Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[twb1621]

Nope … I’m saying
The statements of Cyprian of Carthage are not persuasive, since by 251 the apostles were obviously long dead. As I said even as early as the time of Ireneaus and Origen the continuum of knowledge was largely lost, except for the apostolic writings. .

“When we refer them to that tradition which originates from the Apostles, which is preserved by means of the succession of presbyters in the churches, they object to tradition, saying that they themselves are wiser not merely than the presbyters, but than even the Apostles.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
“Therefore, it is within the power of all in every church who may wish to see the truth to examine clearly the tradition of the Apostles manifested throughout the whole world. And we are in a position to reckon up those who were instituted bishops in the churches by the Apostles, and the succession of these men to our own times… For if the Apostles had known hidden mysteries…they would have delivered them especially to those to whom they were also committing the churches themselves. For they were desirous that these men should be very perfect and blameless in all things, whom also they were leaving behind as their successors, delivering up their own place of government to these men.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
“In this order, and by this succession, the ecclesiastical tradition from the Apostles, and the preaching of the truth, have come down to us. And this is most abundant proof that there is one and the same life-giving faith, which has been preserved in the church from the Apostles until now, and handed down in truth.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
“It is necessary to obey the presbyters who are in the Church - those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the Apostles. For those presbyters, together with the succession of the bishops, have received the certain gift of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. But we should hold in suspicion others who depart from the primitive succession and assemble themselves together in any place whatsoever. For they are either heretics or perverse minds, or else they are schismatics who are puffed up and self-pleasing… Therefore, it behooves us to keep aloof from all such persons and to adhere to those who, as I have already observed, hold the doctrine of the Apostles.” St. Irenaeus (“Against All Heresies,” c. 180 A.D.)
geocities.com/demysaint/APOSTOLIC_SUCCESSION.doc

Origen
In the preface to the “De principiis” Origen laid down a rule thus formulated in the translation of Rufinus: “Illa sola credenda est veritas quae in nullo ab ecclesiastica et apostolica discordat traditione”. The same norm is expressed almost in equivalent terms n many other passages, e.g., "non debemus credere nisi quemadmodum per successionem Ecclesiae Dei tradiderunt nobis (In Matt., ser. 46, Migne, XIII, 1667). In accordance with those principles Origen constantly appeals to ecclesiastical preaching, ecclesiastical teaching, and the ecclesiastical rule of faith (kanon). He accepts only four Canonical Gospels because tradition does not receive more; he admits the necessity of baptism of infants because it is in accordance with the practice of the Church founded on Apostolic tradition; he warns the interpreter of the Holy Scripture, not to rely on his own judgment, but “on the rule of the Church instituted by Christ”. For, he adds, we have only two lights to guide us here below, Christ and the Church; the Church reflects faithfully the light received from Christ, as the moon reflects the rays of the sun. The distinctive mark of the Catholic is to belong to the Church, to depend on the Church outside of which there is no salvation; on the contrary, he who leaves the Church walks in darkness, he is a heretic. It is through the principle of authority that Origen is wont to unmask and combat doctrinal errors. It is the principle of authority, too, that he invokes when he enumerates the dogmas of faith. A man animated with such sentiments may have made mistakes, because he is human, but his disposition of mind is essentially Catholic and he does not deserve to be ranked among the promoters of heresy.
newadvent.org/cathen/11306b.htm

 

[A_Sinner_1]

Sola_Scriptura wrote:

**Most scholars today believe **Peter actually did visit Babylon and he was not referencing Rome (although I’m familiar with what you’re saying). I actually recently reviewed a paper on this topic … interesting stuff.

Why would you need “scholars” to determine what Peter was referencing? Isn’t the Bible alone enough?

 

[twb1621]

You are suffering from a biased view of history here. Also, you are rendering a non-Catholic perspective. Further, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The Latin Rite is only one of 23.

The Orthodox are not considered “their own denomination”. What exists is properly described as a schism. All the Apostolic communities had Patriarchs (Popes) and the term was first used in Alexandria, not Rome.

The Orthodox continue to have Patriarchies as they have from the ordination of the Bishops by Peter and Paul in the East. These Holy Orders, along with the rest of th 7 sacraments are considered valid.

To be fair, the fault for the schism lies on both sides.

