C
Churchmouse
Guest
But no “infallible” decisions were made (using the Catholic vernacular), thus, there were two prevailing views throughout the early history of the Church.
Peace,
CM
The Old Testament Books, the deuterocanonical books not in the Jewish Bible, WHY NOT?
- Status
Peace,
CM
M
MrS
Guest
Where is that in Scripture. Yes the Bereans where lauded for testing what they Heard by what they Read. There were not instructed to do only this testing.
Additionally, they were receiving this instruction Orally. Hmmmm
MrS
M
MrS
Guest
If we weigh within the balances of Scripture alone, how come there are so many different interpretations of say, infant baptism for example, and each interpreter, using only his understanding of scripture alone, arrives at diverse opinion? And each would think of himself as a man of God.
If the early heresies were defended through Scripture, do you mean the Canon was established then, and closed, or the heresies were rejected based only on someone’s idea of what was inspired?
MrS
M
MrS
Guest
MrShttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif
M
MrS
Guest
I won’t quote all the Fathers wrote, - no room, and the books already exist. But here are three samples>>>>
St Irenaeus "…the Church, having received the preaching and the faith, although she is diseminated throughout the whole world, yet guarded it, as if she occupied but one house. She likewise believes these things just as if she had but one soul and one and same heart, and harmoniously she proclaims them and teaches them and hands them down, as if she possessed but one mouth. (Against Heresies 1,10,2)
Eusibius "But the brightness of the Catholic Church proceeded to increase in greatness, for it ever held to the same points in the same way, and radiated forth to all the race of Greeks and barbarians the reverent, sincere and free nature, and the sobriety and purity of the divine teaching as to conduct and thought. (Ecclesiastical History 4,7,13)
St Augustine “The Catholic Church is the work of Divine Providence, achieved through the prophecies of the prophets, through the Incarnation and the teaching of Christ, through the journeys of the Apostles, through the suffering, the crosses, the blood and death of the martyrs, through the admirable lives of the saints… When, then, we see so much help on God’s part, so much progress and so much fruit, shall we hesitate to bury ourselves in the bosom of that Church? For starting from the Apostolic chair down through the succession of bishops, even unto the open confession of all mankind, it has possessed the crown of teaching authority.” (The Advantage of Believing 35)
MrS
M
MrS
Guest
Amen to that. Since the Church is Jesus…No one is denying that the church will be for all time.
So “you” believe
Peace,
CM
So , praise God, "CREDO"http://forums.catholic-questions.or...atholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon14.gif
MrS
N
nucatholic
Guest
Church Mouse is in the same trap we were as Protestants. (Speaking as a former non-denom of 14 years) There is nothing in the Bible that states we are to go on it alone. The Protestants believe that there is not one, holy, Catholic and apostolic church. They do not believe the Bible when it states that the Church is the FOUNDATION and PILLAR of truth. (Pretty cut and dry sounding to me) Sola Scriptura is a tradition that was not started by the apostles but 1500 years later. That means it is a tradition of man and Jesus warns us about traditions of men. Church Mouse, I understand where your coming from. I fought it for a long time but Jesus does have a Church that is carrying out His and His apostles will for unity. I will pray that the Holy Spirit will let you see this. God bless!
M
Maccabees
Guest
What is funy about these arguments is how differnet protestants have different interpretations of what sola fide and sola scriptura. Protestants can’t even decide amongst themselves what these invented terms mean. After 500 years there are dozens of differnet takes of these reforamation doctreins sure churchmouse you say it means x but then I ask pastor at Bobs Bible church and he tells me it means y. WHy the mixup in protestant terminology?
Well considering when they rejected the literal interpretation of the eucharist they concluded to given dozens of interpretations within Luther’s own lifetime of what the communion meal meant to the believer. Protestants are the heir of Luther no doubt but if they are not Lutheran they disagree on the very same protestant terminology that he invented.
The canon is much to complicated subject to debate to anyone’s satisfaction. It is is reality all about authority in the end do you accept the authority and decisions of councils of the church or do you go with the opinion of one man who in the end is not granted the keys of the kingdom or the power to bind and loose?
