Scripture and Tradition

[BobRyan]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45674
Posted: August 9, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I'm also encouraged by Benedict XVI, who seems to have inherited John Paul II's humility as well as his loyalty to foundational doctrines. On Jan. 22, 1998, when he was still a cardinal and the grand Inquisitor (yes!) of the Roman Catholic Church, he declared that their archives (4,500 large volumes) indicate a death toll of 25 million killed by the Catholic Church for being "heretics." And likely two-thirds of the original volumes are lost. That kind of honesty will help relations (though there is no basis for uniting the RCC with Bible-believing Protestant churches).

Catholic Digest 11/1997 pg 100
The question:
A Baptist family who lives across the street gave me a book called the “Trail of Blood”, by J.M. Carroll. It attacks Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism, indulgences, purgatory, and so on. But I am writing to learn if there is anything in history that would justify the following quotation:

“The world has Never seen anything to compare with the persecution heaped upon the Baptists by the Catholic hierarchy of the Dark Ages. The Pope was the world’s dictator. This is why the Anabaptists before the Reformation called the Pope the Anti-Christ”. Then: “Fifty million died by persecution over a period of 1200 years because of the Catholic Church”

The answer from Fr. Ken Ryan:

“There weren’t any Baptists until 1609, generally thought of as a year occurring after the Dark Ages. (that is why the article above includes Anabaptists) Anabaptists (means anti-baptism of infants – so they re-baptized them as adults) means “re-baptizers” and was a name given to groups existing in the 3rd, 4th, 11th and 12th centuries but they had no connection with the violent civil-religious (Catholic) reformers who appeared in 1521 at Zwickau in Saxony. These 16th century Anabaptists rejected Catholic doctrine on infant Baptism and Lutheran justification by faith, among other things, and intended to substitute a new “Kingdom of God” for the social and civil order of their time. John Leyden was proclaimed King of New Sion at Munster where museums and libraries were destroyed and polygamy was introduced. This group AND Many others were Exterminated during the Peasants Wars by a Combination of civil and religious authority. Whether they were persecuted or punished depends on your point of view”

In the article above – Fr. Ken Ryan makes the meaning of “extermination” of that group and “many other groups” clear for modern readers.
Catholic apologists like Catholic Digest’s Fr. Ken Ryan quoted above often argue that the RCC isn't accountable for the Inquisition, since the state carried out the torturing and the executions. It was the RCC who defined these people as "heretics", however, and the RCC handed them over to the state (John 19:11).

The Fourth Lateran Council, the council that dogmatized transubstantiation, offered indulgences to those who would "exterminate heretics" and participate in a Crusade. Since this council refers to the RCC's influence over the state (John 19:11), it puts the lie to revisionist Catholic claims that the state acted apart from the RCC. The council declared (http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/lat4-c3.html):

Secular authorities, whatever office they may hold, shall be admonished and induced and if necessary compelled by ecclesiastical censure, that as they wish to be esteemed and numbered among the faithful, so for the defense of the faith they ought publicly to take an oath that they will strive in good faith and to the best of their ability to exterminate in the territories subject to their jurisdiction all heretics pointed out by the Church; so that
whenever anyone shall have assumed authority, whether spiritual or temporal, let him be bound to confirm this decree by oath. But if a temporal ruler, after having been requested and admonished by the Church, should neglect to cleanse his territory of this heretical foulness, let him be excommunicated by the metropolitan and the other bishops of the province. If he refuses to make satisfaction within a year, let the matter be made known to the
supreme pontiff [the Pope], that he may declare the ruler's vassals absolved from their allegiance and may offer the territory to be ruled lay Catholics, who on the extermination of the heretics may possess it without hindrance and preserve it in the purity of faith; the right, however, of the chief ruler is to be respected as long as he offers no obstacle in this matter and permits freedom of action. The same law is to be observed in regard to those
who have no chief rulers (that is, are independent). Catholics who have girded themselves with the cross for the extermination of the heretics, shall enjoy the indulgences and privileges granted to those who go in defense of the Holy Land.

 

[Matt Black]

Your argument is that tradition is the "solution" to disputes -- as pointed out above we have Catholic schism IN THE FORM of more groups with strong appeal to "tradition" just like the RCC from which they came -- in many cases.

Your argument failed.

Not at all since we don't have schism prior to the end of the first millenium.

As for the many groups that were slaughtered and persecuted in the dark ages by the RCC even BEFORE the 2nd Millennium -- you are free to turn a blind eye to it if you wish because your argument has already failed using your own rules - your own test of "sufficiency".

in Christ,

Bob

The Inquisition wasn't set up until after the split of 1054. All the events which you relate in your last post above happened post-1054.

