A
Ani_Ibi
Guest
Do you think it’s in the invisible Church?
- Status
T
Teflon93
Guest
It seems to stem from envy.Luther admitted that he added the word Alone. How is that admirable?
Particularly when the Reformers have their own 30 000 traditions and magisteria. Woddupwidat? Double standard? It’s OK for a Reformer to have his own private tradition and magisteria adjustable to time and place, but it’s not OK for a Catholic to have a 2000 year-old Tradition and Magisterium which has never changed and ain’t about to?
:whacky:
The Baptists awhile back sought to claim that their faith was actually the original Church. I believe someone joked that “John the Baptist” wasn’t a Baptist in response.
There is certainly an advantage to Magisterium and Tradition that our latter day ecclesiastical communities wish they had.
T
Teflon93
Guest
THAT would explain it!
K
kaycee
Guest
Why were the creeds necessary?
K
kaycee
Guest
Firmilian wrote the following against the Roman bishop Stephen, who seems to have claimed something like papal authority:
“they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles…But with respect to the refutation of custom which they [the Roman church] seem to oppose to the truth, who is so foolish as to prefer custom to truth, or when he sees the light, not to forsake the darkness?..And this indeed you Africans are able to say against Stephen, that when you knew the truth you forsook the error of custom. But we join custom to truth, and to the Romans’ custom we oppose custom, but the custom of truth; holding from the beginning that which was delivered by Christ and the apostles…But indeed you [Stephen] are worse than all heretics…Moreover, how great sin have you heaped up for yourself, when you cut yourself off from so many flocks! For it is yourself that you have cut off. Do not deceive yourself, since he is really the schismatic who has made himself an apostate from the communion of ecclesiastical unity. For while you think that all may be excommunicated by you, you have excommunicated yourself alone from all…But as far as he [Stephen] is concerned, let us leave him…And yet Stephen is not ashamed to afford patronage to such in opposition to the Church, and for the sake of maintaining heretics to divide the brotherhood and in addition, to call Cyprian ‘a false Christ and a false apostle, and a deceitful worker.’ And he, conscious that all these characters are in himself, has been in advance of you, by falsely objecting to another those things which he himself ought deservedly to hear.” (Cyprian’s Letter 74:6, 74:19, 74:23-24, 74:26)
Firmilian believed in tradition, but it wasn’t Roman Catholic tradition.
[/QUOTE]
K
kaycee
Guest
Irenaeus once reported,
And when the blessed Polycarp was sojourning in Rome in the time of Anicetus, although a slight controversy had arisen among them as to certain other points…For neither could Anicetus persuade Polycarp to forego the observance [in his own way], inasmuch as these things had been always observed by John the disciple of our Lord, and by other apostles with whom he had been conversant; nor, on the other hand, could Polycarp succeed in persuading Anicetus to keep [the observance in his way], for he maintained that he was bound to adhere to the usage of the presbyters who preceded him. And in this state of affairs they held fellowship with each other; and Anicetus conceded to Polycarp in the Church the celebration of the Eucharist (FRAGMENTS FROM THE LOST WRITINGS OF IRENAEUS. Translated by Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson. Excerpted from Volume I of The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors); American Edition copyright © 1885. Electronic version copyright © 1997 by New Advent, Inc.).
In other words, even though Anicetus claimed to be relying on tradition (“the usage of the presbyters who preceded him”), Polycarp refused to go along because of his Apostolic tradition.
Conflicting Apostolic “tradition”.