Well, in this perticular case, these commentaries did not come from a “Catholic” source, all these are the historic versions from wikapedia which was used as a “non-bios” source intentionally so you might want to take that up with them. Secondly, if you are going to refute , please provide the source you are using and I will be happy to check it out and respond.

 

[guanophore]

But these sound doctrines enjoy a basis in scripture and known Apostolic tradition, Marian dogma doesn’t.

Well, we read it differently.

I’ll give you an example. Clement made a statement in one of his letters referencing the virgin birth. Origen and Irenaeus totally misconstrued the statement and it flourished into the idea of perpetual virginity. Tertullian disagreed with them.

Since this thread is maxed out, an this is off topic, would you be willling to start a new thread, posting these sources? This sounds like a very interesting discussion.

The key point is even back as early as the second and third centuries the church did not know for sure. The protoevangelium of James is clearly a forgery (it could not have been written by a James from Jerusalem since it’s author was clearly not a Jew familiar with Second Temple Judaism). Hence we have nothing confirming Catholic Marian dogma.

We can say the same thing about the canon of scripture, the hypostatic union, and the Trinity. The Arian heresy is proof that definition of doctrine is needed. The fact that doctrine is not defined or promulgated in a council does not mean it did not exist. Christ was always the God-man. This is a truth that was always held by the Church. It required councilar definition and proclamation due to heresy. The same is true with the Trinity, and the Marian doctrines.

So the fact is you cannot argue an uninterrupted continuum of knowledge handed down from the apostles. It is a fallacy and any serious Catholic theologian would have to admit this if pressed.

I can certainly understand that it is incomprehensible to the faithless. Scripture is clear that those of carnal mind cannot apprehend spritual matters.

It wasn’t even until the 19th century that the church came up with the idea of Papal infallibility.

Such a statement reveals a gross ignorance of one’s family history. Do you know when Augustine lived?

St. Augustine, Pelagianism, and the Holy See -
“Rome has spoken; the case is closed” (Sermon 131:10)

Just to state the obvious if this was an apostolic teaching then why wait 1,900 years to adopt it?

It was “adopted” by the Apostles at the wedding in Cana. He revealed Himself to them through his mother’s intercession. When they (gradually) understood that He was God, and the Son of David,and holder of the Keys, they saw her role as the queen mother.

Dogma is not infallibly declared until rampant heresy makes it necessary.

Was the RCC wrong up until 1870? I"m sorry but some of these things just strain logic and make my brain twist.

I have an idea, try twisting your brain around the fact that this is not “Roman” doctrine. Explore the other apostolic successions, including those not in union with Rome. You will find that veneration for Mary is present in all the places founded by Apostles.

These doctrines are all derived from exegesis.

Nope. None of Catholic doctrine comes from exegesis. Catholicsim is not a ‘religion of the book’ as our enemies falsely claim. All of Catholic doctrine was whole and complete when it was committed to the Apostles, before a word of the NT was ever written.

I’m not sure why people have such a hard time understanding or accepting this?

it is a lie, and our faith forbids us to embrace lies.

 

[twb1621]

guanophore…
beginning excerpt from New Advent…
The Liturgies, Divine Office, forms for the administration of sacraments and for various blessings, sacramentals, and exorcisms, of the Church of Constantinople, which is now, after the Roman Rite, by far the most widely spread in the world. With one insignificant exception – the Liturgy of St. James is used once a year at Jerusalem and Zakynthos (Zacynthus) – it is followed exclusively by all Orthodox Churches, by the Melkites (Melchites) in Syria and Egypt, the Uniats in the Balkans and the Italo-Greeks in Calabria, Apulia, Sicily, and Corsica. So that more than a hundred millions of Christians perform their devotions according to the Rite of Constantinople.
This is not one of the original parent-rites. It is derived from that of Antioch. Even apart from the external evidence a comparison of the two liturgies will show that Constantinople follows Antioch in the disposition of the parts. There are two original Eastern types of liturgy: that of Alexandria, in which the great Intercession comes before the Consecration, and that of Antioch, in which it follows after the Epiklesis. The Byzantine use in both its Liturgies (of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom) follows exactly the order of Antioch. A number of other parallels make the fact of this derivation clear from internal evidence, as it is from external witness.
If you would like to review the additional New Advent information, use the link below

newadvent.org/cathen/04312d.htm

 

[guanophore]

but then it went haywire?

ARe you talking about the Mormon “great apostasy”?

