SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[Abu]

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

Fr Stanley Jaki shows that the reality of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was expressed even by Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack, with reference to the first century! Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The infallibility and primacy of The Vicar of Christ was not disputed in Christ’s Church, at the beginning.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Indeed – thus is the “acknowledged and well-established fact” recognised by a radical Protestant scholar.

 

[susanlo]

The third successor of St Peter, Clement, wrote to the Catholics of Corinth in A.D. 95: “If any man should be disobedient unto the words spoken by God through us, let them understand that they will entangle themselves in no slight transgression and danger… Render obedience to the things written by us through the Holy Spirit.” (I Clem. ad Cor. 59,1). This Is The Faith, Francis J Ripley, Fowler Wright Books, 1971, p 151; 139-141].

Fr Stanley Jaki shows that the reality of the infallibility of the Bishop of Rome was expressed even by Protestant theologian Adolph von Harnack, with reference to the first century! Those who know nothing of history can now learn from history. The infallibility and primacy of The Vicar of Christ was not disputed in Christ’s Church, at the beginning.

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy, none other than the radical protestant Adolph von Harnack admitted that Victor I was “recognised, in his capacity of bishop of Rome, as the special guardian of the ‘common unity’… " (See And On This Rock, p 118, 1987, Trinity Communications, Fr Stanley L Jaki).

Harnack asked: “How would Victor have ventured on such an edict – though indeed he had not the power of enforcing it in every case – unless the special prerogative of Rome to determine the conditions of the ‘common unity’ in the vital questions of faith had been an acknowledged and well-established fact?”

Indeed – thus is the “acknowledged and well-established fact” recognised by a radical Protestant scholar.

Here is the complete text from Clement to the Corinthians.
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
It is a lengthy read with a lot of information. This is a very big topic that is veering from the topic of Scripture versus Tradition. But I am not sure if when I read this section of the letter within context if he is talking about “us” meaning the vicars of Christ, or “us” meaning those who are proclaiming the gospel message. I guess perspective makes a big difference when reading these things. I think it is always good to get the original source of the quotes.

 

[benhur]

Are you able to answer me instead of instead of giving me gung ho.

Hi D,

Sorry, responded to post #239.There was no question, only a statement, to which I acknowledged understanding it but obviously with a counter thought.

I think, but am not sure if you answered my question post #227.Is falling (temporarily) the same as not prevailing (which is the promise, to prevail) ? It seems you implied that if there is anything wrong, it is His fault, which can not be, therefore there is nothing wrong, we perfectly follow, on faith and morals (always, with no "correction’’ ever needed ? is still the question.)

Blesssings

 

[benhur]

Here is the complete text from Clement to the Corinthians.
newadvent.org/fathers/1010.htm
It is a lengthy read with a lot of information. This is a very big topic that is veering from the topic of Scripture versus Tradition. But I am not sure if when I read this section of the letter within context if he is talking about “us” meaning the vicars of Christ, or “us” meaning those who are proclaiming the gospel message. I guess perspective makes a big difference when reading these things. I think it is always good to get the original source of the quotes.

Hi s,

If I recall , the letter has the flavor of the letter sent out from Acts/Jerusalem council, that it is from apostles, elders and the entire Christian community - everybody, thru the Holy Ghost. The letter was written by James. It is thought by many historians that Rome at the time of Clement was still run by a presbytery. It was later established that Clement probably wrote the letter. Was he indeed pope and was rightly being humble and considered himself merely a servant of "us’’? Or was there indeed a group of bishops, a presbytery, that was rightly humble in considering themselves servants to the entire Roman church and wrote the “us” as such ?

It is in the eyes of the beholder, seek and ye shall find, as per the perfect wise crafting from the Lord (a bit like speaking in parables, though we are to be His friends, yet that depth is somewhat conditional on our part and He lovingly “challenges” us). Sure makes us need to cling to Him, so that we seek only Him, in truth and spirit.

Blessings

PS- again authority is conditional. It has been put forth that yes there was a congregation, with office holders at Rome, that wrote a letter, but *thru the Holy Spirit *(and as some suggest , the true Vicar of Christ, the true seal of authority).

