What Iam in your eyes?

  • Thread starter Thread starter historyfan81
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Is funny you talk about revisionism because it was historical apologetics and patristics what made me realize the Catholic Church is Christ’s Church (though, obviously, the orthodox also share part of that title).

I guess two persons can study the same and come to 2 opposite conclusions in social science 🤷‍♂️
 
I don’t like these type of surveys. It’s well known people who take them will go into it ready to pick the answers they think best demonstrate the role they’re acting out. The same thing happens in political questionaires of this kind.
 
If the Bible is the highest authority, then how did it come into existence?
 
Wierd hmmm i Guess for my case I don’t give ecclisiatical sources any type of special treatment I give see them as sources ,I hope it’s the same to you

I think I put an exmple let’s say x theme appears in the Bible and it’s a little confusing
So one goes to the context , original language and historical context (which in many cases answers the question)

If it’s not the case then I look at second century sources , if don’t find it or the fathers are vague then I move to third century so forth .

The more time I advace the less reliable that thing is
The less time the better and the closest to the era ( not always being earlier means it’s true but it’s a way to analyze some things)

If a concept is not.well defiend until a later period that can tell us 2 things
  1. they all agreed in the past and therefore didn’t write it down because they didn’t need to
  2. that x concept evolved over time
To determine which of these 2 is complicated mater
 
Last edited:
Yes the question of the cannon

I never did say other things where wrong just the Bible has the original message that was passed down

It’s the earliest (and verified) therefore its the most reliable
 
The people who wrote it… who of course were most certainly NOT pro-Church tradition…except for all the parts where they said they were. 😃
 
Of course earlier source normally have more authority. That’s the idea of apostolic tradition, that in fundamental matters of christianity, the catholics who lived more close to the time of Jesus and the Apostles knew better.

However, we also have to recognize that written sources were not the primary form of communication and preservation of information (except in goverments perhaps) until the Middle Ages. The primary sources for these things was oral tradition. That’s why there are things that are not written until later.

And that takes me to the final point, the Church has a policy of only declaring explicit dogmas when there is a heresy countering them. That’s why the Trinity was explicit in the Council of Nicea (although one can find the evidence for its justification in Scripture and earlier patristics).
 
Last edited:
historyfan81 said:
iam en ex catholic
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as an ex Catholic. If you are baptised Catholic you are a Catholic forever even if you turn your back on the church and walk away.
There are only two types of Catholic - those in a state of grace and those in a state of mortal sin.
 
I really do not understand the notion that the Bible is the highest or only authority. It makes no sense considering it took an eclasial authority to author it, compile it, and authenticate it. IF the Bible was to be the authority over the Church then why didn’t Jesus say so? Then where is His instructions on a matter so important that it is binding on all Christians? And what about the Apostles? Why are they silent on the need to compile a Bible? There is not one mention in the entirety of the NT that says the Bible is THE authority over Christians. And why? Because a Bible can not solve disputes on its own, but boy can it cause some.

So if you reject a physical Church having eclasial authority you have to reject the Bible, And which Apostle said “Ok we have a Bible now, our mission is complete. No more need for Churches and no more need for eclasial succession.” But yet the Bible is saturated with examples of a physical, single Church having authority on matters of faith. Saying the Church authority ended with the Apostles is unrealistic as well. Most of their lives were cut short due to martyrdom. Which one said “Ok you have a Bible now, you don’t need a Church to guide you or to worship in.”

If I took a piece of paper, folded it in half, and at the top wrote Church on one side and Bible on the other… Which side would be filled up with examples from Scripture? And what about the folks who can not read, or the folks without the intellegence to comprehend what they are reading? Is the Bible their authority? Are they left without a guide? Without sounding rude, which I am not, I just think people who want to say the Bible alone is their authority need to not just think of themselves. Billions upon billions of people could not read, much less afford a Bible, to think God left them alone and without a way to know His Truth is ridiculous, what kind of God would do that?

One more thing, who is to say your Bible has the proper table of contents or is a correct translation. I guess God wanted us to guess on that too? I accept mine on the authority of the Church, the Catholic Church that authored it, compiled it and authenticated it.

