The historicity of the Church

[JamesTheJust]

It didn’t, the church is anywhere where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

That includes my church, yours, most of ours in fact. Last time I checked I was visible.

So if all Christians except the Marcionists were to disappear, Christ’s church would still exist? After all, they did preach the Word of God (albeit only an edited version of the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline epistles), and they did administer Sacraments.

No thanks, I think I’ll stick with the 318 Council Fathers of Nicaea and say that the Church must be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

 

[Celtic_Maiden]

Of course not! The original 12 all died! What is it that these folks are alleging? That one is therefore justified to innovate in “restoring” the original Church? As with all “bible” Christians, I think they are then forced into reverse-engineering the faith from the partial written record…

A process which is little different from backing your car up until the odometer reads zero, then proclaiming that you must be at the factory.
This is the reformers’ implied “invisible apostasy” theory as well as the LDS “great apostasy” theory.

The problem with either theory is that they must be very heavily nuanced in order to avoid making Jesus a liar.

Where do you get off on this nonsense , the invisible apostasy, the great apostasy, sounds like one of Charles Dickens novels, all made up into a ball of mush and rubbish.
That is accusing the Lord of abandoning his children whom He said he would be with until the end of time, Our Lord like a good father would not desert his children, would you desert your children if you told them you would be always there for them, no you would not, Our Lord said to his Apostles that He would be with them until the end of time. People who accuse Our Lord of the great apostasy is calling the Lord a liar, woe unto them when He meets them. He has not/never left his Church which is the Catholic Church on earth which he founded, how could He have left it, if after 2000 years its still here healthy and thriving.

There is no excuse for ignorance read “The Church Fathers” who gave you the Bible in the first place - The Catholic Church.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

It didn’t, the church is anywhere where the word is preached and the sacraments administered.

That includes my church, yours, most of ours in fact. Last time I checked I was visible.

This sounds too much like Relative Christianity…

Thank you for not ignoring history, well not all of it. It is a noble thing to look at things in such a universal way (small “c” catholic ). But WELS was not around in the 1st century. No matter how silly remarks or one liners you’d like to post. It just wasn’t there.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Where do you get off on this nonsense , the invisible apostasy, the great apostasy, sounds like one of Charles Dickens novels, all made up into a ball of mush and rubbish.
That is accusing the Lord of abandoning his children whom He said he would be with until the end of time, Our Lord like a good father would not desert his children, would you desert your children if you told them you would be always there for them, no you would not, Our Lord said to his Apostles that He would be with them until the end of time. People who accuse Our Lord of the great apostasy is calling the Lord a liar, woe unto them when He meets them. He has not/never left his Church which is the Catholic Church on earth which he founded, how could He have left it, if after 2000 years its still here healthy and thriving.

There is no excuse for ignorance read “The Church Fathers” who gave you the Bible in the first place - The Catholic Church.

I think he was being sarcastic.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

So if all Christians except the Marcionists were to disappear, Christ’s church would still exist? After all, they did preach the Word of God (albeit only an edited version of the Gospel of Luke and the Pauline epistles), and they did administer Sacraments.

No thanks, I think I’ll stick with the 318 Council Fathers of Nicaea and say that the Church must be One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic.

No, Marcionites rejected the God of Israel and therefore Jesus Christ.

To preach the world one most also preach The Word.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

This sounds too much like Relative Christianity…

Thank you for not ignoring history, well not all of it. It is a noble thing to look at things in such a universal way (small “c” catholic ). But WELS was not around in the 1st century. No matter how silly remarks or one liners you’d like to post. It just wasn’t there.

Not officially as in the name, but there were Christians who preached the word and administered the sacraments, that’s the WELS in a nutshell. So I trace my roots back to the first century and apostles as well.

 

[JamesTheJust]

No, Marcionites rejected the God of Israel and therefore Jesus Christ.

To preach the world one most also preach The Word.

Ah, I see. So what about the followers of Macedonius, those who rejected the divinity of the Holy Spirit; do they count as Christians?

A second question: how do you know that Macedonius, or Nestorius, or the Monothelites, or the Origenists, etc. are wrong?