Heck the apostle Thomas was all the way up in India … no Roman church there, was he wrong too?

Do you imagine that Thomas taught a different faith than Peter and Paul? Check the Apostolic sees founded by Thomas, and you will find the same beliefs. They are not “Roman”, they are Catholic.

Didn’t Peter have a wife and children? Doesn’t even Rome recognize the valid succession of the EOC and Oriental Orthodox churches? Haven’t they “departed from Peter” as you say it?

Yes, Peter certainly at least had a wife, not sure about children, but probably.

Yes, Rome recognizes the valid orders of the communities in schism.

There is a lack of full unity with the successor of Peter, yes.

Heck the Oriental Orthodox churches don’t even understand Trinitarian doctrine the same way Rome (or western protestants for that matter) do (they’re almost Nestorians).

There are certainly doctrinal differences that still need to be resolved.

 

[guanophore]

Nope … I’m saying the RCC defines church erroneously & misunderstands the role of Peter.

Such a statement is appalling in it’s arrogance. How is it that you, an anti-Catholic, can come along 2000 years after the fact, and claim that the people who were there at the time misunderstood? Boggles the mind.

Anyway, it is not a “Roman” understanding. It is Catholic,and it is shared by those who are not even presently in communion with the successor of Peter.

First, he was more fairly viewed as the first among equals (rather than the way Rome views the Papacy).

It is certainly true that the role of the Latin patriarch has been profoundly influenced by politics and economics.

So even if I were to go down the track of apostolic succession I’d probably jump on the EOC bandwagon before Rome. Heck the only bishop we know for sure that Peter consecrated was Ignatius (the bishop of Antioch).

It seems you are missing a lot of history.

It is true that the EOC would certainly be a giant step in the right direction for you.

the church at Rome won’t even admit Peter actually preached in Babylon (when his epistle clearly states that he did).

Babylon is a code word for Rome. It is also used in the book of Revelation. Honestly, have you even looked at the history around these events?

Paul called Rome, Rome … not Babylon & of course Peter did the same.

Paul was not IN Rome under Nero at the time, either.

Sure Peter was in Rome for a short period … and was killed there & that’s all we know.

If that is all you know, then you still have some more history reading to do.

The statements of Cyprian of Carthage are not persuasive, since by 251 the apostles were obviously long dead.

What does one thing have to do with the other? That is like ksaying “the gospels are not persuasive, since by 251 the writers were dead”. You make it sound as if Truth cannot be preserved after someone who knew it died.

As I said even as early as the time of Ireneaus and Origen the continuum of knowledge was largely lost, except for the apostolic writings.

I suppose you must believe this myth in order to justify your rejection of the apostolic succession.

They were arguing about the same stuff we’re debating about right now – so obviously there was no solid continuum in doctrine.

Dissent from the unity of the Truth does not negate the unity of the truth. There will always be factions, so that the Truth might be made manifest.

The church is the collective of all Christians.

This is a grossly deficient view of the Church. Also one of the reasons that the Catholic Church does not recognize Protesatant ecclesiastical communities as churches.

Even during the day of Paul there were many different churches. John writes about seven churches in Revelation. I’m sorry I simply think Rome uses the one true church thing for it’s own purposes & it has no basis in any apostolic doctrine or any teaching of Christ. Not a point we’re going to agree on (which is why I probably should have kept my trap shut).

They were all part of the Catholic Church. The Church is One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. It has been this way from the beginning. Luke writes about this in the book of Acts.

 

[twb1621]

Originally Posted by guanophore
You are suffering from a biased view of history here. Also, you are rendering a non-Catholic perspective. Further, the Catholic Church is not “Roman”. The Latin Rite is only one of 23.
Na-ah, A’m not…

The Orthodox are not considered “their own denomination”. What exists is properly described as a schism. All the Apostolic communities had Patriarchs (Popes) and the term was first used in Alexandria, not Rome.

The Orthodox continue to have Patriarchies as they have from the ordination of the Bishops by Peter and Paul in the East. These Holy Orders, along with the rest of th 7 sacraments are considered valid.

To be fair, the fault for the schism lies on both sides.

Well, in this perticular case, these commentaries did not come from a “Catholic” source, all these are the historic versions from wikapedia which was used as a “non-bios” source intentionally so you might want to take that up with them.

 

[guanophore]

you’re not going to try and say all those churches Paul planted were under the church at Rome are you?

