hebrew, so he found and used the so-called Masoretic Text (MT), a 9th century Jewish canon compiled largely in reaction to Christian claims that the Old Testament Scriptures belonged to the Church. The MT is thus also the basis for the Old Testament text of the 17th century Authorized Version in English (the “King James Version”). There are multiple differences between the LXX and MT.

Had the dead sea scrolls been found sooner, and Luther had realized that they did exist in the Hebrew language during the same time as the rest of the canon, maybe he would have accepted them as Scripture.

 

[guanophore]

Here’s my question Can you give me the first time, in history, properly referenced, where the name “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing,?

I’ve asked that question in many different ways, over many years on these forums with no satisfactory answer…YET. But I’m waiting. Maybe you know the answer.

No, I cannot.

I thought the first reference was in the Codex Justianus. It is likely that more could be found in any documents that remain from the Byzantine Empire.

I think the Orthodox would say it is in the book of Acts, where in Syria of Antioch the followers of Jesus were first called Chrisians.

References in both East and West note the four marks of the Church at least up until 787—The Second Council of Nicea. That council is often called “The Triumph of Orthodoxy” because, after many decades of iconoclasm (the rejection and destruction of icons), this council ratified the veneration and use of icons in worship and in private devotion.

I doubt one would find any references before the date of that council that the East was separated and distinct from the West. It was not until the great Schism in 1048 that the Eastern Church began to emphasize the use of the term Orthodoxy, since they understood the Latins had fallen into heresy.

Why is this important to you?

 

[ChadS]

I’ve been reading Protestant defenses of Sola Scriptura, trying to better understand their perspective to explain and point to the one true Church. Until recently, this has been frustrating because I’ve been unable to find any logical basis for Sola Scriptura, and its adherents I’ve talked to have held to a logically untenable position.

However, a recent essay by C. Michael Patton presented the first potentially reasonable argument I’ve seen. In his case (page 19-22 of this document: reclaimingthemind.org/content/Parchmentandpen/In-Defense-of-Sola-Scriptura.pdf), he admits that Protestants have no absolute certainty that the canon of Scripture is correct, if there is no infallible Church to base it off of. However, he contends that it is also impossible for the Catholic to have absolute certainty, since we have no infallible source upon which to base our belief in an infallible Church. Instead, both groups rely on probable, rather than absolute, certainty in the truth of the Scriptures. He sums it up like this:

Catholic Position: Fallible Person -->(Fallible Belief in) -->Infallible Church -->(Infallible Declaration about) -->Infallible Scripture

Protestant Position: Fallible Person -->(Fallible Belief in) -->Infallible Scripture

This seems problematic to our “spiral argument” that historical evidence leads to infallible Church which leads to infallible Scripture. If the basis of our knowledge is fallible, then how can the consequence of it be infallible? As Catholics, how might we respond to these arguments? I feel like there’s some counterpoint I can’t quite grasp.

Without having read through all the posts let me just say a few things…

I’ve read many of Patton’s writings and had commented on some of his blog posts many years back, so I am somewhat familiar with his positions.

He seems to consistently not only misrepresent Church teachings, but also misunderstands them. Even when his inaccuracies are pointed out by Catholics or other Protestants he does not seem willing to adjust his viewpoint or admit any sort of error. He will say it comes down to his interpretation of things (even if the interpretation is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of Church history or theology).

You have to accept his arrow chart as accurately representing Catholic thinking to accept his conclusions. His chart has no room for the Holy Spirit, the Magisterium, or the idea of discernment can be a human process guided by the Holy Spirit.

Once you accept his premise then you can start to follow the charts, however if you don’t accept the premise or believe that it accurately reflects Catholic thinking then it all falls apart.

ChadS

 

[Starwarsfan2]

as I said in that post

Therefore, when Pope Damasus I, settled the canon in 382 rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html
That’s the canon The Catholic Church accepts, and has accepted in councils, 2 of which were ecumenical councils, down to this day. As a point of reference, there was no other Church at the time, called the “Orthodox Church” in 382.

