Why all the Fuss over the Reformation 2

[Tomyris]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=12248032#post12248032

Because we solved everything in the first thread, here is a cake to celebrate

Oh, wait…I think there were a few small items…

 

[Tomyris]

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=896143&page=65
Sorry about the quotes. It gives some sense of the original but messing with it is like a house of cards.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tomyris View Post

For one thing, it is an argument from silence.
It is not, Tomi. Your refusal to accept the infallbile work of the Holy Spirit in preserving the Teaching fo teh Apostles in the Church does not make it “silent” for anyone but you.

Hah. I don’t refuse it. This is a misfire. We are arguing about the content of the teaching, not about my so-called “refusal”. Shall we stay away from personally-directed accusations?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomyris View Post

For another, it indicates that public revelation continues.

No, the HS leads us within the context of the once for all divine deposit of faith.

Ok.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomyris View Post

For a third, you may be ignoring the last verses of the book of Revelation, with its warnings about additions and subtractions,

No. We do not admit any new scriptures. But those verses were written with regard to the book of Revelation, about 300 years before the NT ws canonized. In fact, that book was under great dispute (along with Hebrews) about whether it should be included.
It was sacred tradition that helped it to be part of the canon.

Debatable as to whether it was Revelations only, I will grant you. But then again those are in the last verses, which might suggest a wider context and mind-frame of the author and of the Author.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomyris View Post

and the book of Hebrews, ‘God has spoken in His Son’ - we draw the idea of the closure of public revelation from Scripture, not from any other source.

I disagree, but it is not worth arguing this point.

Then why even bring it up? Just so I know you disagree?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomyris View Post

I think God can, and does, speak to people today. But it is not on the same level as the canon. The man I know who has the most directly accurate prophetic gifting insists the gift is no longer in effect. But his ‘impressions of what God is saying’ are really, really worth listening to. And those are subject to review.

The gift of prophesy is different than the gift of infalliblity.

No argument.

Do all Presbyterians deny the charisms?

No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tomyris View Post

You are wanting to draw me to a position where I will say Councils have the same authority as the Scriptures, along with papal infallible decrees, and to echo Guanophore’s line that reasoned conclusions have the same force as the source, which I also disagree with.

LOL. You busted PR!

Hah. She is real smart. Not like me. She got BIG BRAINS.

Your problem then begins with the first council in Jerusalem. If this is not an infallibe council, then the Word of God has given us an improper model of how it is to work.

Acts 15:27-28
28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us

If the councils do not have that level of authority, then neither can your Scripture, or the bulk of what you believe as a Christian, such as the hypostatic union, the Trinity, or even worshipping on Sundays.

What a hash. Are you confused or something? Elsewhere PR is arguing for the primacy of Scripture even over Tradition. I am not sure this is actually Catholic Teaching, Source, please. You are placing Councils on the same level of authority as Scripture. Apparently you do not believe public revelation has ceased.

 

[Porknpie]

You are placing Councils on the same level of authority as Scripture. Apparently you do not believe public revelation has ceased.

Tomyris,

From the Catechism below. The Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God.

86** “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.**** It teaches only what has been handed on to it.** At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

Tradition and Sacred Scripture are accepted and honored with equal respect and devotion. This is very biblical with St. Paul saying to hold fast to what you have been taught by word and letter. Plus there was no agreed to canon until 382 ad.

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.** Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”**44

It’s well worth the 5-10 minutes to read the catechism in this area: Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium…

Link here to paragraphs 74-100

Link here to paragraphs 101-141

 

[PRmerger]

For one thing, it is an argument from silence.

PR continuing after telling her DH: “I’m goin’ in!”

What are you calling the argument from silence: that revelation has ceased?

Or that there is no Scripture verse to indicate that the charism of infallibility has ceased?

 

[PRmerger]

Elsewhere PR is arguing for the primacy of Scripture even over Tradition. I am not sure this is actually Catholic Teaching,

Firstly, I am only arguing for the primacy of Scripture vis a vis: ONLY Scripture is said to be theopneustos. ONLY Scripture is said to have God as its primary author and is therefore the inspired Word of God.

Sacred Tradition is not referred to as being theopneustos, nor is ever said to be the inspired Word of God. Rather, we speak of it as being “assisted” by the Holy Spirit.

Source, please.

Source:
17. What is the relationship between Scripture, Tradition and the Magisterium?

95

Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium are so closely united with each other that one of them cannot stand without the others. Working together, each in its own way, under the action of the one Holy Spirit, they all contribute effectively to the salvation of souls.