 

[benhur]

About Pope Victor I’s declaration by edict, about the year 200, that any local Church that failed to conform with Rome was excluded from the union with the one Church by heresy,

Hi Abu,

Correct, that Pope Victor forced the eastern church to drop their apostolic tradition of when to celebrate Easter. Really ? Such heresy, over a practice not a doctrine !

Yet, it is not totally clear if indeed his decree was really to the eastern immigrants within Rome, and that they comply to Rome, (When in Rome do as the Romans) for unity sake within the diocese. He may have only threatened excommunication to the Asian parishes within Rome.

Blessings

PS-From my reading it seems the older tradition was to celebrate Easter as it relates to the Passover "calendar’’ , which varied on the weekday year to year, whereas Rome later adopted Sunday only, regardless of date of month…gci.org/church/holidays/passover

 

[rcwitness]

Hi s,

If I recall , the letter has the flavor of the letter sent out from Acts/Jerusalem council, that it is from apostles, elders and the entire Christian community - everybody, thru the Holy Ghost. The letter was written by James. It is thought by many historians that Rome at the time of Clement was still run by a presbytery. It was later established that Clement probably wrote the letter. Was he indeed pope and was rightly being humble and considered himself merely a servant of "us’’? Or was there indeed a group of bishops, a presbytery, that was rightly humble in considering themselves servants to the entire Roman church and wrote the “us” as such ?

It is in the eyes of the beholder, seek and ye shall find, as per the perfect wise crafting from the Lord (a bit like speaking in parables, though we are to be His friends, yet that depth is somewhat conditional on our part and He lovingly “challenges” us). Sure makes us need to cling to Him, so that we seek only Him, in truth and spirit.

Blessings

PS- again authority is conditional. It has been put forth that yes there was a congregation, with office holders at Rome, that wrote a letter, but *thru the Holy Spirit *(and as some suggest , the true Vicar of Christ, the true seal of authority).

I believe it demonstrates a shift from Jerusalem to Rome. And yes, authority is conditional. There are conditions the Magisterium must meet to be binding, there are conditions for salvation to be enduring to the end, there were conditions which the High Priestly trial of Jesus failed miserably to meet!

 

[rcwitness]

Hi Abu,

Correct, that Pope Victor forced the eastern church to drop their apostolic tradition of when to celebrate Easter. Really ? Such heresy, over a practice not a doctrine !

Yet, it is not totally clear if indeed his decree was really to the eastern immigrants within Rome, and that they comply to Rome, (When in Rome do as the Romans) for unity sake within the diocese. He may have only threatened excommunication to the Asian parishes within Rome.

Blessings

PS-From my reading it seems the older tradition was to celebrate Easter as it relates to the Passover "calendar’’ , which varied on the weekday year to year, whereas Rome later adopted Sunday only, regardless of date of month…gci.org/church/holidays/passover

This is simplifying the matter some. Victor was calling the Church to unity in celebrating Easter. They both had legitimate traditions. This was not the reason Victor was threatening excommunication! It was a matter of putting as side one and conforming to the other, not because one was wrong. It was a defiance to let go of a custom and submit to leadership.

 

[benhur]

I believe it demonstrates a shift from Jerusalem to Rome

.Hi rc,

Agree to the shift . There is no doubt that Rome became quite a Christian center by the turn of the century, partly due to the prominence of the city itself (“all roads lead to Rome”, center of the world and its emperor), the size and mix (folks from all over the empire) of the church, and finally the heritage of Peter and Paul’s ministry /martyrdom there. All this without even mentioning the CC position of the chair of Peter residing there.

If I were in Corinth and needed help, I suppose I would write to the Roman church for help over other churches who may have even been closer, for all the above reasons (except of course for papal reasons, which are not mentioned in the letter, but understand if you would).

Blessings

 

[clem456]

Infallibility is a red herring in my opinion. It is an important and necessary thing, but it is not the prime issue in discussing the authenticity of a particular expression of Christian faith.

The prime issue is community. What is it in the Christian context?
I find it fascinating that many protestants cannot admit the bible was breathed out of a community of living persons, and that community must have continuity, and exist somewhere, anywhere. If that community is not visibly existing, and continuously durable, then what are you saying about the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ?
Think about it.
Is he who he said he is, or is he not? Is he still dead in the tomb, and we are relegated to the book, or is he a risen and living person, and sustaining his body?

