SS practicing Christian: What do you say Scripture is?

[Abu]

Susanlo #99
This idea that man teaches infallibly and has the ability to maintain oral teachings infallibly for centuries with no written source of such teaching is something that I have only recently heard of.

Now that you know the reality that the Christ founded His own Church on St Peter, wrote nothing, and mandated that His Church teach all nations, and that he would be with His Church until the end of the world, is it not time to examine His teaching through His Church?

The Gospels and Epistles were all written within some 50 years of the Resurrection, not over “centuries”. The works of Jean Carmignac, John A. T. Robinson, and Claude Tresmontant, mainly date the NT books prior to A.D. 70, with some of them written in the 30s. They were laboriously copied by hand.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass existed from the beginning from the words of Our Lord to His Apostles at the Last Supper: “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

The use of the Sacred Scriptures at Mass developed with the Church as She came out of the catacombs.

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalist and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See Sheehan/Joseph, *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine, The Saint Austin Press, 2002, p 89, 93]

Not only are the facts of Jesus’ miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

Very revealing is The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, on the origins and dating of the Gospels. As Bishop John Charles Thomas writes in the foreword: “There is nothing in the least unscientific in postulating that there was only a brief period of oral transmission before some of the Gospel materials began to be set down.”

 

[alwayswill]

Now that you know the reality that the Christ founded His own Church on St Peter, wrote nothing, and mandated that His Church teach all nations, and that he would be with His Church until the end of the world, is it not time to examine His teaching through His Church?

”

As used in the NT, does Ekklesia mean those called by Christ? ie ALL believers?

 

[Abu]

alwayswill #101
As used in the NT, does Ekklesia mean those called by Christ? ie ALL believers?

“ECCLESIA. The unchanged Latin rendering of the Greek ekklesia, meaning assembly or community. The Bible uses the term in the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew kahal in both a secular and a religious sense. In the New Testament the word is used of the whole community of the believers in Christ (Matthew 16:18) and of a singly community of the faithful (Romans 6:5). The Catechism of Trent defines Ecclesia as the Church, which is the faithful of the whole world (I, 10,2). (Etym. Latin* ecclesia*, universal or an individual Church; from Greek ekklesia, assembly of people called together.)”
*Modern Catholic Dictionary *by Fr. John A. Hardon, S.J.
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

 

[susanlo]

Now that you know the reality that the Christ founded His own Church on St Peter, wrote nothing, and mandated that His Church teach all nations, and that he would be with His Church until the end of the world, is it not time to examine His teaching through His Church?

The Gospels and Epistles were all written within some 50 years of the Resurrection, not over “centuries”. The works of Jean Carmignac, John A. T. Robinson, and Claude Tresmontant, mainly date the NT books prior to A.D. 70, with some of them written in the 30s. They were laboriously copied by hand.

The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass existed from the beginning from the words of Our Lord to His Apostles at the Last Supper: “Do this in remembrance of Me.”

The use of the Sacred Scriptures at Mass developed with the Church as She came out of the catacombs.

Even Adolf von Harnack, a rationalist historian of high repute among Rationalist and Protestants, wrote that the Synoptic Gospels were written before 70 A.D. – before the fall of Jerusalem, and accepted the tradition that St Luke derived his information on the infancy of Jesus from Mary His Mother. Theologische Quartalsch, Tubingen 1929, IV, p 443-4].
[See Sheehan/Joseph, *Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine

, The Saint Austin Press, 2002, p 89, 93]

Not only are the facts of Jesus’ miracles recorded by His own Apostles who were present – Saints Matthew and John were companions of Christ, and Saints Mark and Luke lived in constant contact with His contemporaries.

Very revealing is The Hebrew Christ, Claude Tresmontant, Franciscan Herald Press, 1989, on the origins and dating of the Gospels. As Bishop John Charles Thomas writes in the foreword: “There is nothing in the least unscientific in postulating that there was only a brief period of oral transmission before some of the Gospel materials began to be set down.”