Sacred Scripture

1. Why does Sacred Scripture teach the truth?

105-108
135-136

Because God himself is the author of Sacred Scripture. For this reason it is said to be inspired and to teach without error those truths which are necessary for our salvation. The Holy Spirit inspired the human authors who wrote what he wanted to teach us. The Christian faith, however, is not a “religion of the Book”, but of the Word of God – “not a written and mute word, but incarnate and living” (Saint Bernard of Clairvaux).

 

[Tomyris]

PR continuing after telling her DH: “I’m goin’ in!”

What are you calling the argument from silence: that revelation has ceased?

Or that there is no Scripture verse to indicate that the charism of infallibility has ceased?

This:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=896143&page=65

but there is NOTHING in Scripture which declares that God does not continue to use the Holy Spirit to assist men in protecting His Word, and doing so (since it is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit)…INFALLIBLY

.

Do a substitution to look at the syntax:

The above: There is no x which does not y.

PR: Therefore the negative of x is true.

No. This is illogical.

You would need a statement saying that there is something in Scripture that declares that God uses…

What is really irritating here is that I agree Jesus is with the Church and takes care of it and of right teaching. This is a double-edged sword, as you have to ask if He is correcting existing wrong teaching or correcting new wrong teaching.

 

[tabycat]

 

[Tomyris]

Tomyris,

From the Catechism below. The Magisterium is the servant of the Word of God.

86** “Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant.**** It teaches only what has been handed on to it.** At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.”

I like. Well put.

Tradition and Sacred Scripture are accepted and honored with equal respect and devotion. This is very biblical with St. Paul saying to hold fast to what you have been taught by word and letter. Plus there was no agreed to canon until 382 ad.

Here the Reformed and the Catholic see things differently.

81 “Sacred Scripture is the speech of God as it is put down in writing under the breath of the Holy Spirit.”

I like. Well put.

"And [Holy] Tradition transmits in its entirety the Word of God which has been entrusted to the apostles by Christ the Lord and the Holy Spirit. It transmits it to the successors of the apostles so that, enlightened by the Spirit of truth, they may faithfully preserve, expound and spread it abroad by their preaching."

Here the Reformed and the Catholic see things differently.

82 As a result the Church, to whom the transmission and interpretation of Revelation is entrusted, “does not derive her certainty about all revealed truths from the holy Scriptures alone.** Both Scripture and Tradition must be accepted and honored with equal sentiments of devotion and reverence.”**44

Here the Reformed and the Catholic see things differently.

It’s well worth the 5-10 minutes to read the catechism in this area: Tradition, Scripture and Magisterium…

When I have time I will go through these. Thank you for posting this.

Link here to paragraphs 74-100

Link here to paragraphs 101-141

 

[Tomyris]

I disagree.

Oh. Sorry, Habit.

 

[PRmerger]

This:
http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=896143&page=65

.

Do a substitution to look at the syntax:

The above: There is no x which does not y.

PR: Therefore the negative of x is true.

No. This is illogical.

You would need a statement saying that there is something in Scripture that declares that God uses…

What is really irritating here is that I agree Jesus is with the Church and takes care of it and of right teaching. This is a double-edged sword, as you have to ask if He is correcting existing wrong teaching or correcting new wrong teaching.

So, as far as the argument from silence…

Scripture is silent regarding God stopping the charism of infallibility.

Therefore, according to Tomi…we believe that God stopped assisting His Church from proclaiming that which is false?

Is that a correct assessment of you position, Tomi, as far as the argument from silence?

 

[guanophore]

 [forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=896143&page=65](http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=896143&page=65)

I think we are all in agreement that humans can participate in an infallible act, the Scriptures being the best example. There are other examples, such as Peter confronting the couple in Acts of lying to the H.S.

The gift of infallibility does not make a person "perfect’ (impeccable) but preserves them from making an error. We believe that this gift has been at work in the Church continually in all the councils that defined the essential doctrines of the faith (from the Council of Jerusalem in Acts until the present day).

My point is that there has NOT been “silence”. You may not realize that you accept most of this infallible teaching of the Church, but you do.

PR is asking you, when do you think the gift “stopped”? We all agree it was functioning throughout the writing of the NT. Those who have received the Apostolic Faith accept Jesus’ promise that the HS would lead the Church into “all truth” in this way.

For another, it indicates that public revelation continues.

