Who Has Authority?

[Blue_Serenity]

There’s your answer!! Some where written, but some still exsisted as oral traditions. See, you’re closer than you think…and you’re smart, one day you’ll wake up and say “Oh, yeah, now I get it”

I hope so but at the rate I’m going, I don’t think I’ll be able to learn everything in a lifetime.

 

[artist3189]

I hope so but at the rate I’m going, I don’t think I’ll be able to learn everything in a lifetime. /QUOTE

LEARN EVERYTHING?!! Wow…who can, not even the smartest of the smart can do that, I think there is always a point that comes, whether it is a certain bit of information we get, or a feeling or a moment of realization that makes things fall in to place, and all the stuff we don’t know doesn’t matter anymore.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Whenever you or any Protestant denies the Magisterium of the Catholic Church you are denying Oral Tradition.

Says who? Catholics?

AlegreFe:

Yes, but remember it was passed down as oral Tradition before the Bible was written but not all that was passed down as oral Tradition was written down in Scripture.

I know.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

LEARN EVERYTHING?!! Wow…who can, not even the smartest of the smart can do that, I think there is always a point that comes, whether it is a certain bit of information we get, or a feeling or a moment of realization that makes things fall in to place, and all the stuff we don’t know doesn’t matter anymore.

Interesting concept. That kinda describes how I felt when I first opened up a Bible.

 

[artist3189]

ALL OUR PROT FRIENDS, READ THIS…THIS IS FROM ANOTHER POST BUT I FOUND IT INTERESTING AND GOOD INFO…

As for the New Testament, here are the facts. Perhaps he would like to look them up. If he does so, he will see that they are all true:

1. Before A.D. 397, each Apostle-founded city-church (or metropolitanate / patriarchate) had its own (different) NT canon. Some city-churches excluded certain books that are in our present NT canon (e.g. James, Jude, 2 Peter, Hebrews, 2 & 3 John, and Revelation). Other city-churches included certain books that are excluded from our present NT canon (e.g. The Epistle of Barnabas, the Revelation of Peter, the Gospel to the Hebrews, 1 Clement to the Corinthians, the Shepherd of Hermas, the Protoevangelium of James, etc.). And there were also other early Christian writings which none of the Apostle-founded city-churches accepted, but which were only used by heretical sects which could not trace themselves back to the Apostles (e.g. the Gospel of Thomas, the Gospel of Philip, etc.).
2. The reason why different Apostle-founded city-churches possessed different Biblical canons was because each of these city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) possessed their own distinct, native liturgical traditions (that is, distinct styles of worship). While they all agreed with each other in terms of orthodox doctrine, they did not worship the same exact ways. Rather, as in the modern Catholic Church, which consists of over 24 separate liturgical rites (e.g. the Roman rite, the Byzantine rite, the Antiochian rite, the Coptic rite, the Armenian rite, etc.), each of the early city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) worshipped according to it own native culture, adapting the celebration of the Eucharist (as instituted by Christ) to suit and speak to this own native culture. And, since each of the city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) had its own native liturgical traditions, this also meant that each of these city-churches (or metropolitanates / patriarchates) possessed its own native liturgical calendar, meaning that different city-churches celebrated certain Christian feast days on different dates (e.g. the feast of Easter --the celebration of the Lord’s Resurrection --was not celebrated on the same date in Rome as it was in Ephesus, etc.). So, what does this have to do with the Biblical canon?? Well, quite simply, the liturgical traditions of a particular church dictated the Biblical canon of that particular church because a church’s “canon” merely meant those books that were considered fit for reading at the liturgy --that is, at Sunday Mass. For ancient Christians, “canon” did not mean that these books are inspired whereas other books are not. On the contrary, it was quite possible (in the understanding of the early Church) for a book to be inspired by God, yet not “canonical.” So, if a book was excluded from the canon of a particular city-church, it DID NOT mean that this church rejected this book’s Divine inspiration. Rather, it merely meant that this particular book (e.g. the Epistle of James) was not used in the yearly, liturgical READINGS of that particular city-church. For, there were only so many feast days throughout the year (and so only so many public liturgies); and this limited the number of books which would be used for liturgical readings within a given city-church. This is why the early city-churches all had different canons.

