sola scriptura

[PRmerger]

In other words - the Church was without error when settling the canon of Sacred Scripture.

I never said otherwise

Excellent.

So you are acknowledging that:

1. You rely on a Church, NOT the Bible, to proclaim a truth regarding God’s revelation.
2. You acknowledge that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility.
3. And that this charism of infallibility was not a one time event. This ability to proclaim a truth of God without error occurred multiple times throughout history: at the Council of Rome in 382, the Church decided upon a canon of 46 Old Testament books and 27 in the New Testament. This decision was affirmed by the councils at Hippo (393), Carthage (397, 419), II Nicea (787), Florence (1442), and Trent (1546).

Yes? Gaelic?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Excellent.

So you are acknowledging that:

1. You rely on a Church, NOT the Bible, to proclaim a truth regarding God’s revelation.

Yes. All of the church. Not just a caste within it. I do not substiture the word magisterium whenever church appears in the Scripture. As for relying on the Bible, without revelation, the church has nothing to proclaim.

1. You acknowledge that the Church has been given the charism of infallibility.

No, I don’t. No moreso than when someone is inerrant on anything else. I don’t ascribe divine attributes to human beings.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes. All of the church. Not just a caste within it. I do not substiture the word magisterium whenever church appears in the Scripture. As for relying on the Bible, without revelation, the church has nothing to proclaim.

How does this work then? There were some individuals in the Church who claimed that the Shepherd of Hermas was inspired. Why don’t you submit to their authority?

 

[PRmerger]

As for relying on the Bible, without revelation, the church has nothing to proclaim.

Except for the canon of Scripture, right?

Except that which she binds and looses, also, right?

No, I don’t. No moreso than when someone is inerrant on anything else.

Sure. You are acknowledging that people have been given the charism of infallibility (under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, of course)

That’s huge, Gaelic. Huge. :clapping:

I don’t ascribe divine attributes to human beings.

Really? The Scriptures do.

Are you not now proclaiming something that is contrary to Scripture?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

How does this work then? There were some individuals in the Church who claimed that the Shepherd of Hermas was inspired. Why don’t you submit to their authority?

For the same reason you don’t. The Shepherd of Herrmas is a non-apostolic document, having been composed in the early to mid 2nd century.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Except for the canon of Scripture, right?

Except that which she binds and looses, also, right?

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Without a canon of scripture, the church couldn’t proclaim a canon of scripture. Which came first, PR, revelation or the reception of revelation?

Sure. You are acknowledging that people have been given the charism of infallibility (under the assistance of the Holy Spirit, of course)

That’s huge, Gaelic. Huge. :clapping:

The revelation was infallible.That is, the teaching.

Really? The Scriptures do.

Are you not now proclaiming something that is contrary to Scripture?

Really? When do the Scriptures do that?

 

[Mickey]

Historical narrative.

This is your response to the Catholic/Orthodox belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist? Can you be a bit more candid?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

This is your response to the Catholic/Orthodox belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist? Can you be a bit more candid?

The original post to which I was replying was Newman’s statement that we are somehow unable to tell the difference between different literary styles in Scripture. I was asked about Christ’s statement in the upper room. The genre is historical narrative.

 

[Mickey]

The original post to which I was replying was Newman’s statement that we are somehow unable to tell the difference between different literary styles in Scripture. I was asked about Christ’s statement in the upper room. The genre is historical narrative.

You were asked specifically about the interpretation of Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps you could answer that now?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

You were asked specifically about the interpretation of Body and Blood of Christ. Perhaps you could answer that now?

Sure. I believe it to be in the covenantal context of figurative language.

 

[Mickey]

Sure. I believe it to be in the covenantal context of figurative language.

Figurative only?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Figurative only?

Yes.

 

[Mickey]

Yes.

Interesting. To me it is very clear from the Sacred Scriptures. The Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is central to the Holy Orthodox faith. And yet you (or should I say your Baptist teachers) glean a different understanding. I am confident that 2000 years’ worth of teaching by the consensus of the Church Fathers, Ecumenical Councils and Synods, Saints and confessors, etc……supports the interpretation of the Real Presence. And yet here you are……saying it is figurative only.

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Interesting. To me it is very clear from the Sacred Scriptures. The Real Presence of Christ in the Holy Eucharist is central to the Holy Orthodox faith. And yet you (or should I say your Baptist teachers) glean a different understanding. I am confident that 2000 years’ worth of teaching by the consensus of the Church Fathers, Ecumenical Councils and Synods, Saints and confessors, etc……supports the interpretation of the Real Presence. And yet here you are……saying it is figurative only.

Aside from disagreeing about any consensus of the ECF’s, I already knew you disagreed, Mickey

 

[Mickey]

Aside from disagreeing about any consensus of the ECF’s, I already knew you disagreed, Mickey

Well…for you to attempt to prove that the consensus of the Fathers did support the understanding of the Real Presence would be quite a feat.

But my point is: Something so clear to Catholics/Orthodox in Scripture is not so clear to say…Baptists and pentecostals.

 

[PRmerger]

For the same reason you don’t.

Because I submit to the authority of the Catholic Church?

Ok.

So why do you think the Church got it right, multiple times, on the Canon, but got it wrong (on all the areas where you think she got it wrong)?

e Shepherd of Herrmas is a non-apostolic document, having been composed in the early to mid 2nd century.

What about Hebrews? Is that apostolic? And the Gospel of Mark? Who wrote that?
And how do you know?

 

[PRmerger]

I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Without a canon of scripture, the church couldn’t proclaim a canon of scripture. Which came first, PR, revelation or the reception of revelation?

Tradition came first, Gaelic.

And that prompts another acknowledgement that must logically come from your admission that the Catholic Church discerned the canon for you.

You acknowledge that Sacred Tradition is part of God’s Word.

The revelation was infallible.That is, the teaching.

And that the Church was infallible in discerning this.

There can be no other conclusion, Gaelic. :nope:

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Because I submit to the authority of the Catholic Church?

So you think the church just sat down and arbitraily said the Shepherd of Hermas is not inspired. Is that how you think they handled canonization? Or did they have a reason to reject it?

 

[PRmerger]

Really? When do the Scriptures do that?

How about when Peter walks on water.

Or when Peter heals. (In fact, he heals just through his shadow!)

Or when Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Moses, Peter write infallible encyclicals.

All of those things are, as you claim, are divine attributes.

Oh, and I just thought of another: Paul says that *he *saves. Salvation is, of course, the purview of the Divine, right?

 

[Gaelic_Bard]

Tradition came first, Gaelic.

And that prompts another acknowledgement that must logically come from your admission that the Catholic Church discerned the canon for you.

You acknowledge that Sacred Tradition is part of God’s Word.

So tradition came before revelation, PR?

And that the Church was infallible in discerning this.

There can be no other conclusion, Gaelic. :nope:

How do you know?