K
kaycee
Guest
Cyprian
“But that they who are at Rome do not observe those things in all cases which are handed down from the beginning, and vainly pretend the authority of the apostles; any one may know also from the fact, that concerning the celebration of Easter, and concerning many other sacraments of divine matters, he may see that there are some diversities among them, and that all things are not observed among them alike, which are observed at Jerusalem, just as in very many other provinces also many things are varied because of the difference of the places and names”(Cyprian, Epistle 74, 6)
“How carefully has Stephen fulfilled these salutary commands and warnings of the apostle, keeping in the first place lowliness of mind and meekness! For what is more lowly or meek than to have disagreed with so many bishops throughout the whole world, breaking peace with each one of them in various kinds of discord: at one time with the eastern churches, as we are sure you know; at another time with yon who are in the south” (Cyprian, Epistle 74, 5, 256 AD, of Pope Stephen’s false teaching on baptism)
M
Man
Guest
I just looked that up. He is discussing 2 things. 1) additional Sees in Rome that would schism the Church and 2) difference in cultures which he does not rebuke
K
kaycee
Guest
Cyprian
“2. Let nothing be innovated, says he, nothing maintained, except what has been handed down. Whence is that tradition? Whether does it descend from the authority of the Lord and of the Gospel, or does it come from the commands and the epistles of the apostles? For that those things which are written must be done, God witnesses and admonishes, saying to Joshua the son of Nun: ‘The book of this law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate in it day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein.’” … "3. what obstinacy is that, or what presumption, to prefer human tradition to divine ordinance, and not to observe that God is indignant and angry as often as human tradition relaxes and passes by the divine precepts, as He cries out, and says by Isaiah the prophet, “This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. But in vain do they worship me, teaching the doctrines and commandments of men.” Also the Lord in the Gospel, similarly rebuking and reproving, utters and says, “Ye reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mindful of which precept, the blessed Apostle Paul himself also warns and instructs, saying, “If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to the wholesome words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to His doctrine, he is proud, knowing nothing: from such withdraw thyself.” … “8. Deservedly thus do heresies and schisms arise day by day, more frequently and more fruitfully grow up, and with serpents’ locks shoot forth and cast out against the Church of God with greater force the poison of their venom; whilst, by the advocacy of some, both authority and support are afforded them; whilst their baptism is defended, whilst faith, whilst truth, is betrayed; whilst that which is done without against the Church is defended within in the very Church itself.” … "9. “**Nor ought custom, which had crept in among some, to prevent the truth from prevailing and conquering; for custom without truth is the antiquity of error. On which account, let us forsake the error and follow the truth” **(Cyprian, Epistle 73:2,3,8,9, of Pope Stephen’s false teaching on baptism)
Cyprian demands that the bishop of Rome follows scripture when it contradicts church tradition. Cyprian condemns Pope Stephen, for his false teaching on baptism and asks Stephen where he got his tradition, then threatens he should be withdrawn from for heresy!
M
Man
Guest
Cyprian was fighting with Pope St. Stephen, because he believed that if one broke a vow or fell away from the Church they needed re-baptized…
M
mtr01
Guest
Exactly…he seems to have changed his tune when Pope St. Stephen denounced such rebaptism. Before that, he states:
On him [Peter] He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigned a like power to all the Apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity. Indeed, the others were that also which Peter was; but a primacy is given to Peter, whereby it is made clear that there is but one Church and one Chair. So too, all are shepherds, and the flock is shown to be one, fed by all the Apostles in single-minded accord. If someone does not hold fast to this unity of Peter, can he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he desert the chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, can he still be confident that he is in the Church?" (Cyprian, The Unity of the Catholic Church [first edition] 4, c. AD 251)
And further writes:
“They who have not peace themselves now offer peace to others. They who have withdrawn from the Church promise to lead back and to recall the lapsed to the Church. There is one God and one Christ, and one Church, and one Chair founded on Peter by the word of the Lord. It is not possible to set up another altar or for there to be another priesthood besides that one altar and that one priesthood. Whoever has gathered elsewehre is scattering.” (Cyprian, Letter 43 (40), 5, c. AD 251)
And even moreso:
With a false bishop appointed for themselves by heretics, they dare even to set sail and carry letters from schismatics and blasphemers to the chair of Peter and to the principal Church [at Rome], in which sacerdotal unity has its source; nor did they take thought that these are Romans, whose faith was praised by the preaching Apostle, and among whom it is not possible for perfidy to have entrance." (Cyprian, Letter 59 (55), 14 to Cornelius of Rome, c. AD 252)
K
kaycee
Guest
Ahhh, OK, Some things hard to understand.My comment comes from Peter–who clearly states that “hard to understand” Pauline passages and the “rest of Scripture” are distorted by the ignorant and unstable to their own ruin. I did not want to go beyond Scripture by claiming a “majority” of its passages are easy to understand when Peter makes no such claim…
I hope you would agree some things, don’t mean all things and in typical usage would imply a minority of things.
