Hi, Radical,
I see you are still ignoring all of the other ECFs to the total fixation on Tertullian. I guess that would not be so bad if you were to identify that he fought many heresies, he was bound by error himself and left the Catholic Church follow Montanist heresy.
newadvent.org/cathen/14520c.htm You see, it did not take centuries to turn this man.
And your reliance on straw man agruments is starting to leave a chaft trail…
The Catholic Church is infallible in matters of Faith and Morals (I guess that is your big stuff
) In other matters: political, economic, scientific, etc. there is no guarantee of infallibility. So, if you want to “…ask the Catholic Church…” about its infallibility, try asking its Founder, Jesus Christ:
Matt 16 Christ declares He is building a Church and He is using Peter as its foundation, that whatever Peter binds and loses on earth, this happens in heaven - and to demonstrate Peter’s unique authority status amongst the 11 other Apostles, Christ gives Peter the keys. So, tell me, what part of WHATEVER don’t you understand?
Luke 10 Christ declares, “He who hears you hears me” and this is applied to His Apostles. Here is an interesting link:
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/LK1016.TXT When we listen to the Catholic Church on matters of Faith and Morals we are assured that we are hearing Christ speak through His Mystical Body, the Catholic Church.
John 16 Christ declares that He is sending the Spirit of Truth to guide His Apostles so there is no error. It is noteworthy that from the very beginning - the heresy of the Judiazers as recorded in Acts 15 - there were those who wanted to steer the Church of Christ in their own flawed direction. Under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, Peter stated that circumcision was not necessary. This tradition is carried on to this day with the Pope guiding the Flock to Truth.
Instead of your tortured syllogism why not look at definitive teachings of the Cathoic Church prior to the 16th Century. I think you will find that there are doctrines Protestants believe in contained in these documents. And, that truly presents a problem… how can you logically accept some and reject others - and who gave you or any other Protestant group the right to do this. None of those involved in the revolt ever claimed that God appeared to them and said He had taken away the authority He gave to the Catholic Church and gave it _________.
If you were looking for a prime example of when to ‘jump ship’ because of a massive failure iin top leadership - look at the Apostles and how they responded to Peter who denied Christ 3x! The remaining 10 did not kick him out and vote a new guy to lead them! And, I think this is a crucial point. These remaining 10 had faith in Christ - and since Christ chose Peter - even though he denied Christ - they were not going to kick him out of the group, or simply form 10 splinter groups all claiming that they walked with Christ!
Truly, Radical, you really need to come up with a substantive argument and give poor old Turtullian a rest. I fear, however, that Turtullian is your only quasi-supportive ECF (and you know that will eventually fail because while he was in the Church he really did fight heresies!)
God bless
something could only be an unfolding of an already in-place doctrine if God was overseeing the unfolding…otherwise it is just man-made additions
Tertullian wanted to ensure that what was taught was actually received from the apostles…to do so he could appeal to the writings that the apostles supplied and he also referred to what he claimed was taught everywhere in the churches founded by the apostles. Before you get overly excited by that last bit, keep in mind that it was a much better argument in his hands b/c doctrine hadn’t had centuries of opportunity to undergo changes.
This should be obvious. Very obvious. Like Tertullian, some reformers wanted to limit their beliefs to what the apostles actually taught (and exclude what was added to that original rule of faith). If you want to find out what Christ and the apostles actually taught about apostolic succession then look at their own words….then if you think that their own words may not tell the whole story, then look at the earliest ECFs to gain information. The later ECFs are of less value b/c by the time they show up, there had been plenty of time for the original teaching to have been lost in additions and distortions. Also, the existence of a range of views on a matter is more consistent with the absence of an original teaching and is more consistent with the ECFs trying to fill in the blanks where they weren’t happy with what Jesus and the apostles left.
there was only one source that was seen as infallible by both sides of the issue…the scriptures.
this is exactly one of those self-serving interpretations that I was talking about. One wonders whether the CC is infallible, so one asks the possibly fallible CC if it is infallible?..and it answers that it is infallible based on how it interprets scripture and tradition…go figure.
b/c in their view the doctrine of the CC was so filled with error that staying true to Christ involved leaving that error (as the CC was not about to reform to the extent necessary to eliminate the error). …and b/c the error was so extensive, leaving wasn’t seen as leaving the Church at all.
of course they were trying to change doctrine…they saw the doctrine of the CC as being filled with error.
show me where Christ called for unity around error….show me where Christ called for unity around corruption.
Your argument seems to be that:
- Since the CC can’t err on the major stuff (and it can only err on the minor stuff)
- And since Christ called for unity;
- It is therefore wrong to separate from the CC
That argument is only as good as the assumption at #1…which didn’t look very good to those reformers.