 

[artist3189]

MORE

) But, by the late 300’s, all this began to change. The Church had just succeeded in putting down the Arian heresy, which had disturbed the Church’s universal unity from A.D. 320 until A.D. 381. Now, during the Arian controversy, the Arians would often cite various books that were used in the city-churches to support their heretical beliefs. So, in order to make sure such heretics never had the oppotunity to do anything like this again, Pope St. Damasus I called for the creation of a UNIVERSAL canon of Scripture, which would be used in common by all the city-churches. He did this at a synod held in Rome in A.D. 382. And, at that time, he put forward a proposed canon, which was a synthesis of the canons used by the Patriarchate of Rome and the Patriarchate of Alexandria --Alexandria being the second ranking see of the universal Church (after Rome), and the primate in the East. Pope Damasus then submitted this canon to the bishops of North Africa, so that they could put it to the test and debate it. And the reason that Damasus sent it to the N. African bishops is three-fold: a) N. Africa had the most bishops per capita in the world at the time; and so a consensus among them would reflect the consensus of all bishops everywhere. b) The Church in N. Africa traditionally met twice a year in a regional council, held either at Hippo or at Carthage; and this would help to foster the debate; and c) The N. African bishops were known for their Biblical scholarship and had many great scholars among them (e.g. St. Augustine of Hippo). And so, the Africans took up the challenge and began to debate the canon --that is, to decide which books should be used in the liturgies of the churches and which books should not. Their criterion for deciding this was to go over each book, verse by verse, and to make sure that it agreed with the substance of the Catholic Faith that these CATHOLIC bishops believed in. And this, of course took some time. But, by 393, at the Council of Hippo, the first serious debate took place. It tentatively ratified the canon submitted by Pope Damasus back in A.D. 382, but there were still certain objections. These objections were ultimately addressed and dispelled by the Council of Carthate in A.D. 397. At this time, our present NT canon (and Catholic OT canon) was officially defined, and the debate came to an end. Here, it should be noted that the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Book of Revelation were held in serious dispute, and they were almost rejected. It was only the tireless arguments of St. Augustine of Hippo that got them included.

1. With the canon finally decided at the Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), the African bishops submitted their Carthaginian canon to Rome for final ratification. This ratification came in about A.D. 401, when Pope St. Innocent I officially sanctioned the Carthaginian canon, and sent it to the bishops of Spain, Gaul, Britain, and Illyria for observation. Pope Innocent also sent it to the Patriarchate of Alexandria in Egypt (the Church’s second see), which immediately accepted it and sent it to all the other bishops of the East. However, in the Patriarchate of Antioch (the Church’s third see), there was an obstacle to implementing it. Antioch, at this time, was torn by an internal schism, with two Catholic bishops both claiming to be the true Patriarch of Antioch. This schism dragged on for a long time, and it effected many churches in Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. It also effected the imperial capital of Constantinople. And, because of this, the implementation of the Carthaginian canon (our present Biblical canon) was delayed in these regions for many centuries. Indeed, it was only in A.D. 787, at the Ecumenical Council of Nicaea II, that these Eastern churches finally accepted the Carthaginian canon of the Bible --that is, our present Biblical canon.

And THIS is where the Bible comes from. It is the liturgical Book of the Catholic Church

 

[artist3189]

Interesting concept. That kinda describes how I felt when I first opened up a Bible.

Thats exactly right, but unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, there is MUCH more than just that. Read that long long post I put up on the Bible for starts!

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Thats exactly right, but unfortunately or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, there is MUCH more than just that. Read that long long post I put up on the Bible for starts!

Thank you for posting that about the Bible. I always wanted to know the history of it. What was your source for that, if you don’t mind me asking?