On the one hand we hear “we are right” about the role of the bible (notice the personal pronoun “we” ), and on the other hand it cannot be admitted that a continuous community exists in any identifiable form.
There is a rather large elephant in the room.
If Christ is the living Son of God, his community is surely identifiable and existing in time and space. It must be identifiable, just as he is identity itself.

It would be most honest to say “we are that community, and the bible is what we say it is, by our authority”. And in fact everyone says this, not all can admit they say it. Or else, what is it we are doing here, discussing this day after day. Everyone here is saying “our tradition”. Odd.

Everybody without exception is born a blank slate, and is incorporated in to a community, out of which we come to know what scripture is. Without that community, what do you have?
So it’s very hard to deny that community is primary. In fact that is the heart of Christ’s message. Unity. Union. Communion. Community. Love. Bonds. Tradition.
Which all saves us from the tyranny of the book alone.

 

[rcwitness]

.Hi rc,

Agree to the shift . There is no doubt that Rome became quite a Christian center by the turn of the century, partly due to the prominence of the city itself (“all roads lead to Rome”, center of the world and its emperor), the size and mix (folks from all over the empire) of the church, and finally the heritage of Peter and Paul’s ministry /martyrdom there. All this without even mentioning the CC position of the chair of Peter residing there.

If I were in Corinth and needed help, I suppose I would write to the Roman church for help over other churches who may have even been closer, for all the above reasons (except of course for papal reasons, which are not mentioned in the letter, but understand if you would).

Blessings

Yes. I guess I see the reason for the “center” as more closely related to Peter’s succession rather than “circumstantial” reasons of Rome’s characteristics. Though they probably had influence on Peter and Paul’s focus there.

 

[SyroMalankara]

Karaism began in the 8th century. britannica.com/topic/Karaism

Matthew 15:3 - Jesus replied, “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition?"
Mark 7:8-9 - You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.” 9 And he continued, “You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe[c] your own traditions!

I have quickly counted over 20 times in the 4 gospels where Jesus stated: “It is written.” I did not see once where Jesus said “It is in the oral tradition.” (Except when he criticized it in the 2 above quotes.)

That time line is disputed, some say the Karaite movement began in the 1st Cent., at least the teachings…

About the “it is written”, did you count how many instances Jesus mentions “written” matters not covered by Old Testament Scripture? Some “it is written”, are matters written for clarification by Talmud/Mishnah/commentary… in other words, Oral Tradition, later written.

 

[SyroMalankara]

So tradition infallibility or not, is about feast days and celebrations ?

It could encompass some of that. Nevertheless, it was an example.

Maybe that is what Paul was talking about when he said stick to traditions that were taught. That one partakes of a festival does not mean one believes it is "required’’ as if by divine command. I mean much Christmas and Easter celebration, and others is not by divine command. Legalistic hair splitting is not needed for that .

But if one refuses to celebrate either Easter or Christmas, it says much more about their faith and beliefs.

Now, if we were to discuss if there be resurrection or not, that is something else.

Not quite. You believe in the Resurrection, yet refuse to acknowledge the communal festival we jointly celebrate as a Church, called Resurrection (or Easter). Does not the action show there is a different faith at play?

Do not think Jesus partook of any celebration or feast that had leaven doctrine (error) as foundation. Pure speculation to say He did otherwise.

Who says He did? I don’t believe Jewish celebrations have error as foundation. Many of them carry over to Christian feasts.

Flux? Did not stop Jesus from much referencing of it.

And much more.

“No other Writ other than OT” kind of makes the OT seem like small potatoes (St. Paul , cover your ears/eyes!").

Not small potatoes. But not what the Early Church limited herself to by any means, which goes against the presented premise of SS.

SS also deals with normative authority after the Apostles and their Writ were laid down, after all such divine revelation given.

Still don’t understand how you can see SS as authoritative when it’s the Church (whether Catholic, protestant, Orthodox, or joe-bobs-down-in-the-garage) that turns the words into praxis, and also explains it’s meaning.

 

[susanlo]

That time line is disputed, some say the Karaite movement began in the 1st Cent., at least the teachings…

About the “it is written”, did you count how many instances Jesus mentions “written” matters not covered by Old Testament Scripture? Some “it is written”, are matters written for clarification by Talmud/Mishnah/commentary… in other words, Oral Tradition, later written.