Thanks for your reply. I personally don’t have any doubt that the Scripture was written (most of it I believe) in the 1st century by first-hand eye witnesses (or those very close to first-hand eye witnesses). My confusion is about the confidence that the teachings that weren’t written about for centuries or longer are AS authoritative as the 1st century writings. How do we know for certain that they really are from Jesus?

There are references in the Bible about the Holy Spirit leading the disciples into truth. You quoted early a passage from John 14. If we highlight an area in the middle of this very important passage we see that the promise is to “Whoever has my commands and keeps them;” and anyone who loves Jesus
21 Whoever has my commands and keeps them is the one who loves me. The one who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I too will love them and show myself to them.”

22 Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?”

23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

I don’t believe that this was a promise that church leaders could teach infallibly, but that believers would have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and would be able to have access to God through the Holy Spirit. This is for all believers, is it not?

 

[Abu]

susanlo #103
[John 14] 23 Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.

I don’t believe that this was a promise that church leaders could teach infallibly, but that believers would have the Holy Spirit dwelling in them and would be able to have access to God through the Holy Spirit. This is for all believers, is it not?

How could it be for “all believers” when Jesus specifically requires of those who love Him that they “obey My teaching”?

The reality that St Peter and his successors would teach infallibly is in Christ’s clear mandate:
**You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18)
**“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]

Why would you want to reject Christ’s clear words of foundation?

How can any of Christ’s teaching be known clearly without His own Church?

 

[Darryl_B]

The theory of “Sola Scriptura” sounds interesting on paper. But I have yet to meet the person who truly practices it. It will kind of be nice when the day comes when the whole idea is laid to rest. If such a theory actually existed, there would not be Christian book-stores full to over brimming with copious amounts of books written by third-parties. There would be no need for long protestant sermons, and there would be rampant heresies. Even then it would not be “sola scriptura” it would be “scriptura” filtered through me, “scriptura” filtered through my pastor, “scriptura” filtered through legacy reformists, systematic theologies, statements of faiths, and on the list goes.

“All scripture” is not the same as saying “only scripture”. If the question is one of “authority”, (which is the only reason the theory exists in the first place), all it has done is make ourselves the “authority” not the “scriptures”.

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

alwayswill;13799795]This is the SS-practicing view:
I don’t expect you to agree: just letting you know what it is:

I have witnessed many versions of SS. According to your version of SS, it would appear that your SS is left behind in a recorded (biblical) history when a SS never existed. From your SS, it proclaims a teaching that reflects a past history that is never present. For clarification please see the following comments.

Magisterium and Tradition.
*]There is not a page, a sentence, or a single word written from any ECFs, Magisteriums , councils, or Popes that is God Breathed. None!

Your misinformed about the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition. Both are God breathed, because both the Magisterium and Sacred Tradition are divinely instituted by God. These did not remain dead in the past as per your SS view. The Magisterium and Sacred Tradition are proof to be God breathed because they both are living today unchanged since the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

ECFs, Magisteriums, councils, or Popes have NEVER stated " Thus says the Lord…" or its equivalent, for something that is not already found in Scripture. Never
Here; you continue to view your SS as if God remains in the past., as if God only spoke “Thus says the Lord” in a forgotten history. I am here to inform you, not debate your SS view. That God is Omni present in His body the Catholic Church in every age. The Catholic Magisterium and the Popes continue “Thus says the Lord” in every age and ever present.

For **one of many **examples; The Magistrates (Bishops) and their Presbyters are proclaiming every day from the rising of the Sun to it’s setting in every age “Thus say’s the Lord” at every consecration “This is my body”.

What is not found in Sola Scriptura, according to your view of SS, but is divinely revealed by God (or God breathed) today, is well established in our Catholic Liturgy handed down from Jesus and the Apostles, revealed in our liturgical ancient prayers and practices, that are God breathed (given to us by God) at the altar in God’s presence.

