D
dronald
Guest
Thank you. This is my life that I hope to live daily.
- Status
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Depends on the synod. Some do it every other week, some every week. I haven’t really seen it less often than that.I agreeI didn’t know some Lutherans Communed every Sunday.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Yo, Jon - a lot of posts came in at once…
And Fr. Adrian Fortescue further explains the expansion of the Papal Jurisdiction like this:
Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. When a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence, vague statements, harmless before the controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations.
A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.
Besides this there has been real growth in the use of the Pope’s authority. Many matters, such as canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders and so on, once settled by the bishop of the diocese now go to Rome. Appeals are far more frequent and about smaller matters. Patriarchal and metropolitan authority over bishops has diminished very much. There has been a constant process of centralizing.
This was caused in several ways. Increased facilities of communication with headquarters had something to do with it. At one time, to appeal to Rome meant a serious journey for the bearer of the letter; now it can be done electronically. Then there is the natural tendency of any society toward centralization. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to headquarters at once. Then you have the decision of the supreme authority and no possibility of further dispute.
The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects on Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion?
And Fr. Adrian Fortescue further explains the expansion of the Papal Jurisdiction like this:
Has the papacy grown? In a sense it has, just as every dogma of the Church may be said to have grown. When a point of faith is disputed, when some new heresy arises, the Church makes her mind clear by defining more explicitly what she has always held. She forbids a false interpretation of the faith, and so she makes it more definite. Hence, vague statements, harmless before the controversy began, become impossible after the definition. But we do not admit that this development means any real addition to the faith; it is only a more explicit assertion of the old faith, necessary in view of false interpretations.
A conspicuous case of this is the declaration of papal infallibility by the First Vatican Council. The Early Church recognized that the Pope has the final word in matters of faith, no less than in those of discipline, that she herself is protected by God against heresy. Put that together, and you have, implicitly, what the Council defined.
Besides this there has been real growth in the use of the Pope’s authority. Many matters, such as canonizations of saints, approval of religious orders and so on, once settled by the bishop of the diocese now go to Rome. Appeals are far more frequent and about smaller matters. Patriarchal and metropolitan authority over bishops has diminished very much. There has been a constant process of centralizing.
This was caused in several ways. Increased facilities of communication with headquarters had something to do with it. At one time, to appeal to Rome meant a serious journey for the bearer of the letter; now it can be done electronically. Then there is the natural tendency of any society toward centralization. We can observe this almost everywhere. It becomes so much easier, shorter; it saves so much trouble to go straight to headquarters at once. Then you have the decision of the supreme authority and no possibility of further dispute.
The spectacle of the anarchy of Protestantism, a spectacle offered to us more plainly each century, has its effects on Catholics. That is what comes of “No Popery”. What Catholic, seeing the state of Protestantism today, does not thank God that he has given to us an authority to settle disputes of religion?
C
concretecamper
Guest
No…Scripture and Tradition are so closely connected…you cannot say Tradition fails without saying Scripture also fails. So if you want me to say people broke Tradition…I would say OK. But it also means those who broke tradition ignored scripture.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
No. As I stated previously, the Catholic Church does not rely on Sola Tradition. Thus, there is no parallel.
The Catholic Church continues to teach the same doctrines it has taught from the beginning, but not all have maintained their communion with the see of Peter.
Even within the pages of Sacred Scripture we see that Paul was dealing with people who were teaching false doctrines. But this no more of a failure of Sacred Tradition that the Arian and Nestorian heresies prove that the Gospel was a failure. There will always be heresies and heretics…
N
Nicea325
Guest
Part of the problem, I recognize with many Protestants take on the papacy is the simple fact Jesus lived in the East with an entire different culture,language,traditions,etc. If leaving one man in charge was such an issue, Jesus would have made it point to teach it as false.
I
Isaiah45_9
Guest
The Bishop of Rome still stands since the Apostle Peter.
How did sacred tradition fail?
D
dronald
Guest
But Scripture does not state what kind of bread, nor whether Baptism is possible for a new born, nor what happens to stillborn babies according to the traditionalist Church’s. So they have their own rules, and yet the rules all turn out different between all Church’s that claim to be the one true Church. Therefore anything outside of Scripture has failed, unless we have the unity to prove otherwise.
D
dronald
Guest
When you say, “the Catholic Church” you mean “your” Catholic Church, right?
N
Nicea325
Guest
And where does God state Scripture is supreme?
