Sola Scriptura ?

[chet]

Well, the last statement in your post is nothing but empty propaganda, to be honest. For one thing, the Orthodox have the same credentials you do in that regard–as do the other two Eastern Christian communions.

Edwin

I’m sorry if I offended you in some way.I’m not sure what propaganda you are referring to. I do hope and pray that there will be again One Communion.

 

[Contarini]

I’m sorry if I offended you in some way.I’m not sure what propaganda you are referring to. I do hope and pray that there will be again One Communion.

You didn’t offend me. I was just clarifying the difference between our positions, no doubt more roughly than I needed to. I thought I said what the propaganda was–the claim that only the Catholic Church goes back to the Apostles. As I said, the Eastern Churches can also make this claim. For Protestants it is true in a more derivative sense–i.e., we don’t think that we are in fact divided from the Church that goes back to the Apostles.

Edwin

 

[TheApologist]

I think you have it exactly pophead. It is not the Bible or Tradition that we should listen to and learn from, it is the Word of God. That Word can come to us through scripture, but it can also come to us through modern day prophets, and it can come to us when God chooses to speak to us personally. Jesus is the head of the Church of Christ, not the Pope, and not the Bible.

I would like to point out that the Church teaches that the Word of God(the teaching, not Christ Himself) is made up of Sacred Tradition AND Sacred Scripture. Also, if you mean modern day theologians, then, yes, in a way we can come to more understanding of God’s Word through them, but there are no “modern day prophets.” With Jesus came the fullness of public revelation(revelation pertaining to the masses). Any man or woman claiming to bring some groundbreaking doctrine out of the blue “straight from God” is not in the right.

Of course, this is NEW public revelation, not a new DEVELOPMENT of the understanding of Jesus’s public revelation.

You are also right in the fact that we can come to the Word(Christ Himself) in prayer and we come to the Word(teaching) more fully in prayer. That’s not to say you can have some NEW revelation which is pertaining to the masses.

Also, the Church does NOT teach the Pope is THE head of the Church. Jesus is, indeed, THE head of the Church. The Pope is the Prime Minister, the Gatekeeper, the EARTHLY leader of the Church. The Pope is COMPLETELY subjected to Christ. In no way is the Pope more powerful or something than Christ. In fact, it is THROUGH God that the Pope leads the Church.

 

[chet]

You didn’t offend me. I was just clarifying the difference between our positions, no doubt more roughly than I needed to. I thought I said what the propaganda was–the claim that only the Catholic Church goes back to the Apostles. As I said, the Eastern Churches can also make this claim. For Protestants it is true in a more derivative sense–i.e., we don’t think that we are in fact divided from the Church that goes back to the Apostles.

Edwin

Edwin you could probably tell me which Apostles established those Churches, and if they ever relied on Peter or one of his Successors ever settled a doctrinal matter; or even a local matter for these Churches.And Thank You for your very civil tone.I wish all of my fellow Catholics were as civil as they should be.If you ever want to plunge into the Tiber I be happy to welcome you on this side of the river.

 

[Pophead]

The Pope is the Prime Minister, the Gatekeeper, the EARTHLY leader of the Church. The Pope is COMPLETELY subjected to Christ.

This creates a bit of problem.

Firstly, the Spirit of Christ is here with us now.

Secondly, a careful read of the book of Acts shows us that He is the Prime Minister, the Gatekeeper, the earthly leader of the Church.

Thirdly, the Pope is a member of the Church, and as such is to be in subjection to the Spirit of Christ as we should be.

Now if the Pope were then found to be in the position of the Spirit of Christ; then the Catholic Church is in submission to the autonomy of man.

 

[mercygate]

This creates a bit of problem.

Firstly, the Spirit of Christ is here with us now.

Secondly, a careful read of the book of Acts shows us that He is the Prime Minister, the Gatekeeper, the earthly leader of the Church.

Thirdly, the Pope is a member of the Church, and as such is to be in subjection to the Spirit of Christ as we should be.

Now if the Pope were then found to be in the position of the Spirit of Christ; then the Catholic Church is in submission to the autonomy of man.