It appears to me, that your view of SS rejects what it can’t understand from Sola Scriptura, because the SS you describe is not living in the present, because your “Thus say’s the Lord” remains in the dead past of recorded history, thereby your view of SS cannot be God breathed, when the God we Catholics Love and follow is always present and living. The Omni present of God confirms “Thus say’s the Lord” is ever present in our midst.

When Jesus speaks to us in His presence in His Liturgy of the Word, this is God breathed 20,000 times to the infinite power, especially when Jesus is present in persona Christi, when He begins our prayer to His Father and our Father, to His God and our God, “Thus says the Lord”= “This is my body…This is my blood”.

Sola Scriptura without a living God breathed Magisterium and God breathed Sacraments which God has joined to Himself and To His living Word, Sola Scriptura becomes the dead speaking about a dead history, which Jesus fulfilled and resurrected from the dead.

I would love to count the ways how much God loves us in the present from our Catholic Apostolic divine liturgy which is God breathed, because God revealed it and commissioned the Magisterium to live it and practice it until Jesus returns for His Bride

cont;

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

cont;

]Self claimed to be infallible 2 times, 20 times, 2000 times.??* No one knows!**

Your view of SS, would be the first I have heard, **if it denies **the developed doctrine of the Trinity to be an infallible teaching of the Church ,revealed by God.

When Peter and the apostolic successors have exercised their divine given keys to bind and loose upon the whole earth, when Jesus revealed, He will bind and loose in heaven, what ever Peter binds and looses on earth.

This is God breathed and when ever God binds and looses in heaven, is this not an infallible revelation? We believe if God said it, promised it and fulfilled it, It is infallible.

The Mass instituted by Jesus Christ is infallible both in faith and practice, if your SS view is in need of proof of what is God breathed today and infallible.

*]Traditions can still be added and become dogma (ex; 5th Marian dogma?)

For the record. There can never be any new or developed doctrines that contradict Sacred Scripture or God breathed Sacred Tradition.

**And that is why scripture is alone:
**
Scripture is in a class by itself.
It is the highest pinnacle of authority:
God’s Word has no other equal.
It is above all other authorities.

Sacred Scripture was Canonized by the Catholic Church for her divine (God breathed) liturgy period.

Sacred Scripture is never revealed to be isolated by itself or Sola independent from God’s Presence made present to His One body the Catholic church existing both in heaven and on earth. Dare I say, including those in purgatory, who are not part of the damned but are part of the saved.

It is not tied for first place with anything else.
It is not just one leg of a three legged stool.

Correction; Jesus the Word of God is present in His Magisterium as Our King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Jesus is present and living in His Liturgy of the Word (Jesus is not present in ink on a page), Jesus is ever present in His Sacraments practiced from Oral Sacred Tradition.

From the Trinity (symbolized in the three legged throne) reveals God’s presence as one in His Magisterium, Sacred Scripture, Sacred Tradition. You cannot have one without the other. To do so, is to divide what is eternally God breathed.

Better far that I should read with certainty and persuasion of its truththe Holy Scripture, placed on the highest (even the heavenly) pinnacle of authority, and should, without questioning the trustworthiness of its statements, learn from it that men have been either, commended, or corrected, or condemned, than that, through fear of believing that by men, who, though of most praiseworthy excellence, were no more than men, actions deserving rebuke might sometimes be done, I should admit suspicions affecting the trustworthiness of the whole “oracles of God.”
-Augustine, Letters of St. Augustine, Letter 82.2.5

There exist no Saint in heaven or on earth that practiced or believed in a Sola Scriptura as you presented. To quote the Catholic Saint Augustine out of his original speech and thought context does not support any Sola Scriptura that objects to the bishop of Hippo who practiced the God breathed Catholic liturgy as we Roman Catholics practice it today.

