Sola Scriptura ?

[Teflon93]

What is the “sola scriptura strain”? What counts as an “authority”? This is simply way too vague. As mercygate said, it certainly doesn’t describe my position or that of Anglicans generally–or that of modern Methodists (the other Protestant tradition with which I have some affiliation). I’m not sure it even describes the “classical Protestant” view, and for that matter I know Baptists who would disagree with it.

Not by the Catholic Church of twenty-one Councils. Not by the Catholic Church that recognizes papal infallibility, and whose bishops are appointed by the bishop of Rome. Not by the Catholic Church that issues indulgences. Not by the Catholic Church that declares the Assumption and Immaculate Conception to be dogmas.

Speaking for myself, and for Anglicans and other high-church Protestants more generally, we certainly recognize the authority of the Catholic Church as it existed in the fourth century (to which you allude in point 2). The question is: how is that Church related to the various churches that exist today. You simply assume that the contemporary Roman Communion is identical to the early Catholic Church. I maintain, on the other hand, that all Trinitarian Christians are in some sense part of that Church, and Vatican II agrees with me to some extent, while trying to maintain the essence of the older, more exclusive position as well (in a manner that is very clever, but a bit ambiguous).

No, you completely misunderstood me there. The Church is never invisible. It is marked out by creeds, sacraments, the episcopate, and many other visible things. The Church’s unity is never entirely visible in this life, as long as some of the elect remain outside the visible boundaries of the Church, or out of full communion with each other.

You aren’t stupid. You’re just indulging in the natural human weakness of thinking your opponents are more stupid than they are!

In Christ,

Edwin

So at what point did Christ withdraw the authority he granted to the Catholic Church through the first four centuries?

As for the rest, the incoherence of Protestantism is hardly something you can put on Catholics!

Protestants pretty much believe everything under the sun except that the Catholic Church is right.

I don’t think Protestants are stupid by any means; I think you resort to the “Atomic Church of Me” defense because slipperiness is an advantage. Thus, just about every thread on this forum devolves to a Protestant saying, “I don’t believe this personally,” which of course is a non-response to an argument and largely a non-sequitur.

 

[Contarini]

So at what point did Christ withdraw the authority he granted to the Catholic Church through the first four centuries?

You know, if you don’t want to read my post, why respond to it?

The Church has the same authority it has always had.

Edwin

 

[flyersfan1088]

You simply assume that the contemporary Roman Communion is identical to the early Catholic Church.

Actually there is no need for assumptions. We have the writings of the Early Church Fathers that clearly show what they believed and how they worshipped. It screams Catholic.

 

[chet]

What is the “sola scriptura strain”? What counts as an “authority”? This is simply way too vague. As mercygate said, it certainly doesn’t describe my position or that of Anglicans generally–or that of modern Methodists (the other Protestant tradition with which I have some affiliation). I’m not sure it even describes the “classical Protestant” view, and for that matter I know Baptists who would disagree with it.

Not by the Catholic Church of twenty-one Councils. Not by the Catholic Church that recognizes papal infallibility, and whose bishops are appointed by the bishop of Rome. Not by the Catholic Church that issues indulgences. Not by the Catholic Church that declares the Assumption and Immaculate Conception to be dogmas.

Speaking for myself, and for Anglicans and other high-church Protestants more generally, we certainly recognize the authority of the Catholic Church as it existed in the fourth century (to which you allude in point 2). The question is: how is that Church related to the various churches that exist today. You simply assume that the contemporary Roman Communion is identical to the early Catholic Church. I maintain, on the other hand, that all Trinitarian Christians are in some sense part of that Church, and Vatican II agrees with me to some extent, while trying to maintain the essence of the older, more exclusive position as well (in a manner that is very clever, but a bit ambiguous).

No, you completely misunderstood me there. The Church is never invisible. It is marked out by creeds, sacraments, the episcopate, and many other visible things. The Church’s unity is never entirely visible in this life, as long as some of the elect remain outside the visible boundaries of the Church, or out of full communion with each other.

You aren’t stupid. You’re just indulging in the natural human weakness of thinking your opponents are more stupid than they are!

In Christ,

Edwin

Hi Edwin,Would you please state by what authority the Anglican Church came into being and for what reason?

 

[chet]

You know, if you don’t want to read my post, why respond to it?

The Church has the same authority it has always had.