No, the primacy of Rome was not established until Peter and Paul went there and taught, building up the Church. Prior to that, we have no evidence that Rome had any Apostolic teaching. In fact, Paul’s letter to Rome seems to indicate this.

After that, yes, everyone recognized the primacy of Rome.

 

[guanophore]

Most scholars today believe Peter actually did visit Babylon and he was not referencing Rome (although I’m familiar with what you’re saying). I actually recently reviewed a paper on this topic … interesting stuff. To spite the common view there was actually the remnant of a society in Babylon & quite a vibrant Jewish community there during the time of Peter. When scholars trace his footsteps as described in Acts and look at a variety of other factors (including archeology from that period and existing historical texts) the picture is pretty clear.

I don’t dispute that he may have gone to Babylon, but when he wrote his letter, he was incarcerated in Rome under the persecution of Nero.

Remember Paul called Peter apostle to the Jews while he was an apostle to the gentiles (this is clearly enumerated in scripture). On that basis alone some of Rome’s claims become pretty hard to swallow.

Like the one where they labored together in Rome to build up the Church?

 

[guanophore]

They are all under the UNIVERSAL Church founded by Christ. And that Church was later named by St. Ignatius of Antioch the Catholic Church.

Actually Ignatius took this from the Sacred Tradition, also found in book of Acts:

“Meanwhile the church throughout Judea, Galilee, and Samaria had peace and was built up. Living in the fear of the Lord and in the comfort of the Holy Spirit, it increased in numbers.” Acts 9:31

Ekklesia Kath holos = the church throughout = Catholic Church.

 

[guanophore]

what does Antioch have to do with Rome? So wouldn’t the Oriental Orthodox church actually be “the one true church” under Rome’s own definition?

It is!

BTW it’s good that you point to Ignatius, since he’s the only we know with a sufficient degree of certainty that Peter actually laid his hands on and consecrated.

You are apparently missing a significant number of facts with regard to the apostolic succession.

Weren’t Romans gentiles?

Please consider a course in early Christian history. The Church in Rome began from those Jews on pilgrimmage to Jerusalem who were converted by Peter’s sermon on Pentecost. They were baptized, had some brief catechesis, then returned to Rome. No doubt there were later Gentile converts who ended up in Rome, but it was the Jewish converts that were the first fruits.

We also know that the Christians were ejected from Rome along with the Jews, because they were seen as a Jewish sect.

 

[onenow1]

HI, All
Originally Posted by sola_scriptura
The church is the collective of all Christians

Let’s put this sola to rest with this.

=onenow1, If indeed this is true sola then the Holy Spirit is confused !

Example: Lutherns believe in true presence, Baptists don’t.

And many more such examples.

Peace, onenow1

 

[guanophore]

However, when I look at the true history it’s apparent the church as early as the time of Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus simply lost the continuum of knowledge in many areas of doctrine.

Individuals becoming separated from teh continuum of knowledge does not equate to a loss in the continuum.

As I said before, you had Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all with different points of view regarding Mary for instance. Each interpreting one sentence written by Clement differently. In essence they were debating about the same stuff we’re discussing about right now. That does not present a picture of knowledge handed down in an unadulterated fashion to me – but I guess maybe I should ignore logic?

Certainly not! There will always be some who misunderstand or disagree with the Apostolic Teachings. Such disagreement does not invalidate them, any more than Judas’ lack of embracing Christ’s teaching invalidates His teaching.

I've read nearly every document from the actual apostolic father (Ignatius, Clement, and Polycarp) along with other documents actually written by the first Christians (like the Didache) and not a single word about venerating saints, not a single word about venerating Mary, no indication that Mary was a queen of heaven,

Then you have yet some more documents to read, or you are reading with your blinders on.

our co-redeemer,

Where did this one come from?

the spouse of the Holy Spirit, mediatrix of all graces, in hypostatic union with the trinity, the prototype for perfect love, and so on.

Did someone actually claim that she was in hypostatic union with the Trinity? I have never heard that one before!

John was Mary’s caretaker, why not a single w ord about any of this in his Gospel or his epistles? I mean for God’s sake.

Well, we read it differently.

John is the one who preserved Christ’s title of “woman” for His mother. She was as woman was created to be, the handmaid of the Lord, perfect in obedience, and instructing others to “do whatever He tells you”.