Can you give me some examples of a situation where Jesus was clarifying matters for the Talmud? I am not aware of what that would be. I am not familiar with the Talmud so I don’t know if I could answer that.
I have 22 times in the 4 gospels where he quotes the OT with the words “it is written.” Some are duplications of the same quote captured in more than one gospel. There are many other references to the OT noted by many footnotes in my Bible. I don’t see references to the Talmud or oral tradition quoted by Jesus or the apostles that I am aware of. I don’t think the Talmud was in writing in Jesus’ time.
Was there an occasion where Jesus expected or required the Jewish people of the time to be following something from the oral tradition or Talmud that wasn’t in the OT law?

 

[SyroMalankara]

I didn’t mean to state that Jesus was clarifying matters for the Talmud. I meant that some of the Rabbinical, priestly, levitical commentary (Oral Tradition) was considered authoritative and re-enforced by Jesus. Therefore, one must not dismiss Oral Tradition or consider it less authoritative than Scripture.

ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/ORALTRAD.HTM

 

[susanlo]

Infallibility is a red herring in my opinion. It is an important and necessary thing, but it is not the prime issue in discussing the authenticity of a particular expression of Christian faith.

The prime issue is community. What is it in the Christian context?
I find it fascinating that many protestants cannot admit the bible was breathed out of a community of living persons, and that community must have continuity, and exist somewhere, anywhere. If that community is not visibly existing, and continuously durable, then what are you saying about the Incarnation of God in Jesus Christ?
Think about it.
Is he who he said he is, or is he not? Is he still dead in the tomb, and we are relegated to the book, or is he a risen and living person, and sustaining his body?

On the one hand we hear “we are right” about the role of the bible (notice the personal pronoun “we” ), and on the other hand it cannot be admitted that a continuous community exists in any identifiable form.
There is a rather large elephant in the room.
If Christ is the living Son of God, his community is surely identifiable and existing in time and space. It must be identifiable, just as he is identity itself.

It would be most honest to say “we are that community, and the bible is what we say it is, by our authority”. And in fact everyone says this, not all can admit they say it. Or else, what is it we are doing here, discussing this day after day. Everyone here is saying “our tradition”. Odd.

Everybody without exception is born a blank slate, and is incorporated in to a community, out of which we come to know what scripture is. Without that community, what do you have?
So it’s very hard to deny that community is primary. In fact that is the heart of Christ’s message. Unity. Union. Communion. Community. Love. Bonds. Tradition.
Which all saves us from the tyranny of the book alone.

God wrote the Bible through the apostles. They were part of a community that still exists today. Christian people who meet in groups has always been existent. I don’t think that anyone is denying that. I think the difference is whether one believes the Church to be a group that submit to the Bishop of Rome or whether it is a church that submit to Christ’s written teaching. Yes there is a difference. But people don’t deny that there is a body of believers.

I think that unity and church is viewed very differently in Catholics than non-Catholics. I was born and raised in a mostly protestant area. Most of my school friends all went to Protestant churches. We went to each others’ youth groups and prayed together in and out of school. I went to a non-denominational Christian college where Presbyterians, Lutherans, Anabaptists and many more all worshipped twice weekly in chapel and had Bible classes and Bible study in our dorms together. There were really very few differences brought to the table. I have been involved in multiple different denomination and non-denominational churches throughout my life. I have flowed between all of these churches with no changes to my belief system. I have all kinds of brothers and sisters in Christ in all types of Christian churches. I was blissfully naïve at the wonderful united body of believers Christ had.

I found out last year for the first time from my Catholic friend that Christianity isn’t united. I was shocked because that thought had never crossed my mind. I always knew that there were disagreements - every family I know of has siblings that squabble, but that doesn’t mean that they aren’t family. As I started to learn about Catholicism I can understand some of the differences and why Catholics feel that way.
I am in the middle of trying to piece all of this together and learning more about what some of the differences are.

 

[clem456]

God wrote the Bible through the apostles. They were part of a community that still exists today. Christian people who meet in groups has always been existent. I don’t think that anyone is denying that. I think the difference is whether one believes the Church to be a group that submit to the Bishop of Rome or whether it is a church that submit to Christ’s written teaching. Yes there is a difference. But people don’t deny that there is a body of believers.