Edwin

By The Church here are you referring to the Roman Catholic Church? So the Church still has the Authority Christ gave her to bind and loose,to have bound in heaven what she holds bound on earth? She can make procedural changes and still have appointments be valid? Or Sacraments? Or even make Dogmatic Statements by the guidance, and protection of the Holy Spirit given by Christ to lead the Church into all Truth? In your estimation our these correct statements?

 

[Contarini]

Actually there is no need for assumptions. We have the writings of the Early Church Fathers that clearly show what they believed and how they worshipped. It screams Catholic.

To you, no doubt. However, there are plenty of people who have immersed themselves in the Fathers without seeing merit in the exclusive claims of the Roman Communion.

Of course you will say something like, “they can’t really have read the Fathers with an open mind,” etc. Such claims are always the last defense of the prejudiced.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

By The Church here are you referring to the Roman Catholic Church?

I’m referring to the Church, period.

So the Church still has the Authority Christ gave her to bind and loose,to have bound in heaven what she holds bound on earth? She can make procedural changes and still have appointments be valid?

What do you mean by that? Of course ecclesiastical bodies can order themselves in various ways.

Or Sacraments?

That is an incomplete sense. What are you asking about Sacraments?

Or even make Dogmatic Statements by the guidance, and protection of the Holy Spirit given by Christ to lead the Church into all Truth? In your estimation our these correct statements?

I agree with Robert Jenson–when the Church commits herself so fully to a certain dogmatic proposition that she would be apostate if the proposition were wrong, then God will prevent her from being wrong. But I think this has happened only a very few times in the history of the Church.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,Would you please state by what authority the Anglican Church came into being and for what reason?

There have been Christians in England since the third century at least, probably earlier, but the institutions of the Ecclesia Anglicana as we know it today date to the mission of St. Augustine of Canterbury, sent to Kent by Pope Gregory I at the end of the sixth century.

Probably what you are asking would be best translated into Anglican terms as “by what authority did the Anglican Church break its ties with Rome and for what reason?”

And the answer to that is complicated. The initial break, as everyone knows, was motivated by Henry VIII’s dynastic politics, and was in my opinion completely unjustified. However, it was the occasion for the introduction of a number of reforms, some of which were disastrous (the suppression of monasticism, for instance), some of which were excellent (the vernacular liturgy, for instance), and others were debatable (the adoption of an essentially Protestant soteriology, for instance). Mary reunited the C of E with Rome. The renewal of the schism under Elizabeth took place from both sides–Parliament passed a new Act of Supremacy recognizing Elizabeth as Supreme Governor in 1559, but arguably Pius V’s excommunication of Elizabeth (1570) was the final, official break between Canterbury and Rome.

In my opinion schism is never justified. However, there were good as well as bad results, as with any event in history. I hope and pray that an eventual reunion will allow us to keep the good effects while freeing ourselves from the bad ones.

Edwin

 

[chet]

There have been Christians in England since the third century at least, probably earlier, but the institutions of the Ecclesia Anglicana as we know it today date to the mission of St. Augustine of Canterbury, sent to Kent by Pope Gregory I at the end of the sixth century.

Probably what you are asking would be best translated into Anglican terms as “by what authority did the Anglican Church break its ties with Rome and for what reason?”

And the answer to that is complicated. The initial break, as everyone knows, was motivated by Henry VIII’s dynastic politics, and was in my opinion completely unjustified. However, it was the occasion for the introduction of a number of reforms, some of which were disastrous (the suppression of monasticism, for instance), some of which were excellent (the vernacular liturgy, for instance), and others were debatable (the adoption of an essentially Protestant soteriology, for instance). Mary reunited the C of E with Rome. The renewal of the schism under Elizabeth took place from both sides–Parliament passed a new Act of Supremacy recognizing Elizabeth as Supreme Governor in 1559, but arguably Pius V’s excommunication of Elizabeth (1570) was the final, official break between Canterbury and Rome.

In my opinion schism is never justified. However, there were good as well as bad results, as with any event in history. I hope and pray that an eventual reunion will allow us to keep the good effects while freeing ourselves from the bad ones.

Edwin

I hope and pray that an eventual reunion as well. As I have offered this prayer intention many times,“One Flock,One Shepperd.” With God all things are possible!

 

[chet]

I’m referring to the Church, period.

What do you mean by that? Of course ecclesiastical bodies can order themselves in various ways.

The Church can make procedural changes and still have Sacraments be valid? ie., Offer for good reason the Eucharist in one species,(Attempt to eliminate a Heresy) And then revert back to offering the Sacrament in both species once the problem is corrected.

