Sola Scriptura...

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I’ve enjoyed chatting with you. You are intelligent, well read and articulate. You don’t waste your time with slander and you argue from a position of charity and sympathy.

I guess I can still remember my own thoughts on this matter when I myself was a conservative protestant-- and yes I do remember when some Catholics told me I was wrong and seemed to take delight in it. But I also remember some Catholics who took the time to really explain these things patiently out of love too.

Steadfast:

I wish that could be said for others here, but since it can’t and since I have such a very hard time suffering fools gladly, I will probably be banned soon.

All the best,
Mike

Well…to be clear, I do think that others here have much to offer. Perhaps the questions aren’t phrased nicely. But the questions that are being asked are very good ones nonetheless. Many of your questions you might have can be found answered rather well here at Catholic answers.

Please bear in mind, however, that even as you feel that we are distorting God’s word, we also somewhat feel the same away about other’s thoughts regarding ‘true’ Christianity too. In other words, it goes both ways.

Don’t get me wrong. I myself lose my temper too. For example, if someone tells me over and over again that they are not prepared to discuss church authority, and yet they persistently make accusations against the Catholic Church’s authority, I tend to get a little irked when I’m really trying to honor their wishes even though they are not actually doing what they’re claming to do. When this thread was up before the forums went through the upgrade, a situation like this did occur to me and I got seriously angry.

Nonetheless, if one can look past that combative part of these kinds of conversations and listen by the Holy Spirit to what God himself is actually saying through these people despite their downfalls, I think it can really develop good charity and character inside the person who is patiently willing to listen. In fact, I’d say this is typically what defines a very Catholic approach to the developments of Church history-- an ability to perceive the fullness of truth despite humanities own downfalls, including our own.

Just saying.

 

[onmywayagain]

Well, alrighty then.

You can pick up your Pom Poms in the director’s office.

:yawn:

 

[AugustineH354]

Personally, I have no problem with the concept of *sola scriptura *if one understands it from a materially sufficient viewpoint (the position of the ECF’s and many post V2 Catholic scholars). Note what Rahner had to say:

I would like, however, to try in the last part of our reflections to bring forward certain reasons for our not needing to accept – not even from a Catholic point of view – a constitutive material function of tradition which goes beyond the testimony of the nature of scripture; that we can say conversely, therefore, that it is entirely possible to formulate a Catholic sola scriptura principle with regard to the Church’s deposit of faith, *provided *that we understand this in a Catholic sense and therefore understand it to involve also an authoritative attestation and interpretation of holy scripture by the living word of the Church and her magisterium, and an attestation of scripture itself and its authoritative interpretation which cannot be replaced by scripture itself. (Karl Rahner, *Theological Investigations *vol. 6, p. 107.)

Newman approximated the same a century earlier:

You have made a collection of passages from the Fathers, as witnesses in behalf of your doctrine that the whole Christian faith is contained in Scripture, as if, in your sense of the words, Catholics contradicted you here. And you refer to my Notes on St. Athanasius as contributing passages to your list; But, after all, neither you, nor I in my Notes, affirm any doctrine which Rome denies. Those Notes also make frequent reference to a traditional teaching, which (be the faith ever so contained in Scripture), still is necessary as a Regula Fidei, for showing us that it is contained there; vid. Pp. 283-431; and this tradition, I know, you uphold as fully as I do in the Notes in question. In consequence, you allow that there is a two-fold rule, Scripture and Tradition; and this is all that Catholics say. How, then do Anglicans differ from Rome here? I believe the difference is merely one of words…(John Henry Newman, Certain Difficulties Felt By Anglicans In Catholic Teaching Considered, vol. 2, pp. 11, 12.)

In interpreting Scripture, Athan, always assumes that the Catholic teaching is true and the Scripture must be explained by it…

The great and essential difference between Catholics and non-Catholics was, that Catholics interpreted Scripture by Tradition, and non-Catholics by their own private judgment.