The canon cannot be simply debated becuase there was no simple debate it took in reality 1500 years to debate within the church herself. THe OT canon was not settled at the time of Christ nor at Jamina it was probably settle by post temple-Rabbis nearly 300 years after Christ obviously they would not have any authority of the christians who were trying to figure out the canon for themselves. The african councils is a witness to inclusion of the dueterocanonicals in the early church. There was virtually no debate in the early church of their inclusion until the writings of Jerome. He influenced some of the other church fathers to question their inclsion in the catholic Bible yet while this debate remained open so did the fact that the dueterocanonicals were included in the Bible. Form the time of the apsotles the septugient included the dueterocannicals and to most catholic the mere inclusion guarantedd it revered as holy writ. In jeromes Vulgae it remained included. THus for the first 1500 years it was included in the Bilbe in the OT canon with no spepearation until Luther took it out and put it in the back of the Bible and labled it apocrapha.
TO put this in this proper perspective we must look at the NT canon it also had dueterocannonicals the inclusion of HEbrews, III John James, Jude and Revelation were not considered canonical until the African councils as witnessed by Eusebious some accepted these books and others rejected these books as late the Nicean period. Also while some rejected these books some fathers accepted the Epsistle of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Sherpherd of Hermas as canonical.
At the very least a protestant must admit their was no such thing as sola scriptura in the early church since the issue of canon neither in the OLD or New testament was settled at the earliest 400 years at the time of Christ and if you think the Church did not settle this question till Trent then sola scriptura surely never existed in the Catholic Church ever.
Well considering when they rejected the literal interpretation of the eucharist they concluded to given dozens of interpretations within Luther’s own lifetime of what the communion meal meant to the believer. Protestants are the heir of Luther no doubt but if they are not Lutheran they disagree on the very same protestant terminology that he invented.
The canon is much to complicated subject to debate to anyone’s satisfaction. It is is reality all about authority in the end do you accept the authority and decisions of councils of the church or do you go with the opinion of one man who in the end is not granted the keys of the kingdom or the power to bind and loose?
The canon cannot be simply debated becuase there was no simple debate it took in reality 1500 years to debate within the church herself. THe OT canon was not settled at the time of Christ nor at Jamina it was probably settle by post temple-Rabbis nearly 300 years after Christ obviously they would not have any authority of the christians who were trying to figure out the canon for themselves. The african councils is a witness to inclusion of the dueterocanonicals in the early church. There was virtually no debate in the early church of their inclusion until the writings of Jerome. He influenced some of the other church fathers to question their inclsion in the catholic Bible yet while this debate remained open so did the fact that the dueterocanonicals were included in the Bible. Form the time of the apsotles the septugient included the dueterocannicals and to most catholic the mere inclusion guarantedd it revered as holy writ. In jeromes Vulgae it remained included. THus for the first 1500 years it was included in the Bilbe in the OT canon with no spepearation until Luther took it out and put it in the back of the Bible and labled it apocrapha.
TO put this in this proper perspective we must look at the NT canon it also had dueterocannonicals the inclusion of HEbrews, III John James, Jude and Revelation were not considered canonical until the African councils as witnessed by Eusebious some accepted these books and others rejected these books as late the Nicean period. Also while some rejected these books some fathers accepted the Epsistle of Clement, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Sherpherd of Hermas as canonical.
At the very least a protestant must admit their was no such thing as sola scriptura in the early church since the issue of canon neither in the OLD or New testament was settled at the earliest 400 years at the time of Christ and if you think the Church did not settle this question till Trent then sola scriptura surely never existed in the Catholic Church ever.
M
Maccabees
Guest
If you reject the catholic church as the arbriter of the canon who just who determined the canon or the Christians. You could say the JEws but then what about the NT?
Protestants rejected the orignal NT canon proposed by Luther he thought that heberews, James, Jude and Revelation taught salvation by faith and works and denied his doctrine of sola fide. So as he commented he tossed James into the fire as it was an epsitle of straw. Now surely protestants include these very catholic books in their Bible that Luther didn’t think they were protestant.So the issue of authority reigns its ugly head for the protestant they reject the catholic tradtion that gives us the NT and the inclusion of the dueterocanicals.