D
dronald
Guest
Peter’s successor has made decisions without the blessings of the Orthodox, no?
C
concretecamper
Guest
I know you think the RCC is wrong. But the RCC changing direction and all of a sudden recognizing it would not be the charitable thing to do.
N
Nicea325
Guest
There is another? Protestants cannot claim they belong to the Catholic church because of the theological chaos. Cannot be part of the universal church and yet vast differences exist. The Creed formulated in the 4th century is clear.
C
concretecamper
Guest
The bread used, infant baptism are both taken from biblical text. But that is another thread.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Again, this is incorrect.
The Catholic Church continues to teach with the same authority that it received from Jesus. Thus, “whatever” the Church binds and loosens on earth is also ratified by God in heaven. This is basic doctrine straight from the Word of God.
Now, if some groups choose to split off, that is a tragedy, but it does not abrogate the authority received by Peter from Jesus himself.
I know you’re trying hard to winning a point in your debate, but I don’t think your analogy holds much water.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
Correct. Because Peter’s successor sits on the chair of Peter. It is incumbent upon the Orthodox to maintain their communion with Rome - not the other way around.
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
I mean the Catholic Church headquartered in Vatican City and whose head is the Bishop of Rome, or Pope, the successor of Peter.
One is either in full communion with with visible head of the Christian Church established by Jesus (cf. Mt. 16:18-19, Jn 21:15:19) or not.
It’s pretty simple, really.
P
Protestor
Guest
Are you going to take something that is like the title of a paper and make it the whole theory?
You and I both know that there are scriptures that support the idea of Sola Scriptura. We both agree that bible is a sufficient for compitency in every good work. The difference between us is that I take only the bible to be reliably sufficient.For me Tradition is great but not inerrant. SS is not explicitly stated in the bible I will give you that.
You and I both know that there are scriptures that support the idea of Sola Scriptura. We both agree that bible is a sufficient for compitency in every good work. The difference between us is that I take only the bible to be reliably sufficient.For me Tradition is great but not inerrant. SS is not explicitly stated in the bible I will give you that.
H
House_Harkonnen
Guest
Indeed.
At least the RCC recognizes my denomination as a “means of salvation”. That’s a start right?
R
Randy_Carson
Guest
We’ve reached that point where the “rubber” of sola scriptura meets the “road” of everyday life. The final question that should be asked the Protestant is, “Can you show where in history sola scriptura has worked?” In other words, where, throughout Protestantism’s relatively brief life-span, can we find examples (just one will do) of sola scriptura actually working-functioning in such a way that it brings about doctrinal certitude and unity of doctrine among Christians? The answer is “nowhere.”
As a rule of faith that, without recourse to Sacred Tradition and an infallible Magisterium, promises doctrinal certitude and a unity of faith, sola scriptura fails miserably. The best evidence of this is Protestantism itself. There are today, according to one recent study, over 22,000 distinct Protestant denominations in the world, each of which claims to go by the “Bible alone,” yet no two of them agree on what exactly the Bible teaches.
The blueprint for the doctrinal chaos that is Protestantism is laid out in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men… (6)
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them … (7)
“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can tee no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 9).
All of that sounds fine at first glance, but upon inspection, this framework collapses. First, if “the whole counsel of God . . . is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” then sola scriptura must itself appear somewhere in Scripture, but it does not. And thus, under the terms set forth in all the classical Protestant creeds, it is a self-refuting proposition.
Second, if “those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them,” then we have another problem. What are we to do with such things “necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation” as the doctrine that the Persons of the Trinity are homoousios, that in Christ there are two wills, the Hypostatic Union, the cessation of divine revelation upon the death of the last Apostle, the canon of Scripture, whether or not infants should be baptized, and a whole host of key issues that bear directly upon the core of the Christian faith.
Scripture alone-Scripture forced to stand apart from the infallible teaching magisterium that has been given Christ’s own authority to accurately interpret Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, which is the Church’s living interpretation of those written words—is unstable and leads to the myriad of conflicting, erroneous, and sometimes spiritually fatal “human traditions” (c.f. Matt. 15:3-9; Mark 7:6-7) that lead people away from Christ.
Scripture alone, as the tragic history of Protestantism has shown, becomes the private play toy of any self-styled “exegete” who wishes to interpret God’s Word to suit his own views. The history of Protestantism, laboring under sola scriptura, is an unending kaleidoscope of fragmentation and splintering. It cannot provide any sort of doctrinal certitude for the Christian, because it is built on the shifting sand of mere human opinion - what the individual pastor Scripture means.