That not only Arians, but heretics generally, professed to be guided by Scripture, we know from many witnesses.” (John Henry Newman, Treatises of Athanasius, vol. 2.264.)

Grace and peace,

Aug

 

[Syele]

Well, alrighty then.

You can pick up your Pom Poms in the director’s office.

Mr. Ex Nihilo, please accept my aplogies for entering you thread again. I was looking for something and that was funny.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Mr. Ex Nihilo, please accept my aplogies for entering you thread again. I was looking for something and that was funny.

Don’t worry about it Syele.

Keep in mind that this isn’t my forum so feel free to comment as you see fit.

Just please don’t start telling me you’re not prepared to discuss church authority and then move on to talking about church authority again…ok?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Concerning the early fathers testimony to the accuracy of the Scriptures, I would like to resubmit a portion of the article that I submitted in the first thread…

Historians have recovered almost one hundred thousand manuscripts and letters from the first few centuries of this era that were composed by Christian writers. These numerous letters and books written by the early Christian Fathers contain an astonishing 99 percent of the almost 8000 verses in the New Testament demonstrating the profound love of the Scriptures in the life of the young Church.

The scholars Norman Geisler and William Nix documented the astonishing number of N.T. verses that were actually quoted by the early Church Fathers in the 2nd and 3rd centuries.

A brief inventory at this point will reveal that there were some 32,000 citations of the New Testament prior to the time of the Council of Nicea.

One Christian writer, Origen, quoted individual N.T. verses 17,922 times according to the work of Geisler and Nix.

Geisler and Nix quoted from the original exhaustive research by the biblical scholar Sir David Dabrymple who completed an astonishing survey of every N.T. verse that was quoted by Church Fathers before the A.D. 325 Council of Nicea.

Dabrymple declared:

You remember the question about the New Testament and the Fathers? That question roused my curiosity, and as I possessed all the existing works of the Fathers of the second and third centuries, I commenced to search, and up to this time I have found the entire New Testament, except eleven verses.

In other words, even if the Romans had succeeded in destroying the New Testament, we could still reliably reconstruct 99 percent of the New Testament text from these numerous surviving quotations. This fact shows the absolute reliability and integrity of the surviving text of the New Testament as it exists today.

For the record, although I do strongly disagree with Grant R. Jeffrey’s thoughts on some theological matters (such as the rapture of the church for example), I’ve found thoughts like these regarding the early fathers to be an area in which I strongly agree with him.

In fact, it seems to me that an investigation like this into the profound influence of the early fathers in preserving the Scriptural record (even despite the intense persecutions they underwent) agrees very well with a more thoroughly Catholic understanding of church history than than the protestant understanding.

To be honest, I sometimes wonder if I will some time see Grant on an episode of THE JOURNEY HOME on EWTN. Even if I don’t necessarilly agree with his views, he seems to be one of the few evangelicals I know of who takes the time to seriously investigate the early history of the church.

In other words, not only do I agree with the accuracy and reliability of the Scriptures, but I also agree that God must have been at work by the Holy Spirit in those who were preserving the Scriptural record for us our later generations as well.

Having said this, however, it does bring up an extremely valid question in regards to the various ideas concerning those who hold to some form of Sola Scriptura…

If the early fathers are considered trustworthy enough to faithfully verify and hand down the Scriptural record for our spiritual edification in our modern era, then why are their traditional thoughts regarding the Church so easilly simultaniously dismissed in the process?

I don’t think I’m forcing a conclusion here when I present the idea that the faithful witness of the early fathers demonstrates a very clear example of how the Catholic Church sees her history as being infalliably handed down despite own own downfalls. In fact, when comparing their transmission of the Scriptures to our modern day with the Scriptural examples of the Scriptures being handed down from the apostles to the disciples and beyond to the early fathers again, it seems to me that nothing has changed regarding church history.