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Ah, I see. So what about the followers of Macedonius, those who rejected the divinity of the Holy Spirit; do they count as Christians?

A second question: how do you know that Macedonius, or Nestorius, or the Monothelites, or the Origenists, etc. are wrong?

Ah, I see. So what about the followers of Macedonius, those who rejected the divinity of the Holy Spirit; do they count as Christians?

No.

A second question: how do you know that Macedonius, or Nestorius, or the Monothelites, or the Origenists, etc. are wrong?

Scripture, church tradition, and reason testify to their error.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Scripture

Hmm… I can’t find any Scripture that says that the Holy Spirit is divine, coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son, can you?

church tradition, and reason testify to their error.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Tell me, how authoritative is Tradition? Is Apostolic Tradition infallible?

 

[Novocastrian]

Hmm… I can’t find any Scripture that says that the Holy Spirit is divine, coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son, can you?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Tell me, how authoritative is Tradition? Is Apostolic Tradition infallible?

Before we move on with this - because this is a very fruitful line of dialogue! - can we make sure we’re all working with roughly the same definition of Tradition? Are you referring to the content thereof (i.e. the apostolic faith) or the mode of transmission (i.e. the fact that from the Apostles onwards, the bishops, clergy and laity have participated in passing on that faith tot he next generation)?

 

[po18guy]

Where do you get off on this nonsense , the invisible apostasy, the great apostasy, sounds like one of Charles Dickens novels, all made up into a ball of mush and rubbish.
That is accusing the Lord of abandoning his children whom He said he would be with until the end of time, Our Lord like a good father would not desert his children, would you desert your children if you told them you would be always there for them, no you would not, Our Lord said to his Apostles that He would be with them until the end of time. People who accuse Our Lord of the great apostasy is calling the Lord a liar, woe unto them when He meets them. He has not/never left his Church which is the Catholic Church on earth which he founded, how could He have left it, if after 2000 years its still here healthy and thriving.

There is no excuse for ignorance read “The Church Fathers” who gave you the Bible in the first place - The Catholic Church.

First, one should understand what they are criticizing. Please ask next time.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

Hmm… I can’t find any Scripture that says that the Holy Spirit is divine, coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son, can you?

Now we’re getting somewhere. Tell me, how authoritative is Tradition? Is Apostolic Tradition infallible?

Hmm… I can’t find any Scripture that says that the Holy Spirit is divine, coequal and coeternal with the Father and Son, can you?

Yes. Acts 5 3-4.

Now we’re getting somewhere. Tell me, how authoritative is Tradition? Is Apostolic Tradition infallible?

Tradition is not authoritative or infallible at all. In fact its a recipe for disaster and disunity to hold tradition as an arbiter of truth as high as scripture. That’s why there are so many churches each claiming to follow Tradition but disagree vehemently over matters of faith.

No, tradition is useful as a transmitter of Gods word, as per Paul in 1 Cor 11. But when they get in the way of Gods word they need to be discarded.

 

[EvangelCatholic]

Before we move on with this - because this is a very fruitful line of dialogue! - can we make sure we’re all working with roughly the same definition of Tradition? Are you referring to the content thereof (i.e. the apostolic faith) or the mode of transmission (i.e. the fact that from the Apostles onwards, the bishops, clergy and laity have participated in passing on that faith tot he next generation)?

Helpful suggestion because things get a bit more clear when we include apostolic succession.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not officially as in the name, but there were Christians who preached the word and administered the sacraments, that’s the WELS in a nutshell. So I trace my roots back to the first century and apostles as well.

I see. So that I’m clear:

You don’t deny the historicity of the Church.
You deny the need for apostolic succession.

As for the preaching of the word and the sacraments - that is something for another thread. But to be clear, EO, OO, and CC all have 7 sacraments. The sacraments are a different thread entirely.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Before we move on with this - because this is a very fruitful line of dialogue! - can we make sure we’re all working with roughly the same definition of Tradition? Are you referring to the content thereof (i.e. the apostolic faith) or the mode of transmission (i.e. the fact that from the Apostles onwards, the bishops, clergy and laity have participated in passing on that faith tot he next generation)?