Look not a subject I enjoy broaching on this board – but this is my opinion.

It certainly seems to be a major stumbling block for you coming into unity.

 

[twb1621]

Originally Posted by sola_scriptura
Nope … I’m saying

The church is the collective of all Christians. Even during the day of Paul there were many different churches. John writes about seven churches in Revelation. I’m sorry I simply think Rome uses the one true church thing for it’s own purposes & it has no basis in any apostolic doctrine or any teaching of Christ. Not a point we’re going to agree on (which is why I probably should have kept my trap shut).
St. John in the Apocalypse is shown seven candlesticks and in their midst, the Son of Man holding seven stars (Revelation 1:13, 20). The candlesticks represent the seven Churches of Asia; the stars, the angels of those Churches. He is bidden to write to the respective angels of those Churches and distribute to each his meed of praise or blame. Origen (Hom., xiii in Luc., and Hom., xx in Num.) explains that these are the guardian angels of the Churches, a view upheld by Dean Alford. But St. Epiphanius (Hær., xxv) explicitly rejects this view, and, in accordance with the imagery of the passage, explains it of the bishops. The comparison of a teacher to a star is quite Scriptural (Daniel 12:3). St. Augustine’s reason for interpreting angels of the Churches as the prelates of the church is that St. John speaks of them as falling from their first charity which is not true of the angels [Ep., xliii (al. clxii), n. 22].

The churches in Asia Minor mentioned by St. John in the Book of Revelation. They are Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamum, Thyatira, Sardis, Philadelphia, and Laodicea (Revelation 1:11). While on the island of Patmos, St. John was ordered by the Lord to instruct and admonish their bishops, either praising or blaming them for the way they were administering their dioceses.

These are not the sole evidences which the New Testament affords of the monarchical episcopate. In the Apocalypse the “angels” to whom the letters to the seven Churches are addressed are almost certainly the bishops of the respective communities. Some commentators, indeed, have held them to be personifications of the communities themselves. But this explanation can hardly stand. St. John, throughout, addresses the angel as being responsible for the community precisely as he would address its ruler. Moreover, in the symbolism of chapter 1, the two are represented under different figures: the angels are the stars in the right hand of the Son of Man; the seven candlesticks are the image which figures the communities.

 

[twb1621]

Originally Posted by sola_scriptura
Nope … I’m saying
The church at Rome won’t even admit Peter actually preached in Babylon (when his epistle clearly states that he did). Paul called Rome, Rome … not Babylon & of course Peter did the same. Sure Peter was in Rome for a short period … and was killed there & that’s all we know…

critics who have denied Peter’s sojourn at Rome must necessarily deny that the letter was written from there, but the great majority of critics, with all Christian antiquity, agree that it was written at Rome itself, designated by the metaphorical name Babylon (v, 13). This interpretation has been accepted from the most remote times, and indeed no other metaphor could so well describe the city of Rome, rich and luxurious as it was, and given over to the worship of false gods and every species of immorality. Both cities had caused trouble to the people of God, Babylon to the Jews, and Rome to the Christians. Moreover this metaphor was in use among the early Christians (cf. Revelation 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21). Finally, tradition has not brought us the faintest memory of any sojourn of Peter at Babylon. The opinions of critics who deny the authenticity of the Epistle range from A.D. 80 to A.D. 160 as the date, but as there is not the slightest doubt of its authenticity they have no basis for their argument. Equally diverse opinions are found among the authors who admit the authenticity, ranging from the year A.D. 45 to that accepted as that of the death of Peter. The most probable opinion is that which places it about the end of the year 63 or the beginning of 64; and St. Peter having suffered martyrdom at Rome in 64 (67?) the Epistle could not be subsequent to that date; besides, it assumes that the persecution of Nero, which began about the end of 64, had not yet broken out (see above). On the other hand the author frequently alludes to the Epistle to the Ephesians, making use of its very words and expressions; consequently the Epistle could not be prior to 63, since the Epistle to the Ephesians was written at the end of Paul’s first captivity at Rome (61-63).
Nothing with and credable verifcation has changes the interpretation. This link provides information on the history ob Babylon
newadvent.org/cathen/02179b.htm

 

[twb1621]

Originally Posted by sola_scriptura
Nope … I’m saying the RCC defines church erroneously & misunderstands the role of Peter. First, he was more fairly viewed as the first among equals (rather than the way Rome views the Papacy). So even if I were to go down the track of apostolic succession I’d probably jump on the EOC bandwagon before Rome. Heck the only bishop we know for sure that Peter consecrated was Ignatius (the bishop of Antioch).
First of all, there is no way of ligetimately claiming that Peter was not the Primary Authoritative Apostle. Throughout the History of the Gospel, except for your interpretation, it has always been recognized based on the translation of its specific wording; “…And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Thou art Peter, etc… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, John 1:42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Upon this rock, etc… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, Matthew 7:24-25. The gates of hell, etc… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Loose on earth… The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.”