The pattern appears to be entirely consistent with the Scriptural record of how Christ chose to reveal his will (ultimately by the Holy Spirit) to all who believe on his name.

 

[Syele]

Don’t worry about it Syele.

Keep in mind that this isn’t my forum so feel free to comment as you see fit.

Just please don’t start telling me you’re not prepared to discuss church authority and then move on to talking about church authority again…ok?

ok just don’t go asking me questions about stuff I say I don’t wanna talk about, deal?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Yes, but what do the early church fathers say about the sufficiency of scripture?

Actually, I think a more interesting question might be what each individual considered valid Scripture to begin with. There doesn’t seem to be as strong of a concensus as some would like to see.

Anyway, let us now reply to this…

St. Irenaeus of Lyons
For the record, there appears to be no mention of Philemon, II Peter, III John, nor Jude in the existing body of St. Irenaeus’s writings.

It is also interesting to note that St. Irenaeus considered the Shepherd of Hermas to be Scripture. He also considered I Clement to be of value too, perhaps even authoritative, though I am uncertain if he considered the work to be Scriptural.

Interesting Facts: After the discovery of the gnostic library near Nag Hammadi in Egypt in the 1940s, respect for Irenaeus increased. He was proved to have been extremely precise in his report of the doctrines he rejected. In other words, in this regard, his writings were proven historically accurate.

St. Athanasius
St. Athanasius is apparently the first person to identify the same 27 books of the New Testament that are in use today. Pope Damasus, the Bishop of Rome in 382, promulgated a list of books which contained a New Testament canon identical to that of St. Athanasius. A synod in Hippone in 393 repeated St. Athansius’ list (without the Epistle to the Hebrews). A synod in Carthage in 397 repeated Athanasius’ list.

St. Athanasius apparently excluded the Book of Esther which is placed among the apocrypha along with the Wisdom of Solomon, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), Judith, Tobit, the Didache, and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Interesting Facts: Because St. Athanasius’ canon is the closest canon of any of the church fathers to the canon used by protestant churches today many protestants point to St. Athanasius as the father of the canon.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

St. Cyril of Jerusalem
It is noteworthy that the Revelation of John is not included in his canonical list.

I’ll be looking more into his thoughts on the Scriptural canon later.

Interesting Facts: St. Cyril claimed that manicheans wrote a Gospel according to Thomas, “which being smeared with the fragrance of the name ‘Gospel’ destroys the souls of those who are rather simple-minded”.

St. Augustine of Hippo
Until the 4th century most Christians used the LXX as the basis for the Old Testament. St. Augustine, arguing from tradition, wanted all the deuterocanonical books included in new vulgate translation.

Interesting Facts: St. Augustine apparently used an Old Latin version of the Old Testament. He actually prefered this even after he became acquainted with St. Jerome’s ‘new translation’ from the Hebrew (aka: The Vulgate). St. Augustine apparently disapproved of the new translation because he believed that the Greek LXX had been inspired– and that it was presumptuous for a single scholar to undertake such a revision.

St. John Chrysostom:
His followers employed a canon in which the Apocalypse, II Peter, II and III John, and Jude had no place.

I will be reading a bit more about St. John Chrysostom later.

St. Basil the Great.
“Do you want to know what Christians believe about something?” to paraphrase Saint Basil’s argument. “Take a look at what they do and proclaim in their worship.”

St. Basil’s canon seems to be similar to St. John Chrysostom’s by the way…though I could be wrong since I’m getting tired of searching for this.

I’ll look into this further too.

Interesting Facts: His his scientific views…

There are other examples too.

Eusebius felt that the Acts of the Apostles, the epistles of Paul, the epistle of John, the epistle of Peter were accepted writings. He felt the rejected writings included The Shepherd of Hermas, the Apocalypse of Peter, the epistle of Barnabas, the Teachings of the Apostles; the Apocalypse of John, and the Gospel according to the Hebrews (which claimed that the Holy Spirit was Jesus’ mother).