As an aside,
In that same post, JonNC hasn’t responded yet to my question for him. Since you quote orthodoxwiki, I thought I would ask you the same question as well. I hope you have the answer.

Here’s my question

The council of Rome was REGIONAL , never an ecumenical council , so no , not settled by pope Damascus .

 

[guanophore]

The council of Rome was REGIONAL , never an ecumenical council , so no , not settled by pope Damascus .

I think you are confused, Starwarsfan2. Yes, all the councils that listed teh canon were regional, but Pope Damascus ratified their findings.

Do you see anything in Scripture that limits the Petrine gifts to a “region”? Did Jesus tell Peter to feed and care for his sheep only in a certain region, or did he mean his whole flock?

Peter passed this responsibility to his successor, and so on until the present day. The successor of Peter acts to feed and care for the flock of every region.

But, lest those such as yourself still doubt, the Church acted again at Trent to put to rest all doubts.

 

[steve_b]

No, I cannot.

Don’t feel bad. No body in 11 years has been able to answer the question.
g:

I thought the first reference was in the Codex Justianus. It is likely that more could be found in any documents that remain from the Byzantine Empire.

and I asked for the 1st time “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing, in history, properly referenced

I’m still waiting
g:

I think the Orthodox would say it is in the book of Acts, where in Syria of Antioch the followers of Jesus were first called Chrisians.

and I asked for the 1st time “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing, in history, properly referenced

I’m still waiting
g:

References in both East and West note the four marks of the Church at least up until 787—The Second Council of Nicea.

True,

One Holy Catholic Apostolic
g:

That council is often called “The Triumph of Orthodoxy” because, after many decades of iconoclasm (the rejection and destruction of icons), this council ratified the veneration and use of icons in worship and in private devotion.

ugh ugh (clearing my throat)

Those in the East who later would call themselves “Orthodox” were THE VERY ones who condemned Icons in the following periods.

Iconoclasm Iconoclasm ( Eikonoklasmos , “Image-breaking”) is the name of the heresy that in the eighth … to the old custom of the Church. Leo therefore joined with his Iconoclasm a fierce persecution … generally (not quite always) added to Iconoclasm. Meanwhile, St. John Damascene (d. 754), safe from …
Encyclopedia
The Great Heresies Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries) This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts …

It was the Catholic Church who preserved icons, and condemned those who condemned icons.
g:

I doubt one would find any references before the date of that council that the East was separated and distinct from the West.

I would suspect that as well. But I still would like a reference in writing properly referenced for the 1st time in history, “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing
g:

It was not until the great Schism in 1048 that the Eastern Church began to emphasize the use of the term Orthodoxy, since they understood the Latins had fallen into heresy.

Their misunderstanding isn’t the issue.

the point being, the 1st time in history “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing, properly referenced,
g:

Why is this important to you?

I want the reference properly referenced.

 

[steve_b]

The council of Rome was REGIONAL , never an ecumenical council , so no , not settled by pope Damascus .

This wasn’t just some “regional council”.

this was a papal “decree” for the “universal Catholic Church.” (translated the entire Church. the pope can do that )
Decree of Pope Saint Damasus
from the Acts of the Roman Synod (382 AD)

Source: Henry Denzinger’s * Enchiridion Symbolorum*
Translated by Roy J. Feferrari
Loreto Publications www.loretopubs.org
Denzinger 84 (179) in newer editions)​