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Hi Lief,

A very well written post and I have read it carefully.

One point, however, I must clarify with you - when I speak of the self-authenticating power of the scriptures, I do not deny that they do not need to be accurately interpreted according to the rules of sound exegesis.

The self -authenticating power of the scriptures means that there is an organic unity in the scriptures themeslves concerning doctrine; there is an objective meaning inherent in the divine scriptures that God meant to convey.

I see. Well, I agree that they have objective meanings and organic unity , though the differences between the canon lists the Early Church Fathers came up with, as well as the differences of canon within Christianity today, show that what exactly this unity consists of is not obvious without the Magesterium. The same is true of the objective meaning of Scripture- the vast numbers of disagreements over the meanings of key doctrines between sincere believers show that while the truth in Scripture itself is objective, the lens of private interpretation and exegesis is subjective.

Where you and I differ, is in the greater question:

‘Who gets to do the interpreting?’

Agreed .

Does the divine right to interpret the scriptures reside in the ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM? AND IN THE ROMAN CATHOLIC MAGISTERIUM, ALONE? I, for one, do not think so.

God’s blessings, Craig

I responded to this in detail already in large portions of my last few posts that you haven’t responded to directly. So I’ll just await your reply to what I already said, if you want to make one.
Craig Kennedy:

Hi Lief,

If the Roman Catholic Magisterium is the official interpreter of the inerrant scriptures, then why have they not compiled an infallible commentary on them; giving final, infallible exposition on all difficult portions of scripture?

Why do Catholics, for example differ over questions such as Creation, Predestination, Election and Reprobation?

I responded to this recently when replying to your post to Chesterton.

Remember how God revealed the books of the Old Testament. He gave His inerrant revelation to Israel (the type of the Church) piece by piece over a period of thousands of years. In the same way, he speaks through the councils, revealing what the Church needs to know over thousands of years.

Also, and most importantly, the Church infallibly defines principally that which is critical to salvation, to our unity with Christ. None of the issues you have mentioned are essential to an individual’s unity with Christ, wouldn’t you agree?

On matters not essential to salvation, of course there is always more to know. There are always questions God could answer but doesn’t. For instance, we know next to nothing about Melchizedek’s personal life from Scripture. If the Scripture is God’s inerrant revelation, transmitted through human authors, why didn’t they just write about Melchizedek’s life?

There’s always more we can know about matters not necessary to salvation and God chooses what He’ll reveal through His Church about these and when. But on matters pertaining to salvation, the Church does give everything people need to know. The Bible exists to unite people to God. The Church councils exist for the same reason. Not to give a big rundown about scientific, theological or philosophical issues non-essential to salvation.
Craig Kennedy:

Hi Lief,

Out of interest, who comprises the Magisterium? Is it the Pope and the Cardinals? Who else is included? Who decides how many men comprise the Magisterium?

The bishops of the Church comprise the Magesterium. If I’m not mistaken (and this isn’t something I’ve researched), all the Catholic bishops make up the Magesterium. There isn’t a set number of men, I don’t think (though again, this isn’t territory on which I’m fully sure of foot), because the Church can grow to encompass more territory as more people convert or the Catholic population increases, and then more bishops become needed.
Craig Kennedy:

Where did God give precise instruction for the regulation of the Magisterium?

In Christ, Craig

Tradition is a key source. I don’t know what specific documents the Church uses, or how much of these documents it considers to be infallible.

We can see just a little of the regulation from the description of the council in Acts 15. The apostles and elders (or bishops) gather. There is much debate. Then Peter (the Pope) speaks, and with his announced position the council’s debate ends. We follow that process still. Then in the Scripture there were final words by Paul, Barnabas and James. That probably still is the case in the Church, some bishops giving final words, but I’m just guessing. I don’t know those details.