 

[AlegreFe]

AlegreFe;1915444:

Whenever you or any Protestant denies the Magisterium of the Catholic Church you are denying Oral Tradition.

Says who? Catholics?

AlegreFe:

Yes, but remember it was passed down as oral Tradition before the Bible was written but not all that was passed down as oral Tradition was written down in Scripture.

I know.

If you are aware of this by your “I know,” then why did you say to my first comment, “says who… Catholics?”

Here is the other part of my post which you cut out of my quote;
"And this is why we need the Magisterium of the
Catholic Church to let us know what that oral
Tradition is that was passed down but not written."

If you know that not all oral Traditions were written down in Scripture, but you are aware that they are part of the Word of God, than how do you know which traditions we are to follow?

Do you know which traditions are Sacred Tradition and remain part of the WORD of God? And if you are so sure, then how do you know this? And don’t say the Holy Spirit told you. I would like a concrete answer that can be traced down in history.

You do realize that the ECF were Catholic and are still Catholic up in Heaven today.

 

[awantz]

Protestants don’t believe that the scripture itself is in error, but everyone interprets scripture a little diffrently. Some Protestants feel that some Catholics interpret scripture wrong and viceversa.

 

[AlegreFe]

Protestants don’t believe that the scripture itself is in error, but everyone interprets scripture a little diffrently. Some Protestants feel that some Catholics interpret scripture wrong and viceversa.

Of course Protestants feel that some Catholics interpret scripture incorrectly. I think they feel that most Catholics interpret incorrectly. And that is possible if those Catholics do not read Scripture through the heart of the Church. If a Catholic does not know what the Catholic Church teaches, that Catholic more than likely might interpret Scripture incorrectly. But that doesn’t necessarily mean that a poorly catechized Catholic will definitely interpret scripture incorrectly. They just might get it right by the Grace of Jesus Christ. They might go to Mass every day or at least every Sunday, listen to the readings and the homily, live as a Christian should live, love God and their neighbor and they might just get scripture the way we’re all supposed to ‘get’ it, even if they’ve never opened up the Catechism.

 

[Blue_Serenity]

If you are aware of this by your “I know,” then why did you say to my first comment, “says who… Catholics?”

You threw in the Magisterium in your first comment. I believe Catholics give the Magisterium WAY too much power and don’t bother keeping them “in check” to see if what they are teaching is in fact the Truth.

AlegreFe:

Here is the other part of my post which you cut out of my quote;
"And this is why we need the Magisterium of the
Catholic Church to let us know what that oral
Tradition is that was passed down but not written."

If you know that not all oral Traditions were written down in Scripture, but you are aware that they are part of the Word of God, than how do you know which traditions we are to follow?

I cut it out because again, I don’t recognize your Magisterium as being the “supreme earthly authority” on matters pertaining to scripture. We are to follow the “traditions” that the early CC established for us. If you want a timeline, anything made before 800 A.D. (approximately)

AlegreFe:

Do you know which traditions are Sacred Tradition and remain part of the WORD of God? And if you are so sure, then how do you know this? And don’t say the Holy Spirit told you. I would like a concrete answer that can be traced down in history.

You do realize that the ECF were Catholic and are still Catholic up in Heaven today.

1.) not sure what you’re asking here so I’m pleading the fifth for now
2.) n/a because I’m not sure what you’re asking in question one
3.) yes

 

[AlegreFe]

You threw in the Magisterium in your first comment. I believe Catholics give the Magisterium WAY too much power and don’t bother keeping them “in check” to see if what they are teaching is in fact the Truth.

Huh? The Magisterium is the Catholic Church. The Magisterium is what keeps us “in check.”

We Catholics are not the ones who give the Magisterium “way too much power” either.
God is the one who gives the Magisterium of the Catholic Church her power.