Origen accepted 22 canonical books of the Hebrews plus Maccabees plus the four Gospels but Paul “did not so much as write to all the churches that he taught; and even to those to which he wrote he sent but a few lines.”

Many of the Greek fathers included some apocryphal books in the Septuagint with little distinction made between them and the rest of the Old Testament.

The Book of Enoch is included in the biblical canon only of the Oriental Orthodox churches. However, the Epistle of Jude quotes the prophet, Enoch, by name, and use of this book appears in the four gospels and 1 Peter. The genuineness and inspiration of Enoch were believed in by the writer of the Epistle of Barnabas, Irenaeus, Tertullian and Clement of Alexandria, and much of the early church.

The epistles of Paul and the gospels also show influences from the Book of Jubilees, which is part of the Oriental Orthodox canon, as well as the Assumption of Moses and the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, which are included in no biblical canon.

It is an undispoted fact that the Jewish deuterocanonicals were part of the ordinary religious literature of many early Christians. This was not strange, as the large majority of Old Testament references in the New Testament are taken from the Greek Septuagint, which is the source of the deuterocanonical books.

In addition to this, the New Testament seems to draw some themes from these deutrocanonical books. Examples include James 1:19 showing dependence on Sirach 5:11, Hebrews 1:3 on Wisdom 7:26, Hebrews 11:35 on 2 Maccabees 6, Romans 9:21 on Wisdom 15:7, and 2 Cor. 5:1, 4 on Wisdom 9:15, etc.

And, as far as others who spoke concerning what was considered valid Scripture, consider the following link. I know that Wikipedia might not be the most accurate place to find information, but if even half this information is accurate, it gets kinda nutty after a while.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

ok just don’t go asking me questions about stuff I say I don’t wanna talk about, deal?

Then don’t provide answers to questions that you do not feel you are prepared to debate.

 

[Syele]

!

 

[jAlex]

!

Good morning! :tiphat:
I see you’re in a good mood today…
Ready for another Sola Scriptura round ?

Alex

 

[Syele]

Good morning! :tiphat:
I see you’re in a good mood today…
Ready for another Sola Scriptura round ?

Alex

My Being in this thread is just horsing around a bit with our friend Mr. Ex Nihilo. He and I have already had quite a good round. I see no reason to repeat it.

Besides it’s fairly pointless for me to argue for Sola Scriptura when I don’t offically qualify as a Sola Scriptura Believer.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

My Being in this thread is just horsing around a bit with our friend Mr. Ex Nihilo. He and I have already had quite a good round. I see no reason to repeat it.

Syele is right. Don’t take our bantering back and forth too seriously folks.

Hey Syele…

Syele:

Besides it’s fairly pointless for me to argue for Sola Scriptura when I don’t offically qualify as a Sola Scriptura Believer.

And that was one of the main points of my making this thread. Sola Scriptura, upon closer examination, really isn’t Sola Scriptura at all. It’s tradition-- that is, traditional interpretations according to Luther, or Calvin, or Knox or Armenius for example

At least, there doesn’t seem to be any strong working definition of it that doesn’t somehow involve one also…

a) …requiring knowledge of the Hebrew, Aramaic and lalter Greek languages spoken by the authors and transcribers,

b) …the cultural practices, including the archeological and geographical evidences of those people the Scriptures describe, such as the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Assyrians for example,

c) …and a basic understanding of the history of the Israelites coupled with at least some basic claim to knowledge of the early church in relation to what the Scriptures from both before Christ and after Christ actually describe.

In short, if Sola Scriptura requires all these things to clearly understand the Scriptures, then the people who uphold some form of Sola Scriptura aren’t really talking about relying solely upon the Scriptures at all. In fact, in this context noted above anyway, they’re really talking about Sacred History, which is what the Catholic Church has been teaching since the beginning.

 

[Syele]

Syele is right. Don’t take our bantering back and forth too seriously folks.