Thank you for your post

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

Hi a,

And this also from Agustine:

" there is a distinct boundary line separating all productions subsequent to apostolic times from the authoritative canonical books of the Old and New Testaments…
Such writings (patristic) are read with the right of judgment, and without any obligation to believe… the distinctive peculiarity of the sacred writings, we are bound to receive as true’’

Reply To Faustus The Manichaean, 11:5)

Blessings

ben, St. Augustine is responding to a heretical heresy, from which the said Saint has first hand experience. St. Augustine is not defending a Sola Scriptura as Sola Scripturalist subscribe too today.

No Catholic Saint ever places writings from the Fathers on a par with Sacred Scripture. Why does a Sola Scriptura follower invent things to support your view of Sola Scriptura. All you need is Sola Scriptura to support a Sola Scriptura teaching to qualify it, which it never does.

But don’t use Catholic Saint writings such as St. Augustine on a par with Sola Scriptura to support a Sola Scriptura position. Which no Catholic Saint ever took a Sola Scriptura position.

In fact, it was St. Augustine who quoted; " I will not believe the Gospels, if the Catholic Church had not informed me to do so".

Peace be with you

 

[Gabriel_of_12]

benhur;13799836]Hi G,

Not sure of any moving away. Not sure that Luther rejected magisterium or Tradtion, save as being infallible or normative as Writ.

Luther called Peter (Pope) the one, who Jesus gave the divine keys too and commissioned to feed and tend His flock on earth, the Anti-Christ. Luther not only rejected Sacred Apostolic Tradition, Luther rejected many canonized book in the New Testament such as James, Hebrews, Revelations and others.

Again ,what is apostolic ? Hearsay is OK but problematic (conditional) where Writ is not in its origin.

The practice of the divine keys by the chosen divine key holders. Those upon Jesus breathed the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sin or retain sin and the power to baptize in the presence of the Holy Trinity. No other men on earth possess such powers, only those apostles and their chosen apostolic successors.

We go from the few things of Nicea to the many of Trent and further divide brethren

.

Sola Scriptura has been introduced for five hundred years now, and has splintered and divided itself into multiple changed interpretations.

Since the first church council recorded in the book of Acts, the Catholic church has addressed false teachings and heretics since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, in every age these past 2000 years. She is built upon Rock that does not change. Many have departed from her, but none can change the Rock Jesus built upon Peter and the Apostles.

You mention much from tradition above, and evolving at that . It is fine to be just "apostolic’’ also. We do have eucharist, ordination, sacraments/rites. Trouble yourself not. (That goes for me also. I love to be dogmatic, legalistic, Phariseeical, right, for others to be conformist-to me).

I only asked a question of your commentary. Did not mean to trouble you

 

[susanlo]

How could it be for “all believers” when Jesus specifically requires of those who love Him that they “obey My teaching”?

The reality that St Peter and his successors would teach infallibly is in Christ’s clear mandate:
**You are Peter and on this rock I will build MY Church." (Mt 16:18)
**“The gates of hell will not prevail against it.”(Mt 16:18)
I will give you the keys of the Kingdom of heaven." ( Mt 16:19)
“Whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven.” (Mt 16:19) [Later, also to the Twelve]. [My emphasis]

Why would you want to reject Christ’s clear words of foundation?

How can any of Christ’s teaching be known clearly without His own Church?

Yes, Jesus promised the Holy Spirit for all of those who loved Him. Obeying the commandments is a natural occurrence when one truly loves and accepts Jesus. Those who do not accept Jesus do not have the Holy Spirit and are non-believers.

Matthew 16:18-19 is not a commandment, but a statement. I understand that the Roman Catholic Church accepts the rock/petra to be Peter and have determined that this role grants powers to Peter that are passed down over the years. I am coming from a different denomination and I am not sure if that is exactly what is being said here. I am sorry that this is veering off-topic, but it seems to be coming up a lot. I think it is important to realize that people don’t willfully disobey this commandment (which isn’t given in command form), but view this verse as saying something different.