The authors known as the Apostolic Fathers wrote chiefly between AD 90 and 160, and in their works we find evidence for their acquaintance with most of the books of the New Testament. In three works whose date is probably round about AD100-the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’, written perhaps in Alexandria; the Didache, or ‘Teaching of the Twelve Apostles’, produced somewhere in Syria or Palestine; and the letter sent to the Corinthian church by Clement, bishop of Rome, about AD 96-- find fairly certain quotations from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 Corinthians, Ephesians, Titus, Hebrews, 1 Peter, and possible quotations from other books of the New Testament. In the letters written by Ignatius, bishop of .Antioch, as he journeyed to his martyrdom in Rome in AD 115, there are reasonably identifiable quotations from Matthew, John, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 1 and Timothy, Titus, and possible allusions to Mark, Luke, Acts, Colossians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon, Hebrews, and 1 Peter. His younger contemporary, Polycarp, in a letter to the Philippians (c. 120) quotes from the common tradition of the Synoptic Gospels, from Acts, Romans, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Timothy, Hebrews, I Peter, and I John. And so we might go on through the writers of the second century, amassing increasing evidence of their familiarity with and recognition of the authority of the New Testament writings. So far as the Apostolic Fathers are concerned, the evidence is collected and weighed in a work called The New Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, recording the findings of a committee of the Oxford Society of Historical Theology in 1905.
worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc02.htm
The only books about which there was any substantial doubt after the middle of the second century were some of those which come at the end of our New Testament. Origen (185-254) mentions the four Gospels, the Acts, the thirteen Paulines, I Peter, 1 John and Revelation as acknowledged by all; he says that Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, James and Jude, with the ‘Epistle of Barnabas’, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Didache, and the ‘Gospel according to the Hebrews’, were disputed by some. Eusebius (c. 265-340) mentions as generally acknowledged all the books of our New Testament except James, Jude, Peter, 2 and 3 John, which were disputed by some, but recognised by the majority.’ Athanasius in 367 lays down the twenty seven books of our New Testament as alone canonical; shortly afterwards Jerome and Augustine followed his example in the West. The process farther east took a little longer; it was not until c. 508 that 2 Peter, 2 and 3 John, Jude and Revelation were included in a version of the Syriac Bible in addition to the other twenty two books.
One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities.
worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocc03.htm
K
kaycee
Guest
Are definitions previously put forward, purposely being ignored?
Lets try it again. First of all, it is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge. The Bible is not exhaustive in every detail. John 21:25 speaks to the fact that there are many things that Jesus said and did that are not recorded in John, or in fact in any book in the world because the whole books of the world could not contain it. But the Bible does not have to be exhaustive to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church. We do not need to know the color of Thomas’ eyes. We do not need to know the menu of each meal of the Apostolic band for the Scriptures to function as the sole rule of faith for the Church.
Secondly, it is not a denial of the Church’s authority to teach God’s truth. I Timothy 3:15 describes the Church as “the pillar and foundation of the truth.” The truth is in Jesus Christ and in His Word. The Church teaches truth and calls men to Christ and, in so doing, functions as the pillar and foundation thereof. The Church does not add revelation or rule over Scripture. The Church being the bride of Christ, listens to the Word of Christ, which is found in God-breathed Scripture.
Thirdly, it is not a denial that God’s Word has been spoken. Apostolic preaching was authoritative in and of itself. Yet, the Apostles proved their message from Scripture, as we see in Acts 17:2, and 18:28, and John commended those in Ephesus for testing those who claimed to be Apostles, Revelation 2:2. The Apostles were not afraid to demonstrate the consistency between their teaching and the Old Testament.
And, finally, sola scriptura is not a denial of the role of the Holy Spirit in guiding and enlightening the Church.
What then is sola scriptura?
The doctrine of sola scriptura, simply stated, is that the Scriptures and the Scriptures alone are sufficient to function as the regula fide, the “rule of faith” for the Church. All that one must believe to be a Christian is found in Scripture and in no other source. That which is not found in Scripture is not binding upon the Christian conscience. To be more specific, I provide the following definition:
The Bible claims to be the sole and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church. The Scriptures are not in need of any supplement. Their authority comes from their nature as God-breathed revelation. Their authority is not dependent upon man, Church or council. The Scriptures are self-consistent, self-interpreting, and self-authenticating. The Christian Church looks at the Scriptures as the only and sufficient rule of faith and the Church is always subject to the Word, and is constantly reformed thereby.