Hey Syele…

:bigyikes: That’s a scary lookin’ tongue!

And that was one of the main points of my making this thread. Sola Scriptura, upon closer examination, really isn’t Sola Scriptura at all. It’s tradition-- that is, traditional interpretations according to Luther, or Calvin, or Knox or Armenius for example

At least, there doesn’t seem to be any strong working definition of it that doesn’t somehow involve one also…a) …requiring knowledge of the Hebrew, Aramaic and lalter Greek languages spoken by the authors and transcribers,

b) …the cultural practices, including the archeological and geographical evidences of those people the Scriptures describe, such as the Babylonians, Egyptians, and Assyrians for example,

c) …and a basic understanding of the history of the Israelites coupled with at least some basic claim to knowledge of the early church in relation to what the Scriptures from both before Christ and after Christ actually describe.In short, if Sola Scriptura requires all these things to clearly understand the Scriptures, then the people who uphold some form of Sola Scriptura aren’t really talking about relying solely upon the Scriptures at all. In fact, in this context noted above anyway, they’re really talking about Sacred History, which is what the Catholic Church has been teaching since the beginning.

[sign]Nicely put. [/sign]

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Since its unlikely that Luther would have used the expression “Natural Law” and since I haven’t read everything he ever wrote, I will confess some doubt as to what you’re talking about here.

I have to confess that I am unsure how it is said in German. However, Luther was very much familiar with Catholic thoughts of natural law-- particularly St. Thomas Aquinas’ thoughts on it from the 1200’s if I recall correctly. And the Book of Concord does make an appeal to this theory when denouncing some Catholic beliefs.

While I may not necessarilly agree with all the opinions expressed within this article, I think it does give an interesting perspective on its development through human history-- a perspective that, in many ways, Luther collegiates seemed to adhere too.

An Overview of Natural Law Theory
by Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D.

It is this sense that Luther’s collegiate, influenced by Luther’s thoughts, made their appeal to natural law in regards to Justification…
Article IV (II): Of Justification.:

Of these two parts the adversaries select the Law, because human reason naturally understands, in some way, the Law (for it has the same judgment divinely written in the mind); [the **natural law

agrees with the law of Moses, or the Ten Commandments] and by the Law they seek the remission of sins and justification.

In regards to marriage here…
Article XXIII (XI): Of the Marriage of Priests.:

We cannot approve this law concerning celibacy which the adversaries defend, because it conflicts with divine and natural law, and is at variance with the very canons of the Councils. And that it is superstitious and dangerous is evident. For it produces infinite scandals, sins, and corruption of public morals [as is seen in the real towns of priests, or, as they are called, their residences]. Our other controversies need some discussion by the doctors; in this the subject is so manifest to both parties that it requires no discussion. It only requires as judge a man that is honest and fears God. And although the manifest truth is defended by us, yet the adversaries have devised certain reproaches for satirizing our arguments.

And here again…
Article XXIII (XI): Of the Marriage of Priests.:

We have explained the reasons why we cannot assent with a good conscience to the adversaries when they defend the pontifical law concerning perpetual celibacy, because it conflicts with divine and natural law and is at variance with the canons themselves, and is superstitious and full of danger, and, lastly, because the whole affair is insincere. For the law is enacted not for the sake of religion [not for holiness’ sake, or because they do not know better; they know very well that everybody is well acquainted with the condition of the great cloisters, which we are able to name], but for the sake of dominion, and this is wickedly given the pretext of religion. Neither can anything be produced by sane men against these 61] most firmly established reasons. The Gospel allows marriage to those to whom it is necessary. Nevertheless, it does not compel those to marry who can be continent, provided they be truly continent. We hold that this liberty should also be conceded to the priests, nor do we wish to compel any one by force to celibacy, nor to dissolve marriages that have been contracted.

continued…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

And also in regards to the distinction between the law and the gospel…
V. OF THE LAW AND THE GOSPEL.:

Therefore every penitent sinner ought to believe, that is, place his confidence in the Lord Christ alone, that He was delivered for our offenses, and was raised again for our justification, Rom. 4, 25, that He was made sin for us who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him, 2 Cor. 5, 21, who of God is made unto us Wisdom, and Righteousness, and Sanctification, and Redemption, 1 Cor. 1, 30, whose obedience is counted to us for righteousness before God’s strict tribunal, so that the Law, as above set forth, is a ministration that kills through the letter and preaches condemnation, 2 Cor. 3, 7, but the Gospel is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth, Rom. 1, 16, that preaches righteousness and gives the Spirit, 1 Cor. 1, 18; Gal. 3, 2. As Dr. Luther has urged this distinction with especial diligence in nearly all his writings, and has properly shown that the knowledge of God derived from the Gospel is far different from that which is taught and learned from the Law, because even the heathen to a certain extent had a knowledge of God from the natural law, although they neither knew Him aright nor glorified Him aright, Rom. 1, 20f.

And also of the Eucharist itself…
VII. OF THE HOLY SUPPER.:

Even as Abraham, when he hears God’s Word concerning offering his son, although, indeed, he had cause enough for disputing as to whether the words should be understood according to the letter or with a tolerable or mild interpretation, since they conflicted openly not only with all reason and with the divine and natural law, but also with the chief article of faith concerning the promised Seed, Christ, who was to be born of Isaac, nevertheless, just as previously, when the promise of the blessed Seed from Isaac was given him, he gave God the honor of truth, and most confidently concluded and believed that what God promised He could also do, although it appeared impossible to his reason; so also here he understands and believes God’s Word and command plainly and simply, as they read according to the letter, and commits the matter to God’s omnipotence and wisdom, which, he knows, has many more modes and ways to fulfil the promise of the Seed from Isaac than he can comprehend with his blind reason;—

So while I admit that Luther most certainly did not focus exclusively on the natural law, it still nonethless seems to be a common theme found within his arguments which makes an appeal to the self-evident nature of what he claims to be truth.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

It’s a tangent, but your exaltation of virginity, many of your teachings on the Mother of God, and especially your quasi-aristotelian conception of the Eucharist with it’s denial of accidental persistence are all symptoms, of if not gnosticism per se, certainly Greek philosophical conceptions.

Tertullian wasn’t right about a lot of things, but his question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?” was trenchant.

It is interesting that Pope Benedict XVI’s speech addressed this very claim you have made above.

Here is his quoted words…
Pope Benedict XVI:

The thesis that the critically purified Greek heritage forms an integral part of Christian faith has been countered by the call for a de-Hellenization of Christianity – a call which has more and more dominated theological discussions since the beginning of the modern age. Viewed more closely, three stages can be observed in the program of de-Hellenization: Although interconnected, they are clearly distinct from one another in their motivations and objectives.

De-Hellenization first emerges in connection with the fundamental postulates of the Reformation in the 16th century. Looking at the tradition of scholastic theology, the Reformers thought they were confronted with a faith system totally conditioned by philosophy, that is to say an articulation of the faith based on an alien system of thought. As a result, faith no longer appeared as a living historical Word but as one element of an overarching philosophical system.

The principle of “sola scriptura,” on the other hand, sought faith in its pure, primordial form, as originally found in the biblical Word. Metaphysics appeared as a premise derived from another source, from which faith had to be liberated in order to become once more fully itself. When Kant stated that he needed to set thinking aside in order to make room for faith, he carried this program forward with a radicalism that the Reformers could never have foreseen. He thus anchored faith exclusively in practical reason, denying it access to reality as a whole.

The liberal theology of the 19th and 20th centuries ushered in a second stage in the process of de-Hellenization, with Adolf von Harnack as its outstanding representative. When I was a student, and in the early years of my teaching, this program was highly influential in Catholic theology too. It took as its point of departure Pascal’s distinction between the God of the philosophers and the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

 

[cet]

Thank you LSK.