Wasn’t God the Rock in the OT? - Genesis 49:24, Deuteronomy 32, 1 Samuel 2:2, 2 Samuel 22:32,47, 2 Samuel 23:3, Psalm 18:31,46, Psalm 19:14, Psalm 28:1, Psalm 31:2-3, Psalm 42:9, Psalm 62:2-7, Psalm 71:3, Psalm 78:35, Psalm 89:26, Psalm 92:15, Psalm 94:22, Psalm 95:1, Isaiah 8:14, Isaiah 17:10, Isaiah 26:4, Isaiah 28:16, Isaiah 30:29, Isaiah 44:8, Habakkuk 1:12 - Was Jesus now declaring a Rock outside the trinity? 1 Corinthians 10:4 declares that the spiritual rock that accompanied the Israelites was Jesus. 1 Peter 2 cites passages from Isaiah declaring that Jesus is the cornerstone/rock. Are there 2 rocks in Roman Catholic theology? I had never heard until this past year about putting faith on a rock besides God or Christ Jesus. I am newly learning the differences in Catholic theology.

Did Peter take a position of authority over other apostles? Even if he was mentioned more than the other original 11, this doesn’t give him authority. The player who hits 2 homeruns in every game doesn’t have authority over the one who strikes out every time. (Some apostles mentioned little in the Bible may have achieved great things that were not captured in writing. But even if they didn’t, that doesn’t mean they were the subjects of another apostle). Matthew 23:8-12 gave Jesus an opportunity to explain the hierarchical power in the new kingdom, but he only gave the role “brothers.” Weren’t the apostles frequently arguing about who would be the greatest? (Luke 9:46-48; Luke 22:24-27) Surely they didn’t understand Matthew 16:18 as giving Peter authority over them – and Jesus never corrected them and set forth that Peter was in authority over them.

Early theologians interpreted these verses in different ways. Just a few brief quotes, but there is so much about this:
Some, like Augustine, thought that the rock was Christ – “For before he was called Simon. Now this name of Peter was given him by the Lord, and that in a figure, that he should signify the Church. For seeing that Christ is the rock (Petra), Peter is the Christian people.” – Sermon 26

Some, like Origen said that the rock was Peter, but he was representative for all of the church.
“And if we too have said like Peter, You are the Christ, the Son of the living God, not as if flesh and blood had revealed it unto us, but by light from the Father in heaven having shone in our heart, we become a Peter, and to us there might be said by the Word, You are Peter, etc. Matthew 16:18 For a rock is every disciple of Christ of whom those drank who drank of the spiritual rock which followed them"– Origen Commentary on Matthew Book XII

Tertullian does say that the rock was Peter, but he doesn’t say that that title transfers to the church: “If, because the Lord has said to Peter, “Upon this rock will I build My Church,” “to thee have I given the keys of the heavenly kingdom;” or, “Whatsoever thou shale have bound or loosed in earth, shall be bound or loosed in the heavens,” you therefore presume that the power of binding and loosing has derived to you, that is, to every Church akin to Peter, what sort of man are you, subverting and wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter?” – Tertullian – On Modesty

There are hundreds of quotes, but my point is that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 has never been accepted by everyone universally. I have been reading early Christian literature intently and learning about our church history. But, I don’t feel I am disobeying a command by not interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean I must put faith in the Bishop of Rome.

 

[benhur]

The theory of “Sola Scriptura” sounds interesting on paper. But I have yet to meet the person who truly practices it. It will kind of be nice when the day comes when the whole idea is laid to rest. If such a theory actually existed, there would not be Christian book-stores full to over brimming with copious amounts of books written by third-parties. There would be no need for long protestant sermons, and there would be rampant heresies. Even then it would not be “sola scriptura” it would be “scriptura” filtered through me, “scriptura” filtered through my pastor, “scriptura” filtered through legacy reformists, systematic theologies, statements of faiths, and on the list goes.

“All scripture” is not the same as saying “only scripture”. If the question is one of “authority”, (which is the only reason the theory exists in the first place), all it has done is make ourselves the “authority” not the “scriptures”.

