Sola Scriptura is Absolutely biblical

[sola_scriptura]

I cannot comment on the reference you are talking about until you present it for scrutiny

I’ll try and get it for you … there was also a good I think discovery or history channel show (it may have also been on Trinity broadcasting I can’;t remember) on this topic.

Some of the stuff modern archaeologists and biblical scholars have discovered is quite interesting (and amazing really). Of course there’s no smoking out there that will help Catholics or Protestants much prove the other wrong (as if it should really matter much to most Christians). 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’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, our co-redeemer, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, mediatrix of all graces, in hypostatic union with the trinity, the prototype for perfect love, and so on.

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

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

 

[w_stewart]

I’ll try and get it for you … there was also a good I think discovery or history channel show (it may have also been on Trinity broadcasting I can’;t remember) on this topic.

Some of the stuff modern archaeologists and biblical scholars have discovered is quite interesting (and amazing really). Of course there’s no smoking out there that will help Catholics or Protestants much prove the other wrong (as if it should really matter much to most Christians). 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’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, our co-redeemer, the spouse of the Holy Spirit, mediatrix of all graces, in hypostatic union with the trinity, the prototype for perfect love, and so on.

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

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

But then again, all these arguments of yours are anchored on the assumption (yet to be proven) that every teaching to be considered correct must be written in the Bible.

Is it not that the Church Christ founded is a juridical person? And is it not that a juridical person has inherent legislative, judicial and executive powers?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

The Pope is infallible an matters of faith, morals, or doctrine.
Holy Tradition, including early teaching of the Apostles and the Church Fathers are inspired as well.

I’m having real difficulty to “get my head around” what you are suggesting here.

Are you really claiming that the Church Fathers are inspired? Are you, actually, serious here?

When I read some of the Church Fathers I survey a “mixed bag” of conflicting information and glaring inconsistencies. For example, they differed among themselves on millennialism, church governance, charismatic gifts and so on.

Can you please explain your position here?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

It’s like a three-legged stool. 1)Scripture; 2)Tradition; 3)Magisterium
All being equal.

I just want to be sure I’ve got this right. You believe that:

Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium are all,

1 Equally inspired and inerrant
2 Equally authoritative
3 Equally infallible sources of divine truth.

Is this correct? Do I understand you aright?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Confusion among individual Catholics does not equate to the Church being confused. Some Catholics think the Eucharist is merely symbolic. Does that mean the Church is confused or that individuals are ignorant of their faith?

Do such Catholics, as you describe, partake of the Eucharist?

I was lead to believe that any person who partakes of the Catholic Eucharist is indicating that he/she is in full unity with catholic doctrine?

 

[Craig_Kennedy]

Post 1 of 3

This is the best explanation I could find in lay terms;