The Canon of Sacred Scripture
Likewise it has been said: Now indeed we must treat of the divine Scriptures, what the universal Catholic Church accepts and what she ought to shun. The order of the Old Testament begins here: Genesis one book, Exodus one book, Leviticus one book, Numbers one book, Deuteronomy one book, Josue Nave one book, Judges one book, Ruth one book, Kings four books, Paralipomenon two books, Psalms one book, Solomon three books, Proverbs one book, Ecclesiastes one book, Canticle of Canticles one book, likewise Wisdom one book, Ecclesiasticus one book. Likewise the order of the Prophets. Isaias one book, Jeremias one book,with Ginoth, that is, with his lamentations, Ezechiel one book,Daniel one book, Osee one book, Micheas one book, Joel one book, Abdias one book, Jonas one book, Nahum one book, Habacuc one book, Sophonias one book, Aggeus one book, Zacharias one book, Malachias one book. Likewise the order of the histories. Job one book, Tobias one book, Esdras two books, Esther one book, Judith one book, Machabees two books. Likewise the order of the writings of the New and eternal Testament, which only the holy and Catholic Church supports. Of the Gospels, according to Matthew one book, according to Mark one book, according to Luke one book, according to John one book. The Epistles of Paul [the apostle] in number fourteen. To the Romans one, to the Corinthians two, to the Ephesians one, to the Thessalonians two, to the Galatians one, to the Philippians one, to the Colossians one, to Timothy two, to Titus one, to Philemon one, to the Hebrews one. Likewise the Apocalypse of John, one book. And the Acts of the Apostles one book. Likewise the canonical epistles in number seven. Of Peter the Apostle two epistles, of James the Apostle one epistle, of John the Apostle one epistle, of another John, the presbyter, two epistles, of Jude the Zealut, the Apostle, one epistle.
rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html

** When you see an OT book name above that reads differently from what is expected, see the translation of that name here drbo.org/
For example “Osee” = Hosea

 

[clmowry]

Probably out of defiance of their opponents. This isn’t dramatically different than Catholics adopting the name Roman Catholic.
I wish they hadn’t, frankly, as Evangelical Catholic is far more accurate

Jon

I don’t believe we’ve adopted the name “Roman Catholic”.

We are simply “The Catholic Church”.

The “Roman” is typically added by those who insist that the Catholic Church isn’t what it claims to be.

That said, many Catholic’s seem to let the “Roman” get stuck in there.

In fact I’ve seen individual churches refer to themselves that way…

But that’s a different issue.

Chuck

 

[JonNC]

I don’t believe we’ve adopted the name “Roman Catholic”.

We are simply “The Catholic Church”.

The “Roman” is typically added by those who insist that the Catholic Church isn’t what it claims to be.

That said, many Catholic’s seem to let the “Roman” get stuck in there.

In fact I’ve seen individual churches refer to themselves that way…

But that’s a different issue.

Chuck

Not really a different issue, but you are right that it was added by those who opposed the Catholic Church. And that was my point. Personally, I try to avoid using the term Roman, mainly because I know some Catholics don’t like it.

Jon

 

[JonNC]

=steve b;13806813]as I said in that post

Therefore, when Pope Damasus I, settled the canon in 382 rosarychurch.net/bible/rome_damasus.html
That’s the canon The Catholic Church accepts, and has accepted in councils, 2 of which were ecumenical councils, down to this day. As a point of reference, there was no other Church at the time, called the “Orthodox Church” in 382.

Apparently not, or those patriarchs that were in unity with the Bishop of Rome prior to the schism from each other would have the same canon as Rome.

As an aside,
In that same post, JonNC hasn’t responded yet to my question for him. Since you quote orthodoxwiki, I thought I would ask you the same question as well. I hope you have the answer.

At some point, Steve, we’re going round in circles.

Here’s my question

Can you give me the first time, in history, properly referenced, where the name “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing,?

I’ve asked that question in many different ways, over many years on these forums with no satisfactory answer…YET. But I’m waiting. Maybe you know the answer.

Maybe because it doesn’t really matter. Orthodox Christians consider themselves Catholic, just as Catholics consider themselves orthodox. Why would this matter at all, since the patriarchates of Orthodoxy date back as far as Rome?

Jon

 

[ChadS]

I don’t believe we’ve adopted the name “Roman Catholic”.

We are simply “The Catholic Church”.

The “Roman” is typically added by those who insist that the Catholic Church isn’t what it claims to be.