 

[chet]

Edwin you wrote," some of which were excellent (the vernacular liturgy, for instance)" in regards to benefits of the Anglican split. Of course you and I both realize that Latin was the universal language of much of the known world(at least in Roman times) because it had all been a part of the Roman empire.

 

[Contarini]

Edwin you wrote," some of which were excellent (the vernacular liturgy, for instance)" in regards to benefits of the Anglican split. Of course you and I both realize that Latin was the universal language of much of the known world because it had all been a part of the Roman empire.

How is that relevant? I never questioned that there was once a good reason for the liturgy being in Latin. (Though large parts of the Western Church–Scotland, Ireland, Scandinavia, Poland, much of Germany–had never been part of the Empire.) Nor for that matter do I have anything against Latin in the liturgy today. But the vernacular liturgy was still a Very Good Thing.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

The Church can make procedural changes and still have Sacraments be valid? ie., Offer for good reason the Eucharist in one species,(Attempt to eliminate a Heresy) And then revert back to offering the Sacrament in both species once the problem is corrected.

I’m not sure there’s any such thing as an invalid sacrament. At any rate, certainly the Eucharist is still the Eucharist even if communion is only offered in one kind.

However, communion in one kind should only be a very rare, emergency measure, and it is only legitimate on the part of the communicant, not on the part of the minister (i.e., it must always be offered in both kinds, though there may be reasons for individual communicants only receiving one). There was never a good reason for making it the standard practice. This was an abuse, pure and simple.

Edwin

 

[Teflon93]

You know, if you don’t want to read my post, why respond to it?

The Church has the same authority it has always had.

Edwin

I read your post, sir, you simply have tried to avoid the question by presuming the Church meant all of Christendom when I presume you’re well aware Catholics use it to refer to the Catholic Church.

Your own post makes clear that you believe the Catholic Church (do I need to say Roman Catholic Church to avoid you conflating it with the Polish Catholic Church?) is not the same Catholic Church as had sufficient authority for you in the Fourth Century.

The logical question is, “At what point did the Catholic Church lose this authority?”

And the real question is why I ask such questions of people who clearly do not wish to answer them.

 

[Contarini]

I read your post, sir, you simply have tried to avoid the question by presuming the Church meant all of Christendom when I presume you’re well aware Catholics use it to refer to the Catholic Church.

Catholics use it to refer to the Roman Communion, yes. Although since Vatican II it is not so simple–you now acknowledge that all baptized persons have some kind of membership in the Church. That is all that I maintain–I am simply using that broader membership as the primary sense of the word “Church,” which you do not do.

Your own post makes clear that you believe the Catholic Church (do I need to say Roman Catholic Church to avoid you conflating it with the Polish Catholic Church?) is not the same Catholic Church as had sufficient authority for you in the Fourth Century.

The logical question is, “At what point did the Catholic Church lose this authority?”

I’m sorry, but you can’t describe my position using your vocabulary. I don’t think the Catholic Church ever lost authority. The more divided the Church is, the more difficult it is for it to exercise authority, certainly. But it never lost authority.

I do not believe that the Catholic Church ever was simply definable as “those churches in communion with Rome.” Certainly the body of churches in communion with Rome (at least most of them were in communion with Rome most of the time–communion was quite fluid in the fourth century) came closer to embodying the Church in the fourth century than they do now, because there were fewer Christians outside that communion and they were more obviously either heretical or wilfully schismatic. But it is a matter of degree, which means that there is no reason to ask “when did it lose that authority.” Obviously the great East-West schism seriously damaged the unity (and hence authority) of the Church, as did the Reformation. But again, it was a matter of degree, not the loss of something previously possessed.

And the real question is why I ask such questions of people who clearly do not wish to answer them.

If a Calvinist asked you, “When did your Church anathematize the Gospel?” you wouldn’t answer either. Some questions are phrased in such a loaded way that they can’t be answered fairly.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[chet]

I’m not sure there’s any such thing as an invalid sacrament. At any rate, certainly the Eucharist is still the Eucharist even if communion is only offered in one kind.

However, communion in one kind should only be a very rare, emergency measure, and it is only legitimate on the part of the communicant, not on the part of the minister (i.e., it must always be offered in both kinds, though there may be reasons for individual communicants only receiving one). There was never a good reason for making it the standard practice. This was an abuse, pure and simple.

Edwin

I believe the heresy that the Church was trying to protect against was that Host did not contain both species ie., Body and Blood of Christ. At least that is my understanding.

 

[flyersfan1088]

To you, no doubt. However, there are plenty of people who have immersed themselves in the Fathers without seeing merit in the exclusive claims of the Roman Communion.