“Sacred Tradition is the living and growing truth of Christ contained, not only in Scripture, but in the common teaching, common life, and common worship of the Church. That is why the Tradition that does not change can seem to have changed so much. For this common teaching, life and worship is a living thing-a truth which was planted as a mustard seed in first century Jerusalem and which has not ceased growing since-as our Lord prophesied in Mark 4:30-32. The plant doesn’t look like the seed, but it is more mustardy than ever. And this is an entirely biblical pattern, as we discover when we consider the circumcision controversy in Acts 15.
The Church, of course, began as an almost totally Jewish sect. Its Lord was a Jew, the apostles were all Jews, the first thousands of converts were Jews and the only Bible it had when Gentiles began flooding into the Church were Jewish Scriptures. As delegates of the supposed Bible-only “hidden Church” attending the Council of Jerusalem, let’s try to resolve the question of whether to circumcise Gentiles who want to join the Covenant People. What does Scripture say?
It says the covenant of circumcision is “an everlasting covenant” (Gen 17:7). It says the Patriarchs, Moses and the Prophets are circumcised. It says that circumcision is enjoined, not only on descendants of Abraham, but upon every male who wants to join the Covenant People (Ex 12:48). Period. No exceptions. Moreover, looking around the room we note that the apostles and elders are all circumcised and that the Lord Jesus they preach was circumcised (Lk 2:21). And Jesus himself says that not one jot or tittle of the law would by any means pass away (Mt 5:18) while he is stone silent that Gentiles be exempted from the immemorial requirement of circumcision for all who wish to join the Covenant People.
And so, the Council meets and, in light of all this obvious scriptural teaching, declares…
…that circumcision for Gentiles is against the will of the God who does not change.
Suddenly the whole thing looks perversely Catholic, don’t it? So did apostolic Tradition change Scripture or what?
Nope. It simply acted as a lens and refocused the light of Scripture so that something which had been hidden there was now visible. For, despite appearances, the dogmatic definitions of the Church do not just pop up with absolutely no relation to Scripture. Rather, they assemble the materially sufficient revelation of Scripture using the mortar of Sacred Tradition. And that Tradition is not separate, secret and parallel to Scripture, but the common teaching, life, and worship of the Church. In the case of the Council of Jerusalem, the common teaching from the apostles included the then-unwritten command of Christ to preach the gospel to the whole world (Mt 28:19). It included the as-yet-unwritten common knowledge of Peter’s mystical revelation by the Holy Spirit (“Do not call anything impure that God has made clean” [Acts 10:15]). It included the experiences of Paul and Barnabas in preaching to the Gentiles (Acts 15:12). It is through this Sacred Tradition that James reads Scripture and sees in Scripture, not a judge or “final rule of faith” but a witness to the authoritative decision of the Church in Council. For he says not “we agree with the Prophet Amos” but rather that the words of the prophets “agree with” the Council (Acts 15:15). In short, the Council places the Church on the judge’s seat and the Scripture in the witness box, deriving its revelation not from Scripture alone but from Sacred Tradition and the magisterial authority of the apostles in union with Scripture. And so materially sufficient bricks of Old Testament revelation, which we thought were made to build into a synagogue are stacked and mortared with apostolic Tradition by the trowel of the Church’s magisterial authority, and turn out to make a cathedral instead.
The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, places Scripture in the context of Tradition and magisterial, apostolic authority. The biblical Council, like the modern Catholic Church, speaks with apostolic authority and declares, “It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us…” (Acts 15:29). And so, the biblical Council, just like the modern Catholic Church, develops a doctrine which, to “Bible-only” eyes, appears to flatly nullify Scripture yet which, upon closer inspection, turns out to uphold it (Rom 3:31).
“But doesn’t that mean that the Church believes in continuing revelation like the Mormons?” No. The Church believes in Sacred Tradition, not Sacred New Revelation. It is of the very essence of Sacred Tradition that it is a thing handed down from the apostles, not a thing fadged up later on. And one of the basic truths of Sacred Tradition is that “no new public revelation is to be expected before the glorious manifestation of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, 4). And that is the irony. For this dogma, which is at the heart of the Evangelical concern about ongoing revelation, is virtually invisible in Scripture apart from the common teaching, life and worship of the Church…"
Continued next post.

Thanks Tom,

I appreciate the solid content you have supplied in this series of 3 posts on Sacred Tradition.

I will read this material over thoroughly and then come back to you with more questions, if need be, or points of clarification.

God bless, In Christ Craig

 

[JMJ_coder]

I just want to be sure I’ve got this right. You believe that:

Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium are all,

1 Equally inspired and inerrant
2 Equally authoritative
3 Equally infallible sources of divine truth.

Is this correct? Do I understand you aright?

Yes, that’s about the gist of it.

 

[Lampo]

I just want to be sure I’ve got this right. You believe that:

Scripture, Tradition and Magisterium are all,

1 Equally inspired and inerrant
2 Equally authoritative
3 Equally infallible sources of divine truth.

Is this correct? Do I understand you aright?

Almost/Maybe! I’m not quite sure about #1. Inspired in the sense that the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. Inerrant in the sense that She cannot teach error in matters of faith and morals. #2 - Definitely. #3 - Yes; when speaking on faith and morals.

Scripture must be read and interpreted in the light of Tradition and the teaching of the Magisterium.

 

[Lampo]

Do such Catholics, as you describe, partake of the Eucharist?

I"m almost 100% sure some do.

I was lead to believe that any person who partakes of the Catholic Eucharist is indicating that he/she is in full unity with catholic doctrine?

That is true. But a Catholic that thinks the Eucharist is merely symbolic most assuredly wouldn’t understand what he is indicating by receiving the Eucharist. This is one reason why non-Catholics should not receive the Eucharist.

 

[twb1621]

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.”

 

[adelore]

This is just a friendly thought and reply to the Sola Scripture posting. Something to think about.