Can you see that this is a non-sequitur?
You claim to submit to “Christ’s written teaching” There is no such thing! Christ did not write a book. So you do not have an option that refutes authority, if you are going to value the bible as inspired. Biblical inspiration requires your assent to human authority. You must decide where that lies, no one is going to force it on you.

The bible itself is invested in the personal authority (not authorship) of Christ and those persons he gave it to. At one time our bible was “nothing but” words around the campfire, so to speak. Think about that dicey proposition, and imagine yourself telling your story to your best friends, and the trust you must have in them to get it right. No tape recorders, no notepads, to TV.

 

[Lenten_ashes]

God wrote the Bible through the apostles. They were part of a community that still exists today. Christian people who meet in groups has always been existent. I don’t think that anyone is denying that. I think the difference is whether one believes the Church to be a group that submit to the Bishop of Rome or whether it is a church that submit to Christ’s written teaching. Yes there is a difference. But people don’t deny that there is a body of believers.
.

Hi Susan,

Not trying to sound unruly here but do you understand that there was no bible until the end of the 4th century? And, thus, the importance of the apostolic Church (which you refer to as Rome) To safeguard the deposit of the faith and pass it on to generation after generation?

I haven’t read much of your posts so I apologize for not knowing how informed you may be, but I have this radar of sorts that alarms whenever I hear people implying that the Paul was the president of the First Baptist Church or that the Church of the 1st century was like the protestant churches of today, splintered off into the thousands relying on bible-only methodology. It’s just not true as most people were illiterate and written scripture of any sort was very difficult to come by. Word of mouth was the key to the stabilization and progression of the early church, not bibles. We have them all over the place now, and thank God for that, but for the overwhelming majority of our existence in Christianity, that wasn’t the case.

Again, I hope I am not sounding insulting as that is not my intent.

Pax

 

[rcwitness]

The proposition that it’s EITHER one submits to the Bishop of Rome OR to “a” church that submits to Christ’s written word is a false contrast. The Bishop of Rome (St Damasus) was compelled to collect and Confirm Scripture from non-Scripture so that we had a body of writings to even refer to in the first place.

 

[rcwitness]

Christians (who love the Bible) should have a special appreciation for Pope St. Damasus:

encouraging his personal secretary SaintJerome in his Vulgate translation of the Bible, and presiding over the Council of Rome in 382, which may have set down the canon of Scripture

And from a letter from St Jerome to Pope St Damasus:

"Yet, though your greatness terrifies me, your kindness attracts me. From the priest I demand the safe-keeping of the victim, from the shepherd the protection due to the sheep. Away with all that is overweening; let the state of Roman majesty withdraw. My words are spoken to the successor of the fisherman, to the disciple of the cross. As I follow no leader save Christ, so I communicate with none but your blessedness, that is with the chair of Peter. For this, I know, is the rock on which the church is built! This is the house where alone the paschal lamb can be rightly eaten. This is the ark of Noah, and he who is not found in it shall perish when the flood prevails. But since by reason of my sins I have betaken myself to this desert which lies between Syria and the uncivilized waste, I cannot, owing to the great distance between us, always ask of your sanctity the holy thing of the Lord. Consequently I here follow the Egyptian confessors who share your faith, and anchor my frail craft under the shadow of their great argosies. I know nothing of Vitalis; I reject Meletius; I have nothing to do with Paulinus. He that gathers not with you scatters; he that is not of Christ is of Antichrist.

 

[Abu]

Susanlo #254
As I started to learn about Catholicism I can understand some of the differences and why Catholics feel that way.
I am in the middle of trying to piece all of this together and learning more about what some of the differences are.

In your piecing together, it is vital to realise that it is not a question of “why Catholics ‘feel’ that way". The “differences” are not due to mere “feelings”. They are a reality of history and fact.

It is the reality that Jesus of Nazareth was God through His Resurrection and appearances to many and His emphatic:
**“You are Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church. …and I will give you the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.” **[Mt 16:18,19].

It is only through Christ’s Catholic Church that the medically authenticated miracles occur at Lourdes in France, that the miracle of the sun occurred at Fatima in Portugal, and the many Eucharistic (Body and Blood of Christ) miracles have occurred, and still occur to this day.