Of course you will say something like, “they can’t really have read the Fathers with an open mind,” etc. Such claims are always the last defense of the prejudiced.

Edwin

What business do you have putting words in my mouth? Do you know of any of these people, or is THAT the last defense of the prejudiced?

 

[Teflon93]

Catholics use it to refer to the Roman Communion, yes. Although since Vatican II it is not so simple–you now acknowledge that all baptized persons have some kind of membership in the Church. That is all that I maintain–I am simply using that broader membership as the primary sense of the word “Church,” which you do not do.

I’m sorry, but you can’t describe my position using your vocabulary. I don’t think the Catholic Church ever lost authority. The more divided the Church is, the more difficult it is for it to exercise authority, certainly. But it never lost authority.

I do not believe that the Catholic Church ever was simply definable as “those churches in communion with Rome.” Certainly the body of churches in communion with Rome (at least most of them were in communion with Rome most of the time–communion was quite fluid in the fourth century) came closer to embodying the Church in the fourth century than they do now, because there were fewer Christians outside that communion and they were more obviously either heretical or wilfully schismatic. But it is a matter of degree, which means that there is no reason to ask “when did it lose that authority.” Obviously the great East-West schism seriously damaged the unity (and hence authority) of the Church, as did the Reformation. But again, it was a matter of degree, not the loss of something previously possessed.

If a Calvinist asked you, “When did your Church anathematize the Gospel?” you wouldn’t answer either. Some questions are phrased in such a loaded way that they can’t be answered fairly.

In Christ,

Edwin

Well, I would answer—“It didn’t.”

I take it your answer, then, is that there has been a steady leakage in authority of the Roman Catholic Church since the Fourth Century? Are you not merely conflating authority with influence here?

By extension, will the sundering of the Episcopal Church result in a loss of the authority of the surviving pieces?

I don’t think influence has a linear relationship with authority, it that’s your argument. One Christ had total authority, beside which the teeming millions of humanity had none. This, of course, is the authority which is referenced by apostolic succession and undergirds Tradition.

Thus the Roman Catholic Church could consist of Pope Benedict XVI and would still be authoritative due to Christ’s mandate.

 

[flyersfan1088]

I do not believe that the Catholic Church ever was simply definable as “those churches in communion with Rome.” Certainly the body of churches in communion with Rome (at least most of them were in communion with Rome most of the time–communion was quite fluid in the fourth century) came closer to embodying the Church in the fourth century than they do now, because there were fewer Christians outside that communion and they were more obviously either heretical or wilfully schismatic.
Edwin

Actually there were more Christians outside of communion with Rome. Arianism was a far worse heresy than protestantism. It has been estimated that circa 380a.d. somewhere between 1%-3% of Sees were held by Catholic bishops as opposes to Arian bishops.
As to your other statement, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS been defined as the universal church in communion with the Bishop of Rome.

 

[chet]

Catholics use it to refer to the Roman Communion, yes. Although since Vatican II it is not so simple–you now acknowledge that all baptized persons have some kind of membership in the Church. That is all that I maintain–I am simply using that broader membership as the primary sense of the word “Church,” which you do not do.

I’m sorry, but you can’t describe my position using your vocabulary. I don’t think the Catholic Church ever lost authority. The more divided the Church is, the more difficult it is for it to exercise authority, certainly. But it never lost authority.

I do not believe that the Catholic Church ever was simply definable as “those churches in communion with Rome.” Certainly the body of churches in communion with Rome (at least most of them were in communion with Rome most of the time–communion was quite fluid in the fourth century) came closer to embodying the Church in the fourth century than they do now, because there were fewer Christians outside that communion and they were more obviously either heretical or wilfully schismatic. But it is a matter of degree, which means that there is no reason to ask “when did it lose that authority.” Obviously the great East-West schism seriously damaged the unity (and hence authority) of the Church, as did the Reformation. But again, it was a matter of degree, not the loss of something previously possessed.

If a Calvinist asked you, “When did your Church anathematize the Gospel?” you wouldn’t answer either. Some questions are phrased in such a loaded way that they can’t be answered fairly.

In Christ,

Edwin

Dear fellow Catholics, Please try to avoid (The Gotch Ya!) even thou I know it is an easy trap to fall into. Edwin has especially dialogged in good faith and has come to the defense of the Catholic Church more than once.----Sincerely Edwin, wouldn’t be nice if you could yield to one earthly authority and have confidence that in doing so you pleased Christ? And also things have been definitively settled and you could move on to other things of importance.