Helpful suggestion because things get a bit more clear when we include apostolic succession.

Before we touch on that, and I think Novo already has a thread that deals with Tradition (If my memory serves me right), I’d like to know your opinion on the OP in regards with the historicity of the Church.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I see. So that I’m clear:

You don’t deny the historicity of the Church.
You deny the need for apostolic succession.

As for the preaching of the word and the sacraments - that is something for another thread. But to be clear, EO, OO, and CC all have 7 sacraments. The sacraments are a different thread entirely.

You don’t deny the historicity of the Church.

Not at all.

You deny the need for apostolic succession.

Not at all either. I simply believe that wherever the word is preached and the sacraments are administered are part of apostolic succession.

As for the preaching of the word and the sacraments - that is something for another thread. But to be clear, EO, OO, and CC all have 7 sacraments.

I don’t believe there are seven sacraments, rather 2. Although we do the same things, marriage, anointing of the sick etc. It took a while to develop the list anyway.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Not at all either. I simply believe that wherever the word is preached and the sacraments are administered are part of apostolic succession.

Well, the problem with this assertion is that it is not consistent with Scriptures and the historic Church.

Jesus breathes on the Apostles, and the Apostles in turn lay on the hands on those who are chosen to go forward and carry on the good news and the doctrine of the Church. I am not going to go over the verses that deal with this because I believe you know them as well.

So its not just the lay on of hands but the agreement in the teaching and doctrine of the Church with Her Bishops.

In your case, you are not in agreement in the teaching and doctrine with any of the historic Churches. As such, you are engaging in a practice that is not consistent with the historic Church.

I don’t believe there are seven sacraments, rather 2. Although we do the same things, marriage, anointing of the sick etc. It took a while to develop the list anyway.

Like I said, a thread on its own.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Yes. Acts 5 3-4.

I don’t see the words coequal, coeternal, or simul adoratur in there. What is to stop one from alleging that the Holy Spirit is divine to a lesser degree than is the Father, as Arius did of the Son?

Tradition is not authoritative or infallible at all. In fact its a recipe for disaster and disunity to hold tradition as an arbiter of truth as high as scripture. That’s why there are so many churches each claiming to follow Tradition but disagree vehemently over matters of faith.

This argument is fallacious. It is just like the argument of the atheist who says, “Since there are so many religions all claiming to follow the one true God, there is no one true God at all.”

No, tradition is useful as a transmitter of Gods word, as per Paul in 1 Cor 11. But when they get in the way of Gods word they need to be discarded.

Give me one example of Tradition “getting in the way of” Scripture.

 

[House_Harkonnen]

I don’t see the words coequal, coeternal, or simul adoratur in there. What is to stop one from alleging that the Holy Spirit is divine to a lesser degree than is the Father, as Arius did of the Son?

This argument is fallacious. It is just like the argument of the atheist who says, “Since there are so many religions all claiming to follow the one true God, there is no one true God at all.”

Give me one example of Tradition “getting in the way of” Scripture.

I don’t see the words coequal, coeternal, or simul adoratur in there. What is to stop one from alleging that the Holy Spirit is divine to a lesser degree than is the Father, as Arius did of the Son?

Because that interpretation doesn’t make any sense in light of the passage.

This argument is fallacious. It is just like the argument of the atheist who says, “Since there are so many religions all claiming to follow the one true God, there is no one true God at all.”

I see. Then would you agree that the “because there are so many Protestant denominations sola Scriptura must be false” argument is also fallacious?

Give me one example of Tradition “getting in the way of” Scripture.

Sure the tradition of indulgences. The tradition that the pope has sole supreme jurisdiction over the entire church.

 

[JamesTheJust]

Because that interpretation doesn’t make any sense in light of the passage.

How so?

I see. Then would you agree that the “because there are so many Protestant denominations sola Scriptura must be false” argument is also fallacious?

No, because that’s a different animal altogether (though I might add that that’s a misrepresentation of the Catholic argument).

Sure the tradition of indulgences. The tradition that the pope has sole supreme jurisdiction over the entire church.

Naturally, you’ll have to show how these doctrines contradict Scripture.