I think we can all agree that this is not the case. All that has continued is direction on how to apply the revelation that was given. The council of Jerusalem described in Acts did not reveal anything new, just instructed the faithful in how to apply what had already been given. This is the function of the gift of infallibility - it protects the faithful and the Church from falling into error, which would let them pass through the gates of hell.

… the book of Hebrews, ‘God has spoken in His Son’ - we draw the idea of the closure of public revelation from Scripture, not from any other source.

I think we can also all agree that how that public revelation is interpreted and applied is a continuing need for the Church. If it were not, then we would have perfect unity.

Hah.  I don't refuse it.  This is a misfire.  We are arguing about the content of the teaching, not about my so-called "refusal".

I think it is both. You are denying that the gift Jesus gave is still functioning. We agree it functioned to write the NT, and to form the early church (as we see the HS leading the Church in the book of Acts.), but you seem to believe that it stopped at some point?

What a hash. Are you confused or something? Elsewhere PR is arguing for the primacy of Scripture even over Tradition. I am not sure this is actually Catholic Teaching,

Yes, she is quoting out of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

You are placing Councils on the same level of authority as Scripture.

Scripture has a quality of it’s own, but Scripture cannot exercise “authority” the way people can. It is authorative, but to exercise authority requires a will, discernment, and the ability to take responsibility. Although the Scriptures are inspired and inerrant, they do not have these qualities, which only belong to persons.

This is why using the doctrine of Sola Scriptura creates so many divisions. Ultimately, each person who reads the Scripture has to discern and decide (interpret). People come to their own conclusions, and become their own authority.

Scripture represents the “mind” of the Church, and should not be read apart from it. The councils ensure that we interpret the Scriptures through the lens of apostolic teaching (Sacred Tradition)

Apparently you do not believe public revelation has ceased.

No, we are in agreement on that point. Except perhaps the point at which it stopped. We consider it at the death of the last Apostle.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Tomyris]

So, as far as the argument from silence…

Scripture is silent regarding God stopping the charism of infallibility.

Therefore, according to Tomi…we believe that God stopped assisting His Church from proclaiming that which is false?

Is that a correct assessment of you position, Tomi, as far as the argument from silence?

No. I am saying an argument from silence is not inherently a good argument.

A syllogism is, however. The classic example:

All men are mortal.
Aristotle is a man.
Therefore Aristotle is mortal.

What you have not proven is that God will necessarily use his priests and bishops to safeguard the Church’s teaching. I don’t think you can, as there have been many prophetic types (I am not saying prophets) whom God has raised up to help right the ship. There are people He uses outside the established order.

 

[guanophore]

You would need a statement saying that there is something in Scripture that declares that God uses…

This is how we understand that the HS will lead us into “all truth”. The promises of the HS were made to the fledgling Church - not individuals. The Apostles were all in unity with one another.

What is really irritating here is that I agree Jesus is with the Church and takes care of it and of right teaching. This is a double-edged sword, as you have to ask if He is correcting existing wrong teaching or correcting new wrong teaching.

He does both. Both are equally dangerous. Both can lead the faithful through the gates of hell.

What you have not proven is that God will necessarily use his priests and bishops to safeguard the Church’s teaching. I don’t think you can, as there have been many prophetic types (I am not saying prophets) whom God has raised up to help right the ship. There are people He uses outside the established order.

It is the special duty and vocation of the Bishop to preserve, safeguard, and teach from the once for all divine deposit of faith. Of course, there are many others that serve to accomplish these duties, but they are all to be in unity with their bishop.

Whenever people, even with strong gifts, have departed from unity with the Bishops, heresy, schism, and divisions result.

 

[Porknpie]

Here the Reformed and the Catholic see things differently.

Tomyris, if we could warp back in time (and you know I’m of the original Star Trek vintage … and Carl Sagan used to put me to sleep), to 50, 100, 200 or 300 AD, we could only see things similarly, for there was no NT scripture.

So the question becomes…if we then travel forward in time from that point, would we have first seen things differently?

 

[Contarini]

Tomyris, if we could warp back in time (and you know I’m of the original Star Trek vintage … and Carl Sagan used to put me to sleep), to 50, 100, 200 or 300 AD, we could only see things similarly, for there was no NT scripture.

Maybe there wasn’t in 50. But there certainly was at any of those later dates. Almost all–maybe all–the NT books were written before 100. And 2 Peter, which may or may not have been written before 100, calls Paul’s letters Scripture, so by the time that letter was written some of the NT books were not only written but were functioning as Scripture. The four-Gospel canon is attested in the early second century, and more emphatically in Irenaeus at the end of the century.