Do you have any particular take on the fact that Peter is given the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, but that in Revelation, Christ is seen as holding the keys of death and Hades?

 

[Janet_S]

Dear Friends,

After reading and assimilating the facts presented in this thread, I can only conclude the following:-. . .

Thirdly, so far in Church History, there was only one time when she was in full health and that was on the day of Pentecost, when the Spirit of Christ was poured forth as declared the prophet Joel.

Fourthly, Church History bears record that the Bride has lost connection with her coming Head; the Lord Jesus Christs; by attempting to establish here own autonomy in the earth.

Sincerely,
Pophead.

In response to these two points in your post, you are forgetting the significance of the Incarnation and the mission of Christ on earth–to establish His Church. You seem to think His Church existed only until Pentecost, then it fell into apostasy. Did you forget what Jesus said to the Apostles *“Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you *always, until the end of the age.” (Matt 28:29-20) Was Pentecost the “end of the age”?

You are seeking what (in your mind) is the perfect Church, and you seem to believe Christ’s Church should be perfect. But, what do we know about the kingdom from what Christ told us?

Remember Christ was fully human and fully divine. He left us with a visible Church (His bride) that, like Him, is both human and divine. There may be sinful human members in the body of Christ, but that is no sign she has she lost connection with her head (Jesus). I’m a sinner, and I’m guessing you are too. Must I be perfect to be a member of Christ’s Church? Jesus said *"Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. Go and learn the meaning of the words, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ I did not come to call the righteous but sinners." (Matt 9:12-13)*As long as the Church calls those sinful members to conversion, she is fulfilling her mission. There’s no doubt that the Church today continually calls sinners to conversion.

Also remember Jesus’ parable of the weeds among the wheat:

He proposed another parable to them. "The kingdom of heaven may be likened to a man who sowed good seed in his field.
While everyone was asleep his enemy came and sowed weeds all through the wheat, and then went off. When the crop grew and bore fruit, the weeds appeared as well. The slaves of the householder came to him and said, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? Where have the weeds come from?’
He answered, ‘An enemy has done this.’ His slaves said to him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?’ He replied, 'No, if you pull up the weeds you might uproot the wheat along with them. Let them grow together until harvest; then at harvest time I will say to the harvesters, “First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles for burning; but gather the wheat into my barn.” (Matt 13:24-30)

And while you may have examined the lives of the sinners within the traditional Church, and rejected the Church because of their witness, are you forgetting the lives of the saints? Their lives are a living witness to the Church’s divine nature. Look at Mother Teresa or St Francis of Assisi, for example.

Finally, Edwin (Contarini) said this:

What this amounts to is that there are things you find fault with in the Church, and so it suits you to make sweeping accusations. You aren’t seriously interested in dialogue or inquiry. You have it all sewn up inside your own head and you have your own Ideal Church which you have created. That is far more blasphemous than anything of which you accuse traditional Christianity

He is giving you wise advice–listen to him. Unless you yourself are free from original sin, your construct of the “ideal Church” will fall into more errors than the members of the traditional Church ever did.

 

[Teflon93]

This creates a bit of problem.

Firstly, the Spirit of Christ is here with us now.

Secondly, a careful read of the book of Acts shows us that He is the Prime Minister, the Gatekeeper, the earthly leader of the Church.

Thirdly, the Pope is a member of the Church, and as such is to be in subjection to the Spirit of Christ as we should be.

Now if the Pope were then found to be in the position of the Spirit of Christ; then the Catholic Church is in submission to the autonomy of man.

So I take it your particular denomination is without leadership?

 

[chet]

So I take it your particular denomination is without leadership?

As far as I can tell Pophead is the Leader or Pope of his church;and also the only member consiquently.Pophead would this be a truely accurate statement?

 

[TheApologist]

This creates a bit of problem.

Firstly, the Spirit of Christ is here with us now.

I believe you mean the Holy Spirit?

Secondly, a careful read of the book of Acts shows us that He is the Prime Minister, the Gatekeeper, the earthly leader of the Church.

Please show me the verses that prove this.

Thirdly, the Pope is a member of the Church, and as such is to be in subjection to the Spirit of Christ as we should be.