Even Martin Luther saw the inescapable principle of fragmentation and disunity that lies at the heart of sola scriptura. In a letter to Urlich Zwingli, he complained bitterly about the doctrinal anarchy that was even then rampant among Protestants: “If the world lasts, it will be necessary, on account of the differing interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith, we should receive the [Catholic] councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge.”
Catholics should not flinch when confronted with alleged “biblical” and “historical” arguments for sola scriptura. They fall apart. Scripture and history are the two best apologetics tools for effective evangelization in discussions with Protestants about sola scriptura. I know firsthand the importance of discussing sola scriptura with Protestants. Having engaged in a number of live public debates with Protestant ministers on this subject, I’ve seen Protestants completely flummoxed (some even converted to Catholicism) when they see that sola scriptura is utterly indefensible.
So go ahead and jerk their chain. Sola scriptura is by far and away the weakest link.
Source:
Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy
by Patrick Madrid
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT
As a rule of faith that, without recourse to Sacred Tradition and an infallible Magisterium, promises doctrinal certitude and a unity of faith, sola scriptura fails miserably. The best evidence of this is Protestantism itself. There are today, according to one recent study, over 22,000 distinct Protestant denominations in the world, each of which claims to go by the “Bible alone,” yet no two of them agree on what exactly the Bible teaches.
The blueprint for the doctrinal chaos that is Protestantism is laid out in the Westminster Confession of Faith:
"The whole counsel of God, concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man’s salvation, faith, and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit, or traditions of men… (6)
"All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them … (7)
“The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture, is the Scripture itself; and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it may be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly. The Supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can tee no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture” (Westminster Confession of Faith, 9).
All of that sounds fine at first glance, but upon inspection, this framework collapses. First, if “the whole counsel of God . . . is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture,” then sola scriptura must itself appear somewhere in Scripture, but it does not. And thus, under the terms set forth in all the classical Protestant creeds, it is a self-refuting proposition.
Second, if “those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed, for salvation, are so clearly propounded and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them,” then we have another problem. What are we to do with such things “necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation” as the doctrine that the Persons of the Trinity are homoousios, that in Christ there are two wills, the Hypostatic Union, the cessation of divine revelation upon the death of the last Apostle, the canon of Scripture, whether or not infants should be baptized, and a whole host of key issues that bear directly upon the core of the Christian faith.
Scripture alone-Scripture forced to stand apart from the infallible teaching magisterium that has been given Christ’s own authority to accurately interpret Scripture, and Sacred Tradition, which is the Church’s living interpretation of those written words—is unstable and leads to the myriad of conflicting, erroneous, and sometimes spiritually fatal “human traditions” (c.f. Matt. 15:3-9; Mark 7:6-7) that lead people away from Christ.
Scripture alone, as the tragic history of Protestantism has shown, becomes the private play toy of any self-styled “exegete” who wishes to interpret God’s Word to suit his own views. The history of Protestantism, laboring under sola scriptura, is an unending kaleidoscope of fragmentation and splintering. It cannot provide any sort of doctrinal certitude for the Christian, because it is built on the shifting sand of mere human opinion - what the individual pastor Scripture means.
Even Martin Luther saw the inescapable principle of fragmentation and disunity that lies at the heart of sola scriptura. In a letter to Urlich Zwingli, he complained bitterly about the doctrinal anarchy that was even then rampant among Protestants: “If the world lasts, it will be necessary, on account of the differing interpretations of Scripture which now exist, that to preserve the unity of faith, we should receive the [Catholic] councils and decrees and fly to them for refuge.”
Catholics should not flinch when confronted with alleged “biblical” and “historical” arguments for sola scriptura. They fall apart. Scripture and history are the two best apologetics tools for effective evangelization in discussions with Protestants about sola scriptura. I know firsthand the importance of discussing sola scriptura with Protestants. Having engaged in a number of live public debates with Protestant ministers on this subject, I’ve seen Protestants completely flummoxed (some even converted to Catholicism) when they see that sola scriptura is utterly indefensible.
So go ahead and jerk their chain. Sola scriptura is by far and away the weakest link.
Source:
Sola Scriptura: A Blueprint for Anarchy
by Patrick Madrid
ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/SOLASCRI.TXT
- Status