Positively, the doctrine teaches that the Bible is sufficient to function as the sole, infallible rule of faith for the Church. Negatively, it denies the existence of any other rule of faith as being necessary for the man of God.
aomin.org/SANTRAN.html
M
Man
Guest
I see many ministers, especially televangelists make all kinds of wild claims about the Bible and the church with a series of “scriptural proofs.” Each one a divine revelation to them for the community.
K
kaycee
Guest
Or you could make life easier and write it down.
Or I could get a literate person to read to me.
Not following your logic here. What does reading the scripture to the iliterate infer here.
Silly me, I thought the Reformation occured partly because Tetzel was soaking the “little people” selling indulgences to build St. Peter’s Basilica.
BTW that interesting “tradition” (selling indulgences) was halted, no?
Weren’t the wars of religion instigated by the papacy and RC monarchs bent on stamping out the Protestant movement? Think you need to read up on Julius II, Bloody Mary, Catherine de Medici, and Philip II—to name a few. And what about the Fourth Crusade? And the Inquisition.
Protestants did little compared to the blood on Catholic hands.
St. Bartholomew’s Day Massacre. August 23rd 1572
Catholics slaughtered Huguenots in cold blood into the morning of the 24th in Paris and for days in outlying regions. As many as 70,000 perished. The rest fled to fortified cities and fought back. Their movement became known as La Cause (The Cause) and pitted them against The Holy League (La Sainte Ligue). Brutal fighting raged across the French kingdom.
Charles IX publicly claimed he had ordered the massacre. Certainly the Paris constabulary were warned in advance to prepare for disturbances. Many historians have seen the plot as the work of Catherine de Medici, who felt her power threatened. Possibly Charles, by taking credit, was trying to reap a political benefit from the gruesome event. If so, he won no plaudits outside Catholic regions. Pope Gregory XIII struck a special medallion to commemorate the “holy” act but most other European reaction was horrified.
chi.gospelcom.net/DAILYF/2001/08/daily-08-23-2001.shtml
Obviously. I suggest you try reading history from a less impartial source.
F
fellowChristian
Guest
The Epistle of Ignatius to the Smyrnaeans
Chapter 8. Let nothing be done without the bishop.
See that you all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as you would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.
D
DJim
Guest
Kaycee wrote AGAIN:
I’ve just initiated an entire thread BEGGING for the Scripture quote in which "the Bible claims to be the SOLE and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church, and NO ONE has given me one.
Your quote above, when you said it the first time, is what started this thread. It has been demonstrated already by your silence that you actually don’t have any Scripture quotes to support that sentence, and now you brazenly return to using it as though this isn’t going to be noticed???
Where is your sense of dignity?
Seriously–if you can show me in Scripture where the Bible makes this claim–do it. If NOT, please stop misrepresenting Scripture.
DJim
Can you hear the sound of me pulling out my hair in grave disappointment, Kaycee?
I’ve just initiated an entire thread BEGGING for the Scripture quote in which "the Bible claims to be the SOLE and sufficient rule of faith for the Christian Church, and NO ONE has given me one.
Your quote above, when you said it the first time, is what started this thread. It has been demonstrated already by your silence that you actually don’t have any Scripture quotes to support that sentence, and now you brazenly return to using it as though this isn’t going to be noticed???
Where is your sense of dignity?
Seriously–if you can show me in Scripture where the Bible makes this claim–do it. If NOT, please stop misrepresenting Scripture.
DJim
P
Philthy
Guest
To fight heresy from those who twisted Scripture to their own destruction. The early heretics would have destroyed your best arguments from Scripture kaycee. I mean no offense - just an observation from what I have observed of your debating skills. They were not dumb. The visible, authoritative Church was required to clearly set out the Truth that Christ was not only an actual person, but that He was fully God and fully Man.
C
cmancone
Guest
lol! That’s hilarious! I wish I had been there
- Status