Taking a step or two back in “Time”. We find that the “Bible” hadn’t even been written yet.

1. Adam and Eve. (Yet clearly they had a relationship with God. True they sinned, yet even after that they and their “family” had some sort of relationship with God.) Yet they had no scrolls or Bible to base their beliefs on. So Sola Scripture doesn’t seem to work here. Also keep in mind here as you think about this God says he doesn’t change ever. So thinking that Sola Scripture is the only way to go would be wrong.
2. (Jumping forward now quite a few more years.) In the days BEFORE Jesus was born. Who had a Bible or even Scrolls? If I remember right Only the Phariese/Scribes of the day had the Scrolls in the Temples. The People/ Comman everyday man and woman only heard what was read from these scrolls on the Sabbath. Yet, they were “taught” a lot of things from Tradition from the Phariese/Scribes. Again Sola Scripture, doesn’t work.
3. Jesus himself, didn’t walk around with Scrolls of the Old Testament. Yet, everything He taught his followers was from “Oral/Traditional” Teaching. Again Sola Scripture doesn’t work. Also keep in mind many people back then couldn’t read, yet how did the teachings of Jesus get handed down over the years? Tradition and Oral teaching. True many things were “quoted” from the Old Testament, yet back when Jesus was walking the earth the New Testament hadn’t been written yet.

Today many people still can’t read, how are they taught? It would be impossible to think they could remember each and ever verse in the Bible. Yet they are taught by Oral or Traditional Teaching. Again Sola Scripture doesn’t work here.

My Step Father can’t read a word. Yet he has served in the Army, Worked, is Retired and is now even a Knights of Columbus, 4th degree. Yet he is a folower of Jesus. Again just one more example how "Sola Scripture" doesn’t work.

People that get “hung up” on Sola Scripture would do well do take a step back and look at the “History” of the Bible and how it was handed down over the years. (by oral Tradition Teaching) Even in the Bible it says that there is no way that they could have written everything Jesus said or did, because there are no books that could hold all that information. John said that.

Just something to think about…

 

[CHESTERTONRULES]

Weren’t Romans gentiles?

Most of the early Christians in Rome and elsewhere were Jewish converts.

 

[Cinette]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Craig Kennedy View Post
I was lead to believe that any person who partakes of the Catholic Eucharist is indicating that he/she is in full unity with catholic doctrine?

The Eucharist is the “source and summit” of our Catholic faith and we should have the greatest reverence for the Eucharist. You must be familiar with John 6 where Jesus explains His great gift to us.

Here is a passage which will explain why we should take this so seriously and why Catholics who do not follow the teachings of the Church should abstain from receiving Holy Communion:

*1 Cor 11:27-29

27 Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. 28 A man ought to examine himself before he eats of the bread and drinks of the cup. 29 For anyone who eats and drinks without recognizing the body of the Lord eats and drinks judgment on himself.*

This is serious. Some people think that the Bishops are too harsh when they speak about this but you can see for yourself.

 

[twb1621]

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]

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).

In the 11th century the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. There were doctrinal issues and the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope" This tells us that the Eastern Orth. broke away from the Catholic Church into their own denomination. (The Catholic Church always had a Pope, who was always the Bishop of Rome. EO had no Pope after this split involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to that, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during periods of iconoclasm and the Photian schism.The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the capture and sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204; the final break with Rome occurred circa 1450.
Your choice would figure.

 

[twb1621]

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.

 

[guanophore]

How is that possible since sacred Tradition is what produced the Bible? There is a fundamental rule in reasoning that I am trying to think of that applies here, but my mind is blank (very normal for me). It’s something like, “The thing produced cannot be greater than the source.” Maybe someone can help me here.

Also, you did not answer my question. What Scriptures alone were the early Christians using before the Catholic Council of Rome decided the Canon of Scripture?

I agree with your points, I just want to add some history on the canon. Although the decision of the councils were ratified by the successor of Peter, there were earlier proclamations on the canon:

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was mentioned by Irenaeus, c. 160. Adversus Haereses 3.11.8

By the early 200’s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena). Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon, and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them.
The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382 issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above. Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.