Hi D,

and if ourselves are the authority then it not sola scriptura, correct.

Easy to knock down SS (and elevate magisteium) by insisting SS means just take your bible and curl up in a ball, and you are all set. Bye bye parents, teachers, pastors, bishops, popes, councils, tradition. Didn’t Luther and followers go into caves of Bavaria and Alps etc., and live as singular, individual hermits ?

The apostles had authority with the oral Gospel. They then put it to Writ. We no longer have the apostles, but use their Writ as normative . As Augustine states, there is a “distinction” between their writ and all other writ. That is our tradition. Church authorities rest on the apostles and their Writ. Pretty simple.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

Why would you want to reject Christ’s clear words of foundation?

How can any of Christ’s teaching be known clearly without His own Church?

Hi Abu,

" you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household,built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone."

“The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb”. Rev 21

“As you come to him, the living Stone–rejected by humans but chosen by God and precious to him–you also, like living stones, are being built into a spiritual house to be a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ”. 1Peter

Our foundation is acknowledged, as is our place in the subsequent building.

Face it , the church is bigger than any one sect. Lumen Gentia says so (though she makes it perfectly clear all things are really Catholic). We dare not say we now see thru a glass darkly . Things must be perfectly “clear” (nice and tidy, no loose ends)…?.

Blessings

 

[benhur]

]Luther called Peter

Hi gabriel,

News to me that Luther called Peter the Anti-Christ. Maybe Luther was misinterpreting Pope Gregory’s first use of the term for anyone deeming themselves to be universal bishop.

News to me that the Luther’s bible had less than 24 NT books. Maybe Luther misinterpreted Jerome’s comments on said books, or a few of Luther’s contemporary bishops likewise.

The practice of the divine keys by the chosen divine key holders. Those upon Jesus breathed the power of the Holy Spirit to forgive sin or retain sin and the power to baptize in the presence of the Holy Trinity. No other men on earth possess such powers, only those apostles and their chosen apostolic successors.

So a disciple is not a successor ? The apostles also had trouble with disciples that did not hang out with the twelve.

Sola Scriptura has been introduced for five hundred years now, and has splintered and divided itself into multiple changed interpretations.

Yes it has. Truth divides. The CC has splintered also just not as much.

Since the first church council recorded in the book of Acts, the Catholic church has addressed false teachings and heretics since the resurrection of Jesus Christ, in every age these past 2000 years. She is built upon Rock that does not change. Many have departed from her, but none can change the Rock Jesus built upon Peter and the Apostles.

Much Rock is acknowledged in the 2000 years. But like the OT, some things have changed, evolved, just like in the OT, due to tradition, and misapplication of Writ or denial of it.

I only asked a question of your commentary. Did not mean to trouble you

The question was "loaded’. The insinuation is that if others have a different liturgy , different "succession’, different sacrament practices, it is not "apostolic’’. Of course tradition lends itself also to be quite living, evolving, and open but questionably theopneustos.

Blessings

 

[Starwarsfan2]

Luther called Peter (Pope) the one, who Jesus gave the divine keys too and commissioned to feed and tend His flock on earth, the Anti-Christ. Luther not only rejected Sacred Apostolic Tradition, Luther rejected many canonized book in the New Testament such as James, Hebrews, Revelations

Ridiculous, Luther never called Peter the anti Christ , merely the papacy , and you forget that he also called the pope a brother in his writings, secondly Luther and Lutherans accept tradition, but scripture is the final authority ( prima scriptura) , third Luther removed no book from the NT , he merely called four of them Antilegomena, questioned, referring to the canon debates in. The early church .

 

[benhur]

ben, St. Augustine is responding to a heretical heresy, from which the said Saint has first hand experience. St. Augustine is not defending a Sola Scriptura as Sola Scripturalist subscribe too today.