The funny thing about Jerome was that he was the biggest suupporter of the church being the final arbirter, his writings support the papacy second to Augustine, his view of justification is even more works based than Augustine and would surely freak out the protestant, His views on Mary -catholic, Baptism -catholic, eucharist-catholic, everything he writes is catholic except for his opinion of the canon which by the way predate the african councils. It was entirely acceptable for the canon to be debated at that point or else their wouldn’t be the need for these councils to be held. They are witness to the norm of the catholic canon at the time and not the opinion of man no matter how brilliant he may be. THe qustion I have for the protestant that if Jerome was wrong on so many issues how could he be right on the one issue you happen to agree with him on. He is the most catholic of saints you can come up with. THe church on the other hand in not named the Augustine church, the Jerome church nor the Aquinas church, while these are all gianst of the faith the catholic church comprieses the wisdom of all the church fathers and councils and popes as a whole and goes not go by the opion of a man like say Luther to make every decision for it especially when that man does not possess the authority of the Bishop of Rome the keys of the kingdom to speak the power to bind and loose even Luther admitted he didn’t have this authority. Yet he proclaims doctrine left and right as he does have this power.
The BIble itslef came to us from many different men and differnt ages thoughout history. In short it took perhaps dozens of men over thousands of years to write and decalre the canon no one man that did not whole the authority of the Bishop of Rome could do this. This subject first came to a front at the Council of Florence to declare the scripure in a Ecunemical Council they in their wisdom referred to early african councils. Later when challenged again at Trent the church referred to Florence and sealed it as being de fide end of story.
Now the liberal protestant denominations the same ones that came out from the refromation are again questioning the canon read their books now the gnostic gospels should be included becuase the canon is subjective as everything else ultimately is in protestantism.
Protestants rejected the orignal NT canon proposed by Luther he thought that heberews, James, Jude and Revelation taught salvation by faith and works and denied his doctrine of sola fide. So as he commented he tossed James into the fire as it was an epsitle of straw. Now surely protestants include these very catholic books in their Bible that Luther didn’t think they were protestant.So the issue of authority reigns its ugly head for the protestant they reject the catholic tradtion that gives us the NT and the inclusion of the dueterocanicals.
The funny thing about Jerome was that he was the biggest suupporter of the church being the final arbirter, his writings support the papacy second to Augustine, his view of justification is even more works based than Augustine and would surely freak out the protestant, His views on Mary -catholic, Baptism -catholic, eucharist-catholic, everything he writes is catholic except for his opinion of the canon which by the way predate the african councils. It was entirely acceptable for the canon to be debated at that point or else their wouldn’t be the need for these councils to be held. They are witness to the norm of the catholic canon at the time and not the opinion of man no matter how brilliant he may be. THe qustion I have for the protestant that if Jerome was wrong on so many issues how could he be right on the one issue you happen to agree with him on. He is the most catholic of saints you can come up with. THe church on the other hand in not named the Augustine church, the Jerome church nor the Aquinas church, while these are all gianst of the faith the catholic church comprieses the wisdom of all the church fathers and councils and popes as a whole and goes not go by the opion of a man like say Luther to make every decision for it especially when that man does not possess the authority of the Bishop of Rome the keys of the kingdom to speak the power to bind and loose even Luther admitted he didn’t have this authority. Yet he proclaims doctrine left and right as he does have this power.
The BIble itslef came to us from many different men and differnt ages thoughout history. In short it took perhaps dozens of men over thousands of years to write and decalre the canon no one man that did not whole the authority of the Bishop of Rome could do this. This subject first came to a front at the Council of Florence to declare the scripure in a Ecunemical Council they in their wisdom referred to early african councils. Later when challenged again at Trent the church referred to Florence and sealed it as being de fide end of story.
Now the liberal protestant denominations the same ones that came out from the refromation are again questioning the canon read their books now the gnostic gospels should be included becuase the canon is subjective as everything else ultimately is in protestantism.
G
Ghosty
Guest
Churchmouse: The burden of evidence is equal for both sides if you want definitive answers. Without it you are still merely speculating, not knowing as you say.
I’m curious, however, when you consider the reign of the scribes and Pharisees on the Seat of Moses to have ended. Do they still have the power to bind us? Does that mean that we should not follow Christ? Did the power of the Pharisees end before or after they were stoning Christians to death for their beliefs?
I’m curious, however, when you consider the reign of the scribes and Pharisees on the Seat of Moses to have ended. Do they still have the power to bind us? Does that mean that we should not follow Christ? Did the power of the Pharisees end before or after they were stoning Christians to death for their beliefs?
- Status