Come back to your faith, the faith that nourished you with the Holy Sacraments, the faith that baptised you and will feed you the Sacred Body & Blood of Christ. A Bible alone can not do that. Come back, our Lord wants unity and conformity, not division. We miss all of our brothers and sisters who walked away, how great it would be if they all would return so we could be in harmony, worshipping, singing, and receiving the Holy Eucharist together as one Body in Christ.
 
DeSales111 said:
I really do not understand the notion that the Bible is the highest or only authority. It makes no sense considering it took an eclasial authority to author it, compile it, and authenticate it. IF the Bible was to be the authority over the Church then why didn’t Jesus say so? Then where is His instructions on a matter so important that it is binding on all Christians? And what about the Apostles? Why are they silent on the need to compile a Bible? There is not one mention in the entirety of the NT that says the Bible is THE authority over Christians. And why? Because a Bible can not solve disputes on its own, but boy can it cause some.
Click to expand...
Yeah, books clearly don’t interpret themselves.

But there is 1 passage that seems to sorta suggest Sola Scriptura in the NASB, for example, it says:

1 Cor 4:6 Now these things, brethren, I have figuratively applied to myself and Apollos for your sakes, so that in us you may learn not to exceed what is written, so that no one of you will become arrogant in behalf of one against the other.

But check out this same passage in the first ever Protestant bible:

AKJV

1 Cor 4:6 And these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and to Apollos for your sakes; that ye might learn in us not to think of men above that which is written, that no one of you be puffed up for one against another.

Says something completely different. And that’s because we have no originals and there is textual variance. So this situation and others like it screams AUTHORITATIVE CHURCH TO INTERPRET PLEASE.
 
Last edited:
Have your read my

Did i preach sola scriptura? No I didn’t I said the Bible had the highest authority
I never once said it’s the only thing we need

And to understand it I said we needed it linguistical, historical context it’s original language, the writings of.the apostolic church father’s . To fully understand it

I believe the Bible has the highest authority since not only is it the word of God

Since others have confirmed to be so. It’s the earliest possible source and therefore the more historically reliable .

But that doesn’t mean sola scriptura the writings of the men of the second and this century exist for a reason

So sir no offense your rambling confused me as I never once preached sola scriptura

Ok the temrs of apostolic succession
Yes we are successors of the message of the apostoles
 
Last edited:
The problems with. Oral tradition is the longer time frame we give it it’s more questionable especially when said people are not as good with oral tradition .
Also the time
Also by second century in the Roman empire oral tradition was not as strong as it once was for sources.

In the first century makes sense the apoatoles and others where jews who where tough to memorize the oral tradition.

For Greek and itlaians , this was not the case .

It migth have been the case for older Greeks such as the time of the iliead or heck even Alexander

But the Romans didn’t wait centuries to write just decades.

Polybius didn’t live 300 years after Hannibal .

Tacitus didn’t live 200 years after Nero .

True in the middle ages this came.back but that because in the early miedval peroid literacy dropped .

Also the Trinity one is not a good argument since it’s very explicit early on and is really not vague.

Unlike some.other things that are vague and it seemed as time advanced the concept began to evolve .
 
Last edited:
Margaret_Ann said:
If the Bible is the highest authority, then how did it come into existence?
Click to expand...
historyfan81 said:
Yes the question of the cannon

I never did say other things where wrong just the Bible has the original message that was passed down

It’s the earliest (and verified) therefore its the most reliable
Click to expand...
Crazy isn’t it! You use the book which was passed down to question the message coming from the same book? Yeah thats weird! :crazy_face:

Peace!!!
 
historyfan81 said:
The problems with. Oral tradition is the longer time frame we give it it’s more questionable especially when said people are not as good with oral tradition .
Click to expand...
I would have to agree with this every single time i presuppose the Holy Spirit left us orphans.

Peace!!!
 
??? i dont understand that … i mean i have some ideas on what you where trying to say … but assuming is wrong so can you clarify this?
 
If you have been Baptized in the Catholic church then that is what you are in the eyes of the church…you can’t “unbaptize”…as for some of your other questions…let me ask…do you believe in the virgin birth…do you believe Mary as ever virgin…do you believe that the Eucharist truly is the body blood soul and divinity of Jesus Christ…quite a few Catholics deny one or more of these basic doctrines of the faith…if you believe these then you are probably where many Catholics are in that probably many Catholics have questions about different aspects of our faith…but not the really “biggies”…your refusal to acknowledge the authority of the Pope is probably your biggest obstacle…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top