oat soda:
while we are in agreement about the church fathers, they still don’t always agree with eachother. ultimatley, you are the sole interpreter of tradition. you are the one who arbitrarily decides what is truth and what isn’t.
Actually, St. Vincent of Lerins and the dictum of Augustine are the rules for interpreting tradition. To quite St. Vincent, writing in his Commitorium: “Now in the Catholic Church itself we take the greatest care to hold that which has been believed everywhere, always and by all. That is truly and properly ‘Catholic,’ as is shown by the very force and meaning of the word, which comprehends everything almost universally. We shall hold to this rule if we follow universality *, antiquity, and consent.”
This requires us to cling together to those things that are essential to salvation and that have been taught universally throughout the Church. However, there are many things that various groups teach that are not necessary for salvation. These things are not binding on the conscience of a Christian for they do not follow the rule of universality, antiquity, and consent. This isn’t my rule, this is the rule that Vincent put forth. I submit to it.
how is this different then protestantism?
Protestantisim is simply, “I’m doing this MY way.” Clinging to the Catholic faith requires a submission of personal will to the universal witness of the Church. The problem comes in when any competent jurisdiction begins to require the individual to dogmatically or doctrinally accept and assent to teachings that are not necessary for salvation.
Protestantisim does not recognize any kind of Magesterium, save the Scriptures. Catholicisim does indeed recognize a Magesterium. The question is, what is that Magesterium. Those churches in communion with the See of Rome believe that the Magesterium is safeguarded principally with the Roman Pontiff, in consultation with the episcopal college united to him. Those in commuion with the Ecumenical Patriarch hold that it is the task of the entire episcopate, together with the faithful, to maintain inviolate the magesterium of the Church. There are others who believe that the faith was once for all handed down and that any appearance of alteration (not explanation, alteration) is dangerous.
the full quote is it clearly says to stand firm in those traditions taught by us and not those you think are correct. there is no “I”, we are to follow the teachings of the church, not our wills, but God’s. again, it’s all about you, “I am not, I go…,etc” like how? this argument is tired.
The problem is, given the current doctrinal and dogmatic stances of both Rome and Constantinople, you would have summarilly excommunicated half of the Church Fathers. The traditions have changed. There is no way around that fact. The question becomes does any eccelesiastical body have the faculty or right to require more for salvation than Christ himself does?
which creeds, which early fathers, and which scriptures? and how do you know they are authoritative?
The principal creed is the Nicene in it’s historic form. Which Fathers? All of them, taken in context, and weighing them all against the plain words of Scripture (for tradition and scripture are never at odds). Which Scriptures? Why, the Christian Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, of course. How do I know that they are authoritative? Because God has certified the fact that his word is true, for it is God-breathed, and because when scripture and tradition work in harmony, they bring glory to God.
you still have to interpret them. how do you know you interpret the fathers or scripture correctly?
You take them in context. You look at the age in which they were written, view the different nuances of the original languages, and then honestly assess the total witness of Scripture and the Fathers. Again, there is an elegant line of simplicity and truth that ties together the Scriptures and our Traditions on those matters that are necessary to salvation. To burden souls with more than that is something that the Church should never do.
Rob+*