I think that’s very true. Many who promote the idea of Sola Scriptura seem to give relatively no serious thought about how the Scriptures were actually handed down and brought together by the Catholic Church. I had discussed this in detail in the previous thread about how 99% of the Scriptures can be verified using the early fathers alone. I really hope I can retrieve some of that information because it really struck home in my opinion.

Hi, first post here… just want to pitch in on this topic…

I seem to recall that there was a person from antioch named Lucian, witch collected the Greek new testament, and this is the manuscript that we today know as Textus Receptus. Witch is the most reliable group of manuscripts.

Kind Regards
Carl Erik Tengesdal

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Steadfast:

What about when Catholics misunderstand the Bible?

I’m not feeling good today, but I came across some thoughts I posted before and didn’t get an answer to. So I thought I’d repost this from another thread to see if I could get any response.

As I already said before, when I picture an original deposit of divine revelation which cannot be added to, I’m picturing the church being given the answer to a very deep mathematical question and also being given the knowledge to figure out the answer to that question.

So while the answer may already be given, and while we have the skill and knowledge to calculate the answer, there still remains much work to do in order to explain how we actually get from the original question to the answer.

In this sense, no error will occur as far as the final answer is concerned-- because we already know the answer given by God.

Likewise, we do have the skills necessary to calculate the answer-- but we might not always be completely accurate when explaining how we arrive at this answer.

wfu.edu/~ekh/maple/taylor…s/remainex.jpg

In other words, the answer is infalliably correct. But our explanation of how this answer is reached using the skills we have available to us may not be complete to the point that when we explain it beyond what we honestly understand the explanation does in fact confuse others from what’s actually going on.

I’m not familiar with his throughts on purgatory, but the example of St. Thomas More’s thoughts on purgatory were given in the other thread and are possibly an excellent example of this. If accurate, Tertullian had thoughts about Purgatory similar to St. Thomas More’s thoughts. And yet we are now more aware of what’s going on.

Jimmy Akin does a really good job of explaining the refinement of the Catholic explanation of this refinement process that is believed to occur during the soul’s transition through purgatory…

The final purification may take place in the immediate presence of God (to the extent that God’s presence may be described in spatial terms). In fact, in his book on eschatology, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger describes purgatory as a fiery, transforming encounter with Christ and his love:"Purgatory is not, as Tertullian thought, some kind of supra-worldly concentration camp where one is forced to undergo punishments in a more or less arbitrary fashion. Rather it is the inwardly necessary process of transformation in which a person becomes capable of Christ, capable of God * and thus capable of unity with the whole communion of saints. Simply to look at people with any degree of realism at all is to grasp the necessity of such a process. It does not replace grace by works, but allows the former to achieve its full victory precisely as grace. What actually saves is the full assent of faith. But in most of us, that basic option is buried under a great deal of wood, hay and straw. Only with difficulty can it peer out from behind the latticework of an egoism we are powerless to pull down with our own hands. Man is the recipient of the divine mercy, yet this does not exonerate him from the need to be transformed. Encounter with the Lord is* this transformation. It is the fire that burns away our dross and re-forms us to be vessels of eternal joy."Thus according to Ratzinger’s way of explaining the doctrine, as we are drawn out of this life and into direct union with Jesus, his fiery love and holiness burns away all the dross and impurities in our souls and makes us fit for life in the glorious, overwhelming light of God’s presence and holiness.

We now know Ratzinger as his holiness Pope Benedict XVI.

Anyway, I digress.

Do you see what I mean though?

The final deposit has been given. So too have we been given the tools to calculate the answer. But our explanation of the answer may not always be precise-- which is the reason why we have authoritive ecumenical councils to refine these ideas throughout church history.

This is a fairly simple explanation that I would like to expand upon further in regards to the question of the original deposit of divine revelation which cannot be added to.

Anybody have any thoughts on this?