Would you want to keep the Holy Spirit “in check” or would you fully trust in the Holy Spirit?
Blue Serenity:

I cut it out because again, I don’t recognize your Magisterium as being the “supreme earthly authority” on matters pertaining to scripture. We are to follow the “traditions” that the early CC established for us. If you want a timeline, anything made before 800 A.D. (approximately)

But don’t you realize that the “early CC established for us” IS the Catholic Church and the Catholic Church is the Magisterium? If you realize that we are to follow the Traditions of the early CC then you should realize that the only ones today that can tell us what those Sacred Traditions are that we should follow is the Magisterium of the Catholic Church which is the “early CC” that you mentioned.
Blue Serenity:

1.) not sure what you’re asking here so I’m pleading the fifth for now
2.) n/a because I’m not sure what you’re asking in question one
3.) yes

I ask very clearly,…

1. 
   *]Do you know which “traditions” are part of the Word of God that are free of error and that have been handed down from the Apostles?
   *]If you do know, then HOW do you know this?
   *]If you realize that the Early Church Fathers were Catholic then why aren’t you Catholic today?

 

[MariaG]

I cut it out because again, I don’t recognize your Magisterium as being the “supreme earthly authority” on matters pertaining to scripture. We are to follow the “traditions” that the early CC established for us. If you want a timeline, anything made before 800 A.D. (approximately)

Anything before 800AD?

That is an awful lot. Do you realize that would mean that you believe Mary was Assumed into heaven? This is a long standing Tradition of the Church.

Do you believe in infant baptism? Also a long standing Tradition of the Church.

Do you realize it does not include a belief in scripture alone?

So you believe in confession to a priest? Although this is ALSO in scripture, the exact format has changed from in public in front of all including the priest, to just the priest alone.

The Real Presence? You believe in that?Confirmation?Annointing of the sick? Purgatory?Asking the saints in heaven to pray for you?

You believe all this and you are not at least Orthodox?

 

[sterryfamily]

The Real Presence? You believe in that?Confirmation?Annointing of the sick? Purgatory?Asking the saints in heaven to pray for you?

You believe all this and you are not at least Orthodox?

Yes, because all of these were believed from the start by all Christians. It wasn’t until men made up their own religions in recent times that people started dropping these beliefs.

 

[artist3189]

Thank you for posting that about the Bible. I always wanted to know the history of it. What was your source for that, if you don’t mind me asking?

Hi BlueS, my sources are easy to find. I’ll give you links if you want. I have a full article also. All that info, I’m sure is available off the Internet, and there is infinite books on the subject, and I’m also sure, Protestant ones. This subject is really ‘historical’ rather than a subject open to interpretation or religious bias. The history of the ‘Great Councils’… who was there, and from where and what they did, and what existed prior to them, is not a story constructed to ‘fit’ a certain ‘Catholic’ history, or claim, rather than just how it all went down. The history of the Church and the Bible unfolded ‘in it’s own time frame’, not in response to Protestantism, which didn’t even exists for another 1300 years. This is something I think many *average *Prots don’t really understand or really worry too much about. But you can be SURE that Prot theologians, teachers, clergy etc know full well the history, and probably avoid discussing it for obvious reasons, or they have *detached themselves *from *the relevance *of it. I’ll post some links, thanks much!

 

[Blue_Serenity]

Hi BlueS, my sources are easy to find. I’ll give you links if you want. I have a full article also. All that info, I’m sure is available off the Internet, and there is infinite books on the subject, and I’m also sure, Protestant ones. This subject is really ‘historical’ rather than a subject open to interpretation or religious bias. The history of the ‘Great Councils’… who was there, and from where and what they did, and what existed prior to them, is not a story constructed to ‘fit’ a certain ‘Catholic’ history, or claim, rather than just how it all went down. The history of the Church and the Bible unfolded ‘in it’s own time frame’, not in response to Protestantism, which didn’t even exists for another 1300 years. This is something I think many *average *Prots don’t really understand or really worry too much about. But you can be SURE that Prot theologians, teachers, clergy etc know full well the history, and probably avoid discussing it for obvious reasons, or they have *detached themselves *from *the relevance *of it. I’ll post some links, thanks much!

If you don’t want to post them here, can you please send me a pm with them?