 

[Jillian]

Hey Matt, given what yoiu are doing to my threads, can I call you a Baptist basher now?

 

[Jillian]

This Tradition, as it has historically been called, in addition to ‘filling in the gaps’ where Scripture is silent, also helps to explain and interpret Scripture for us, to assist us in arriving at the correct understanding of what the Scripture means.

I have asked dozens of Catholics this question and never gotten an answer
What ORAL TRADITIONS NOT in the BIBLE do CHRISTIANS NEED TO KNOW?

 

[Matt Black]

Hey Matt, given what yoiu are doing to my threads, can I call you a Baptist basher now?

Call me what you want, dearie, it doesn't bother me, It wouldn't be terribly accurate, though, since at no point have I ever said, nor do I believe, that Baptists are the Antichrist and are Hell-bound, unlike your spewed assertions about Catholics.

To answer your question about oral traditions which are needed, please re-read my OP - some examples are given there.

 

[Jillian]

Call me what you want, dearie, it doesn't bother me, It wouldn't be terribly accurate, though, since at no point have I ever said, nor do I believe, that Baptists are the Antichrist and are Hell-bound, unlike your spewed assertions about Catholics.

To answer your question about oral traditions which are needed, please re-read my OP - some examples are given there.

[personal attack removed]

I know that my local UU church actually shares services and activities with the Anglicans.

 

[BRIANH]

Call me what you want, dearie, it doesn't bother me, It wouldn't be terribly accurate, though, since at no point have I ever said, nor do I believe, that Baptists are the Antichrist and are Hell-bound, unlike your spewed assertions about Catholics.

To answer your question about oral traditions which are needed, please re-read my OP - some examples are given there.

It appears your OP is supportive of a form of Apostolic Succession, although I am not sure exactly what your beliefs concerning this are.

Let us look at early Christian writings outside of scripture. Specifically the Didache and if I have time Clement.
I assume you have access to the document and so I will not post any links.
You would agree that the Didache teaches that congregations are to choose their own leaders? You would also agree that is says that Apostles must be tested? Notice it does not say these Apostles are "false Apostles" as some in the RC claim. Instead the passage seems to indicate they were indeed Apostles.
Based upon that, one can conclude that if indeed a linear succession from the Apostles actually existed based upon the laying on of hands, it was not authorative or the Apostles would not have to be tested.
You would also agree that nothing in the Didache indicates that a person can only lead the proceedings if they have had hands laid on them by someone who had hands laid on them etc?

As far as your verses about Paul, while you agree that Paul was an Apostle, you would also, I hope, agree that Paul did not have hands laid on him by another apostle, but a person who is described as a "disciple".
I would like to proceed further but I am not sure specifically what you are defending in terms of AS.
Thanks

 

[Matt Black]

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Brian, and welcome to the Board!

You are correct that I do set great store by AS. I also agree with you that the Didache does not, at first glance, support AS ( I presume you are referring in particular to v15: "Appoint for yourselves Bishops and Deacons...")? A couple of points to make there: firstly, I would distinguish between 'appointment/approbation' and 'ordination/consecration'; the former is a matter of church government, the latter one of ontological change. To put some flesh on those bones, even today (in theory) a Bishop has to be approved by his diocese (in the Greek Orthodox Church, for example, the cry of 'axios' or 'anaxios' (worthy or unworthy) is the traditional method of so doing).

Secondly, the Didache is only one of many patristic writings (this brings me back to my OP point: that whilst individual texts may disagree with each other from time to time, to the extent to which they agree, they carry the weight of the consensus patri); if you compare it in particular with I Clement (to which I believe you made reference above), then this more or less contemporary document does support AS - see in particular I Clement 42:44: "So, preaching everywhere...they [the Apostles] appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be Bishops and Deacons unto them that should believe..."etc.

WRT Paul, I wouldn't view Ananias' prayer as being anything approaching presbyteral ordination still less episcopal consecration but rather part of Paul's conversion. All the Apostles including Paul were appointed and consecrated directly by Christ, not by their peers.

 

[BRIANH]

Thanks for your thoughtful post, Brian, and welcome to the Board!

You are correct that I do set great store by AS. I also agree with you that the Didache does not, at first glance, support AS ( I presume you are referring in particular to v15: "Appoint for yourselves Bishops and Deacons...")? A couple of points to make there: firstly, I would distinguish between 'appointment/approbation' and 'ordination/consecration'; the former is a matter of church government, the latter one of ontological change.