No Catholic Saint ever places writings from the Fathers on a par with Sacred Scripture. Why does a Sola Scriptura follower invent things to support your view of Sola Scriptura. All you need is Sola Scriptura to support a Sola Scriptura teaching to qualify it, which it never does.

But don’t use Catholic Saint writings such as St. Augustine on a par with Sola Scriptura to support a Sola Scriptura position. Which no Catholic Saint ever took a Sola Scriptura position.

In fact, it was St. Augustine who quoted; " I will not believe the Gospels, if the Catholic Church had not informed me to do so".

Peace be with you

Ok. I will concede a little. I did use use the word "prima’’ that may more aptly describe His position. I mean "supremacy’’ (of Writ) has some meaning.

One must expand on Fathers a little also (considering how much more theological father writing was to come). I mean succession and her writings are implied to be "judged’.

The quote about believe the gospels is also very generic to all three present day branches (P’s and O’s and CC) and does not challenge SS. Writ says salvation is thru preaching. The church preaches.

Blessings

 

[Abu]

susanlo #110
Are there 2 rocks in Roman Catholic theology? I had never heard until this past year about putting faith on a rock besides God or Christ Jesus. I am newly learning the differences in Catholic theology.

That is a good point which needs in depth study to understand.

On St Peter, scholarly commentary identifies that Cephas is merely the transliteration of the Aramaic ‘Kepha’ into Greek. Catholicism And Fundamentalism, Karl Keating, 1988, Ignatius, p 207]. Paul calls Peter “Cephas” quite often. [Keating, p 208-11].

“Transliteration” means to represent words in the characters of another alphabet. Convert David B Currie puts it this way: “Kepha] transliterated into English, can be written ‘Cephas’.” Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, 1996, Ignatius, p 76]. **Since “Kepha” is the only Aramaic word for rock, Currie points out that Jesus said: “I tell you that you are Rock (Kepha) and on this Rock (Kepha) I will build my Church.” **

In reality, Fr Stanley L Jaki, S.J. points out that the consummate skill of Jesus in quoting the Bible was manifest in the name He gave to Simon. “Instead of calling Simon sur, he called him Kepha. The former was the chief biblical word for rock, the latter was the Aramaic version, commonly used in Jesus’ time, for the biblical keph, which occurs only a few times in the Old Testament. [My emphases].

“Jesus’ choice of kepha left Simon what he was, a mere man, while the very same name grafted on him, through its being closely synonymous with sur, something superhuman.

Fr Jaki concludes that “Christ’s words ‘you are rock,’ have their validity even if Yahweh had never been called Rock in the Old Testament.”

“Sur” was the chief biblical word for rock, and the Psalms emphasised that God was the only Rock (sur). “Being closely synonymous with “sur”, the name Kepha could not help but evoke in pious Jews, as all the twelve were, a sentiment of awe and reverence. [See *And On This Rock, Fr Stanley L Jaki, O.S.B., Trinity Communications, 1987, p 74-81].

 

[Darryl_B]

Hi D,

Church authorities rest on the apostles and their Writ. Pretty simple.

Blessings

And that, my friend, is not sola scriptura. II Timothy 3. Timothy a next generation church authority instructed by Paul to protect by continuing in what you have learned from the Apostles (spoken direction) (Tradition) and Scripture (the OT), to teach the current and next generation and so on and so on and so on.

Legacy is something we all desire to leave behind to our children. Nobody does this by writing letters to their children “only”. Why would God’s family be any different?

 

[Abu]

susanlo #110
Did Peter take a position of authority over other apostles? Even if he was mentioned more than the other original 11, this doesn’t give him authority.