That said, many Catholic’s seem to let the “Roman” get stuck in there.

In fact I’ve seen individual churches refer to themselves that way…

But that’s a different issue.

Chuck

I have heard that the use of the term “Roman Catholic” among Catholics is more of an American thing, and not really done outside of the U.S. Do you know if this is accurate or not?

I, too, have seen many churches use “Roman” to describe themselves … as in “A Roman Catholic faith community” etc. I prefer the simple and unadorned Catholic Church, given that Roman was at one point a slur used to describe Catholics supposed allegiance to a foreign power and that Catholics could never be loyal to their own country.

ChadS

 

[guanophore]

T rue,

One Holy Catholic Apostolic

My point is that one would not realistically expect to see it prior to the second council of Nicea, and even before the great Schism in 1054

ugh ugh (clearing my throat)

Those in the East who later would call themselves “Orthodox” were THE VERY ones who condemned Icons in the following periods.

Iconoclasm Iconoclasm ( Eikonoklasmos , “Image-breaking”) is the name of the heresy that in the eighth … to the old custom of the Church. Leo therefore joined with his Iconoclasm a fierce persecution … generally (not quite always) added to Iconoclasm. Meanwhile, St. John Damascene (d. 754), safe from …
Encyclopedia
The Great Heresies Iconoclasm (7th and 8th Centuries) This heresy arose when a group of people known as iconoclasts …

Ok. Is this your answer to the question “why is it important for you to know this”?

It was the Catholic Church who preserved icons, and condemned those who condemned icons.

the Church was a unified whole at the time. There were those within the Eastern Church that resisted images, as well as those in the West.

I would suspect that as well. But I still would like a reference in writing properly referenced for the 1st time in history, “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing

Is this important because you wish to elevate the West over the East in terms of “orthodoxy”?

Their misunderstanding isn’t the issue.

the point being, the 1st time in history “Orthodox Church” appeared in writing, properly referenced,

I wonder if this is true…

It seems like a one upmanship thing.

The first time I read your request, it seemed like you were expecting a date much earlier than is reasonable.

I want the reference properly referenced.

Well, happy searching. You seem to be wanting to prove something. I hope that it somehow enriches your spiritual lives, as well as those of your siblings who belong to the One, Holy, Cathlic and Apostilc Church founded by the Apostles in Jerusalem, Syria, and other points East decades before the Church in Rome was established.

 

[clmowry]

Not really a different issue, but you are right that it was added by those who opposed the Catholic Church. And that was my point. Personally, I try to avoid using the term Roman, mainly because I know some Catholics don’t like it.

Jon

Ah. Sorry Jon, I missed your point. I thought you were saying the opposite…

Thanks for the clarification,

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

I have heard that the use of the term “Roman Catholic” among Catholics is more of an American thing, and not really done outside of the U.S. Do you know if this is accurate or not?

I, too, have seen many churches use “Roman” to describe themselves … as in “A Roman Catholic faith community” etc. I prefer the simple and unadorned Catholic Church, given that Roman was at one point a slur used to describe Catholics supposed allegiance to a foreign power and that Catholics could never be loyal to their own country.

ChadS

I don’t have any data to support the assertion, but I believe you are correct. I’ve only seen it a few times all in the states never elsewhere.

To be fair we do practice the “Roman Rite Mass” and I’m fairly certain that is the primary source of the “error”, but still seems like something that should be “corrected” when we see it.

But I’m way off topic and I just keep on dragging us there!

Chuck

 

[po18guy]

Those arguments are ridiculous (i.e. subject to ridicule). They allege that Jesus actually did leave us orphans, which is distinctly anti-Christian/anti-biblical. They allege that the truth cannot be known. Of course, from their position of confusion and lack of authority, the truth cannot be known and the canon cannot be known. This opens the door to the acceptance of Gnostic and other writings. Who is it, that roams and prowls this earth, that desires this to happen; who, in fact, incited the idea in the first place?