Yeah…this doesn’t mean the Holy Spirit can’t use this special member of the Church for a greater purpose in the life of the Church.

Now if the Pope were then found to be in the position of the Spirit of Christ; then the Catholic Church is in submission to the autonomy of man.

Christ is the Head of the Church, but hasn’t spoken physically to us since His ascension. Therefore, He needed someone to lead His Church on earth. This someone- the pope, when acting in the full office of pope(sitting on the chair of Peter…just like the Pharisees on the chair of Moses) has the Holy Spirit protecting Him from error.
So when the Pope makes an infallible statement about a matter which is confusing the Church, it’s kinda final. The Church would seem to be in submission to the autonomy of man if the Pope wasn’t given the charism of infallibility by the Holy Spirit. The Pope doesn’t take the place of Christ, the pope is given a special gift by Christ which the Pope uses to lead the Church.

Wouldn’t Christ, the good Shepherd, hire and train another shepherd to watch His flock until He physically returned? How about the Apostles? Did they take the place of Christ by leading and teaching the Church? Of course not! Yet, they still had authority.

 

[chet]

You didn’t offend me. I was just clarifying the difference between our positions, no doubt more roughly than I needed to. I thought I said what the propaganda was–the claim that only the Catholic Church goes back to the Apostles. As I said, the Eastern Churches can also make this claim. For Protestants it is true in a more derivative sense–i.e., we don’t think that we are in fact divided from the Church that goes back to the Apostles.

Edwin

DEFINITION OF AN EASTERN CHURCH

An accident of political development has made it possible to divide the Christian world, in the first place, into two great halves, Eastern and Western. The root of this division is, roughly and broadly speaking, the division of the Roman Empire made first by Diocletian (284-305), and again by the sons of Theodosius I (Arcadius in the East, 395-408; and Honorius in the West, 395-423), then finally made permanent by the establishment of a rival empire in the West (Charlemagne, 800). The division of Eastern and Western Churches, then, in its origin corresponds to that of the empire.

Western Churches are those that either gravitate around Rome or broke away from her at the Reformation. Eastern Churches depend originally on the Eastern Empire at Constantinople; they are those that either find their centre in the patriarchate of that city (since the centralization of the fourth century) or have been formed by schisms which in the first instance concerned Constantinople rather than the Western world.

newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm
The Eastern Schism

From the time of Diotrephes (3 John 1:9-10) there have been continual schisms, of which the greater number were in the East. Arianism produced a huge schism; the Nestorian and Monophysite schisms still last. However, the Eastern Schism always means that most deplorable quarrel of which the final result is the separation of the vast majority of Eastern Christians from union with the Catholic Church, the schism that produced the separated, so-called “Orthodox” Church.
The great Eastern Schism must not be conceived as the result of only one definite quarrel. It is not true that after centuries of perfect peace, suddenly on account of one dispute, nearly half of Christendom fell away. Such an event would be unparalleled in history, at any rate, unless there were some great heresy, and in this quarrel there was no heresy at first, nor has there ever been a hopeless disagreement about the Faith. It is a case, perhaps the only prominent case, of a pure schism, of a breach of intercommunion caused by anger and bad feeling, not by a rival theology. It would be inconceivable then that hundreds of bishops should suddenly break away from union with their chief, if all had gone smoothly before. The great schism is rather the result of a very gradual process.

newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm Edwin would you concur to the accuracy of these statements?

 

[Contarini]

DEFINITION OF AN EASTERN CHURCH
newadvent.org/cathen/05230a.htm
The Eastern Schism
newadvent.org/cathen/13535a.htm Edwin would you concur to the accuracy of these statements?

First of all, they don’t address the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches, which were not tied to the Byzantine Empire. And in the second place, the characterization of the schism as deriving from [Eastern] “anger and bad feeling” is obtuse and patronizing.

Anger and bad feeling played a very significant role, but the Western Catholic refusal to take Eastern objections seriously is the biggest obstacle to reunion. To this day Roman Catholics (I use that term deliberately, since Eastern Catholics are more sensitive to the issues) tend to think that everything could be resolved if only the Orthodox would get over their thousand-year snit. This is no way to resolve a schism.