Then the decision of the Church is carried to the Church wherever its members are (with Paul and Barnabas, in the scriptural account).

On all the internal regulatory details of how the councils are managed, the Scripture isn’t specific enough. Tradition is a more detailed source on this. I don’t know how much of this regulation the Church considers to be infallible.

 

[onenow1]

Originally Posted by sola_scriptura
Nope … I’m saying the RCC defines church erroneously & misunderstands the role of Peter. First, he was more fairly viewed as the first among equals (rather than the way Rome views the Papacy). So even if I were to go down the track of apostolic succession I’d probably jump on the EOC bandwagon before Rome. Heck the only bishop we know for sure that Peter consecrated was Ignatius (the bishop of Antioch).
First of all, there is no way of ligetimately claiming that Peter was not the Primary Authoritative Apostle. Throughout the History of the Gospel, except for your interpretation, it has always been recognized based on the translation of its specific wording; “…And Jesus came into the quarters of Cæsarea Philippi: and he asked his disciples, saying: Whom do men say that the Son of man is? 14 But they said: Some John the Baptist, and other some Elias, and others Jeremiah, or one of the prophets. 15 Jesus saith to them: But whom do you say that I am? 16 Simon Peter answered and said: Thou art Christ, the Son of the living God. 17 And Jesus answering said to him: Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. 18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. Thou art Peter, etc… As St. Peter, by divine revelation, here made a solemn profession of his faith of the divinity of Christ; so in recompense of this faith and profession, our Lord here declares to him the dignity to which he is pleased to raise him: viz., that he to whom he had already given the name of Peter, signifying a rock, John 1:42, should be a rock indeed, of invincible strength, for the support of the building of the church; in which building he should be, next to Christ himself, the chief foundation stone, in quality of chief pastor, ruler, and governor; and should have accordingly all fulness of ecclesiastical power, signified by the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Upon this rock, etc… The words of Christ to Peter, spoken in the vulgar language of the Jews which our Lord made use of, were the same as if he had said in English, Thou art a Rock, and upon this rock I will build my church. So that, by the plain course of the words, Peter is here declared to be the rock, upon which the church was to be built: Christ himself being both the principal foundation and founder of the same. Where also note, that Christ, by building his house, that is, his church, upon a rock, has thereby secured it against all storms and floods, like the wise builder, Matthew 7:24-25. The gates of hell, etc… That is, the powers of darkness, and whatever Satan can do, either by himself, or his agents. For as the church is here likened to a house, or fortress, built on a rock; so the adverse powers are likened to a contrary house or fortress, the gates of which, that is, the whole strength, and all the efforts it can make, will never be able to prevail over the city or church of Christ. By this promise we are fully assured, that neither idolatry, heresy, nor any pernicious error whatsoever shall at any time prevail over the church of Christ. 19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven. Loose on earth… The loosing the bands of temporal punishments due to sins, is called an indulgence; the power of which is here granted. 20 Then he commanded his disciples, that they should tell no one that he was Jesus the Christ.”

=onenow, Its facinating how Jesus walked so many miles to explain Peter as the rock. He sure did like using phyical things to explain spiritual truths WHATA ROCK.

Peace, onenow1

 

[A_Sinner_1]

Sola_Scriptura wrote:

However, when I look at the true history it’s apparent the church as early as the time of Origen, Tertullian, and Irenaeus simply lost the continuum of knowledge in many areas of doctrine.

As I said before, you had Origen, Irenaeus, and Tertullian all with different points of view regarding Mary for instance. Each interpreting one sentence written by Clement differently. In essence they were debating about the same stuff we’re discussing about right now. That does not present a picture of knowledge handed down in an unadulterated fashion to me – but I guess maybe I should ignore logic?

I’m a four-year revert, not a scholar on these matters, so I’ll be happy to receive correction of Catholic posters if I’m off-base here.

I think you’re judging a statement by the pope by the standards of sola scriptura–a standard that fails both for Scripture and for Sacred Tradition.

In other words, the statement should require no further need for interpretation. Unfortunately, while the writer or speaker (the writers of the Bible or the pope) may be inspired for a particular statement, the words are read and misinterpreted by us fallen humans.

Vigorous debate can be healthy and lead to spiritual growth. However, if the Church would be led astray, the Holy Spirit acts through the successor to St. Peter and Apostles to clarify.