I know that what you mean is probably “the precise limits of the NT canon were not firmly settled.” But that isn’t what most people would conclude from your language. Hence what you are saying is at best highly misleading and at worst utterly absurd and plainly false.

I don’t know why Catholics on this forum are so fond of this particularly nonsensical bit of propaganda, which anyone with any knowledge of the early Church knows has no basis whatever.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

Maybe there wasn’t in 50. But there certainly was at any of those later dates. Almost all–maybe all–the NT books were written before 100. And 2 Peter, which may or may not have been written before 100, calls Paul’s letters Scripture, so by the time that letter was written some of the NT books were not only written but were functioning as Scripture. The four-Gospel canon is attested in the early second century, and more emphatically in Irenaeus at the end of the century.

I know that what you mean is probably “the precise limits of the NT canon were not firmly settled.” But that isn’t what most people would conclude from your language. Hence what you are saying is at best highly misleading and at worst utterly absurd and plainly false.

I don’t know why Catholics on this forum are so fond of this particularly nonsensical bit of propaganda, which anyone with any knowledge of the early Church knows has no basis whatever.

Edwin

I think it is often a lack of knowledge about how the canon developed, but also a desire to emphasize that the Teaching of Christ was whole and entire before any of it was committed to writing. Clearly the list of NT books was composed and in general circulation long prior to when the canon was finalized.

 

[adf417]

I think it is often a lack of knowledge about how the canon developed, but also a desire to emphasize that the Teaching of Christ was whole and entire before any of it was committed to writing. Clearly the list of NT books was composed and in general circulation long prior to when the canon was finalized.

guanophore & Edwin, I have seen you post these corrections before and I continue to try to see the past as you do. I have never read any post that has stated the inspired writings were not written or in use prior to the time frame you suggest. The point is and always has been the separation of these inspired writings from all other writings being used in the first few centuries within the liturgy. It is this separation, or distinction, of what was eventually to become recognized as inspired vs. those many that were thought to be inspired that is the action to be noted. Do you not agree?

Without seeing and acknowledging this distinction I can understand why you criticize those who use this language. I agree sometime the language used is a bit skewed but I think it is common in all posts here on CAF.

Peace!!!

 

[SteveVH]

I think it is often a lack of knowledge about how the canon developed, but also a desire to emphasize that the Teaching of Christ was whole and entire before any of it was committed to writing. Clearly the list of NT books was composed and in general circulation long prior to when the canon was finalized.

Whatever “general circulation” meant in the first century.

 

[Tomyris]

I’m thinking about a comment I heard a pastor make on the radio once (hearing it from a pastor on the radio makes it infallible, after all ) and that was that wrestling with Scripture is like eating fish. You can get enough sustenance off the meat and set aside the bones until you figure out what to do with them. Someone said it wasn’t the parts of Scripture he did not understand that he had trouble with, rather it was those he DID understand that gave him trouble.

Before the penning of the first Gospel they were showing Who Jesus was from the Old Testament. Jesus did this on the road to Emmaus, Apollos did it in the book of Acts; you will find much of this collected in the Gospel of Matthew, showing how He is the fulfillment of the Scriptures, which they had.

When they heard one of Paul’s letters they knew it was Scripture. Haven’t you ever had one of those sermons where God sorts of hits you wth a 2x4? I think it was like that.

They had the Scriptures. The Church has never been without the written Word. The idea that people did not know what was Scripture until Trent is ridiculous. They passed letters and documents. That is not to say there were not disputes about the Shepherd of Hermas and 1 Clement and John’s Apocalypse and the Gospel of Thomas and Hebrews, but they had the Scriptures.

 

[Tomyris]

guanophore & Edwin, I have seen you post these corrections before and I continue to try to see the past as you do. I have never read any post that has stated the inspired writings were not written or in use prior to the time frame you suggest. The point is and always has been the separation of these inspired writings from all other writings being used in the first few centuries within the liturgy. It is this separation, or distinction, of what was eventually to become recognized as inspired vs. those many that were thought to be inspired that is the action to be noted. Do you not agree?

Without seeing and acknowledging this distinction I can understand why you criticize those who use this language.** I agree sometime the language used is a bit skewed but I think it is common in all posts here on CAF.**

Peace!!!

Is that a confession, indictment or what? And what can be done about, to encourage Catholics to use the truth in the defense of truth rather than sayings that get passed around CAF that never seem to go away, regardless of how often they are rebuked?