 

[Lampo]

I agree with your points, I just want to add some history on the canon. Although the decision of the councils were ratified by the successor of Peter, there were earlier proclamations on the canon:

A four gospel canon (the Tetramorph) was mentioned by Irenaeus, c. 160. Adversus Haereses 3.11.8

By the early 200’s, Origen of Alexandria may have been using the same 27 books found in modern New Testament editions, though there were still disputes over the canonicity of Hebrews, James, II Peter, II and III John, and Revelation (see also Antilegomena). Likewise by 200 the Muratorian fragment shows that there existed a set of Christian writings somewhat similar to what is now the New Testament, which included four gospels and argued against objections to them. Thus, while there was a good measure of debate in the Early Church over the New Testament canon, the major writings were accepted by almost all Christians by the middle of the second century.

In his Easter letter of 367, Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, gave a list of exactly the same books as what would become the New Testament canon, and he used the word “canonized” (kanonizomena) in regards to them.
The African Synod of Hippo, in 393, approved the New Testament, as it stands today, together with the Septuagint books, a decision that was repeated by Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419. Pope Damasus I’s Council of Rome in 382 issued a biblical canon identical to that mentioned above. Damasus’s commissioning of the Latin Vulgate edition of the Bible, c. 383, was instrumental in the fixation of the canon in the West. In 405, Pope Innocent I sent a list of the sacred books to a Gallic bishop, Exsuperius of Toulouse. When these bishops and councils spoke on the matter, however, they were not defining something new, but instead “were ratifying what had already become the mind of the Church.” Thus, from the fourth century, there existed unanimity in the West concerning the New Testament canon (as it is today), and by the fifth century the East, with a few exceptions, had come to accept the Book of Revelation and thus had come into harmony on the matter of the canon.

Very cool. Thank you. Am I correct in thinking that before the Council of Rome, the Church had not yet determined which books were inspired? There were individuals using the the exact same canon that would later be declared inspired but before that time they did not have certainty?

 

[guanophore]

What you are saying here is that a previous pope was in error

I am sadly able to quickly concede that there have been a number of popes who have erred.

since his understanding of “Church Doctrine” was incorrect and false.

There have been popes and bishops (members of the Magesterium) whose doctrine was incorrect and false. At times, this has been the source of their errors. At other times, there are other sources, such as worldly or devilish thinking, selfishness, or other sins that are not related to a right understanding of doctrine. For example, Peter, our first Pope, behaved hypocritically when he did not follow his own teaching on Gentile Christians.

He also fell into thinking like the devil when he tried to pursuade Jesus not to go to Jerusalem. Jesus said to him “get thee behind me, satan!” Must have really hurt ol’ Pete’s feelings.

The proof for this is that a later pope or council had to correct this.

Men are always prone to error, and in need of correction and reform.

How could this kind of thing happen if all popes are supposedly guided by the HS?

The gift of infalliblity belongs to the Church. Individuals only enjoy the protection of it when they are in perfect union with Christ, who is the Head, and the Source of infallibility. To the extent that anyone fails in connection to the Head, that individual does not enjoy the gift of infallibility.

How can you claim there is even one church in catholicism when the Eastern Orthodox and the Roman Catholic church are not united? These are 2 disctinct churches that claim to be of the apostles.

No, there is only One Body, the Church. Jesus did not come to found “churches”. He prayed for unity, because He expects us all to be one. Our schisms and separations are a result of our sins. they are not God’s will.

John 17:22-24
2 The glory that you have given me I have given them, **so that they may be one, as we are one, ** 23 I in them and you in me, that they may become completely one, so that the world may know that you have sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me. 24 Father, I desire that those also, whom you have given me, may be with me where I am, to see my glory, which you have given me because you loved me before the foundation of the world."

 

[guanophore]

In the 11th century the Great Schism took place between Rome and Constantinople, which led to separation of the Church of the West, the Roman Catholic Church, and the Eastern Orthodox Church. There were doctrinal issues and the authority of the Roman Catholic Pope" This tells us that the Eastern Orth. broke away from the Catholic Church into their own denomination. (The Catholic Church always had a Pope, who was always the Bishop of Rome. EO had no Pope after this split

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.

involved in the split, but these were exacerbated by cultural and linguistic differences between Latins and Greeks. Prior to that, the Eastern and Western halves of the Church had frequently been in conflict, particularly during periods of iconoclasm and the Photian schism.

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

The final breach is often considered to have arisen after the capture and sacking of Constantinople by the Fourth Crusade in 1204; the final break with Rome occurred circa 1450.