’247. Was not the authority of “binding” and “loosing”, i.e., of legislating, given equally to all the apostles, just as to Peter (Matt., 18:18)?
Although it was extended to all collectively, Christ nevertheless gave more to St. Peter than to the others. To St. Peter, whose name He had changed from Simon to “Rock”, He had said in the singular: “Thou are Peter (Rock), and upon this rock I will build my Church . . . and I will give to thee the Keys of the kingdom of heaven.” He did not say those additional words to the other apostles. Again, to St. Peter alone, in Jn., 21:15-17, He committed the whole flock, saying: “Feed my lambs . . . feed my sheep;” also, in Lk., 22:32: “I have prayed for thee (again in the singular) that thy faith fail not; and do thou . . . confirm my brethren.” The Anglican Dr. John Lowe, in his book “Saint Peter,” pp. 60-62, writes of St. Peter: "To try to level him down as merely one among others all on the same footing is not really fair to the evidence . . . no one can take from him his special distinction as the leading disciple of Jesus, the first witness of the resurrection, the first head of the Church, the rock in a special sense on which it was built. On this point the Roman Catholic exegetes have had right on their side, as is increasingly recognised.” ’
Catholic Apologetics Online
radioreplies.info/site-se…q=equally&db=5

 

[Abu]

susanlo #110
Weren’t the apostles frequently arguing about who would be the greatest? (Luke 9:46-48; Luke 22:24-27) Surely they didn’t understand Matthew 16:18 as giving Peter authority over them – and Jesus never corrected them and set forth that Peter was in authority over them.

There are hundreds of quotes, but my point is that the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 has never been accepted by everyone universally. I have been reading early Christian literature intently and learning about our church history. But, I don’t feel I am disobeying a command by not interpreting Matthew 16:18 to mean I must put faith in the Bishop of Rome.

The reality of Peter being the Rock on which Christ founded His only Church is exemplified by the recognition of Peter’s status in Christ’s Church.

Already, Peter had exercised his supreme authority in the upper room before Pentecost to have Judas’ place filled. At the first Apostolic Council of Jerusalem Peter settled the heated discussion over circumcising the gentiles and “the whole assembly fell silent” (Acts 15:7-12). Paul made sure that his ministry to the gentiles was recognised by, Peter (Gal 1:I8).

From the N.T. we know that Christ promised that His Church would last until the end of time, which would mean the constitutional permanence of the office of head of His Church which He had bestowed on Peter alone. (Mt 16:18). Early Church history, e.g. St Irenaeus, taught by St Polycarp who had been a disciple of St John the Apostle, wrote in his great work *Adversus Haereses *in Bk 3, Sect 2 “The blessed Apostles, after founding and building up the Church (in Rome), handed over to Linus the office of Bishop.”

Peter often spoke for the rest of the Apostles (Mt 19:27; Mk 8:29; Lk 12:41; Jn 6:69). The Apostles are sometimes referred to as “Peter and his companions” (Lk 9:32; Mk 16:7; Acts 2:37). Peter’s name always heads the list of the Apostles (Mt 10:1-4; Mk 3:16-19; Lk 6:14-16; Acts 1:13). Finally, Peter’s name is mentioned 191 times, which is more than all the rest of the Apostles combined (about 130 times).

After Peter, the most frequently mentioned Apostle is John, whose name appears 48 times. Peter is conspicuously involved in all the Church’s important “firsts.” Peter led the meeting which elected the first successor to an Apostle ( Acts 1:13-26). Peter preached the first sermon at Pentecost (Acts 2:14), and received the first converts (Acts 2:4 1). Peter performed the first miracle after Pentecost (Acts 3:6-7), inflicted the first punishment upon Ananias and Saphira (Acts 5:1-11), and excommunicated the first heretic Simon the magician (Acts 8:2 1).

Peter is the first Apostle to raise a person from the dead (Acts 9:36-4 1). Peter first received the revelation to admit Gentiles into the Church (Acts 10:9-16), and commanded that the first Gentile converts be baptized (Acts 10:44-48).

The fact that “the Roman Catholic interpretation of Matthew 16:18 has never been accepted by everyone universally” demonstrates the reality that humanity exists in a fallen nature and the evils and selfist actions are the result of that fact, apart from the reality that so many are misinformed.

The denial of this reality for multitudinous self-expression is what has caused the errors that followed.