In Christ,

Edwin

 

[clmowry]

2 Timothy 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

I fail to see any claim here that “ONLY” scripture is profitable.

Chuck

 

[clmowry]

So what would those essentials be?

Chuck

Certainly not, I think your understanding of what is meant by Sola Scriptura is not clear.

Scripture is perfect and the only standard of spiritual truth, revealing all that we must believe in order to be saved, and all that we must do in order to glorify God. That – no more, no less – is what sola Scriptura means.

In Essentials, unity. In non-essentials, liberty. In all things, charity

Sola Scriptura does not mean lockstep belief down to tiny details.

 

[chet]

First of all, they don’t address the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches, which were not tied to the Byzantine Empire. And in the second place, the characterization of the schism as deriving from [Eastern] “anger and bad feeling” is obtuse and patronizing.

Anger and bad feeling played a very significant role, but the Western Catholic refusal to take Eastern objections seriously is the biggest obstacle to reunion. To this day Roman Catholics (I use that term deliberately, since Eastern Catholics are more sensitive to the issues) tend to think that everything could be resolved if only the Orthodox would get over their thousand-year snit. This is no way to resolve a schism.
non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches
In Christ,

Edwin

Edwin please elaborate on the non-Chalcedonian Eastern Churches;ie,explain their origins.

This is no way to resolve a schism

Do you feel that John Paul II,and Benedict XVI have not made strong efforts toward reconcileation?

 

[clmowry]

You actually claim much more than that.

You claim that Scripture contains “everything” necessary and you claim that if it is not contained in Scripture it cannot be held as a binding on the faithful.

i.e You negate all other “monuments” of tradition.

If you simply claimed that no teaching can contradict scripture, then we could agree.

Chuck

In the light of Yves Congar’s formulation of the doctrine of tradition, and Vatican II’s adoption of something like this in Dei Verbum, the issue now looks rather different. If, as Congar and Vatican II said, Tradition is the entire process by which the Word of God is handed on, then the question really concerns what Catholic theology has traditionally called the “monuments” of tradition (the Fathers, the Liturgy, conciliar and papal teachings). Protestants claim that Scripture is superior to all these monuments. Oral tradition really isn’t the point at issue at all.

 

[clmowry]

I think your correct, most of the Christian popoulation eventually can point back to the Apostles. (Though I’m not so sure about the more recent “Bible Only” churches.)

It’s just a question of when a particular Group broke off communion with the Pope (and subsequently with each other.)

Interestingly enough, in order to trace your roots back that far, you are going to have to claim a lot of Catholic relatives.

Chuck

You didn’t offend me. I was just clarifying the difference between our positions, no doubt more roughly than I needed to. I thought I said what the propaganda was–the claim that only the Catholic Church goes back to the Apostles. As I said, the Eastern Churches can also make this claim. For Protestants it is true in a more derivative sense–i.e., we don’t think that we are in fact divided from the Church that goes back to the Apostles.

Edwin

 

[clmowry]

I’ll second that…all in favor…

Edwin…If you ever want to plunge into the Tiber I be happy to welcome you on this side of the river.

 

[Contarini]

I think your correct, most of the Christian popoulation eventually can point back to the Apostles. (Though I’m not so sure about the more recent “Bible Only” churches.)

It’s just a question of when a particular Group broke off communion with the Pope (and subsequently with each other.)

Interestingly enough, in order to trace your roots back that far, you are going to have to claim a lot of Catholic relatives.

Chuck

And why do you think that I would object to that?

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

You actually claim much more than that.

You claim that Scripture contains “everything” necessary and you claim that if it is not contained in Scripture it cannot be held as a binding on the faithful.

Not binding as generally necessary to salvation. Obviously the Church has a right to make disciplinary regulations, and this is binding as a matter of good order, if it doesn’t violate the conscience.

i.e You negate all other “monuments” of tradition.

Nonsense. That doesn’t negate the monuments at all. The monuments are necessary to interpret Scripture, and also to give us guidance on things not addressed in Scripture.

In Christ,

Edwin