I understand the distinction but I suggest one would have to be predisposed or approach it with a presupposition of Apostolic Succession.
One area you did not address that I feel weakens your argument is what is said about Apostles. The Apostles are to be "tested". Based upon the context, I see nothing to suggest a concept of Apostolic Succession.
Which once again, for clarity, I would ask how do you define "Apostolic Succession"?

To put some flesh on those bones, even today (in theory) a Bishop has to be approved by his diocese (in the Greek Orthodox Church, for example, the cry of 'axios' or 'anaxios' (worthy or unworthy) is the traditional method of so doing).

This raises a question for me as well. Do you contend the form of church government was a monarchial bishop? Looking at the writings of the ECF and scripture, outside of Acts 15 and the role of James, you would agree that most scholars do not agree with the concept of a monarchial bishop? If so, what does that directly say, if anything, obviously I think it does, about the distinction between the church offices of bishop, elder, presbyter?

Secondly, the Didache is only one of many patristic writings (this brings me back to my OP point: that whilst individual texts may disagree with each other from time to time, to the extent to which they agree, they carry the weight of the consensus patri);

It is one of many patristic writings but it is one of the few from the first 100 years after the resurrection of our Lord and Savior.
If one attempts to find authentic extrabiblical tradition that can be proven to exist in the first 100 years, we are rather limited are we not? We have the Didache. We have Clement. We may, or may not, have Ignatius, although I would raise the serious possibility of interpolations. We have Polycarp, although he is a little beyond the first 100 years.

if you compare it in particular with I Clement (to which I believe you made reference above), then this more or less contemporary document does support AS - see in particular I Clement 42:44: "So, preaching everywhere...they [the Apostles] appointed their firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be Bishops and Deacons unto them that should believe..."etc.

I contend you have cut Clement a little short. Let us look at it:

1Clem 42:4
So preaching everywhere in country and town, they appointed their
firstfruits, when they had proved them by the Spirit, to be bishops
and deacons unto them that should believe.

One thing we quickly notice is the lack of distinction between the two. Because the concept of Apostolic Succession is generally believed to be the linear laying on of hands from one bishop to another, this passage poses difficulty for that concept. It says nothing of the sort but we have more to look at.

1Clem 44:2
For this cause therefore, having received complete foreknowledge,
they appointed the aforesaid persons, and afterwards they provided a
continuance, that if these should fall asleep, other approved men
should succeed to their ministration. Those therefore who were
appointed by them, or afterward by other men of repute with the
consent of the whole Church,

As the example above states, Clement writes that approved men did take over but look at what happens next, the are appointed by them OR by men of repute with the consent of the whole church. Once again, he see that bishops and elders were chosen by the congregation. It says nothing about it:
Having to be a linear laying on of hands
Having to have the approval of a monarchial bishop
and if especially, not that you are contending such, needs the approval of a powerful bishop in Rome.

WRT Paul, I wouldn't view Ananias' prayer as being anything approaching presbyteral ordination still less episcopal consecration but rather part of Paul's conversion. All the Apostles including Paul were appointed and consecrated directly by Christ, not by their peers.

Based upon that statement, I wonder what exactly you do believe about Apostolic Succession?
Thank you for your welcome.

 

[Matt Black]

Hi Brian

Thanks again for your thoughtful reponse, which has made me think. You raise a number of points and I will endeavour to deal with them.

On the issue of 'approval' -v- 'consecration' in AS, I think Hippolytus' Apostolic Tradition is particularly useful (italics mine):

2 He who is ordained as a bishop, being chosen by all the people, must be irreproachable.
2When his name is announced and approved, the people will gather on the Lord's day with the
council of elders and the bishops who are present. 3With the assent of all, the bishops will place
their hands upon him, with the council of elders standing by, quietly. 4Everyone will keep silent,
praying in their hearts for the descent of the Spirit. 5After this, one of the bishops present, at the
request of all, shall lay his hand upon him who is being ordained bishop

Re the Didache calling for the apostles and prophets to be 'tested', I would read this as a reference to those who are masquerading as apostles and prophets; if you look at the tests laid down, they have to do with the extent to which the visitor is freeloading off the congregation (cp modern televangelists); I wouldn't view this as negativing the authority of the genuine apostles and bishops, the Real McCoy as it were, in any way.

You then move onto the question of the development of the episcopal office. Your view - if I have it right - is I believe similar to that of Gibbon, which I managed to locate over the w'end (the conversation in our house went something like this: "Darling, have you seen my Gibbon? It's supposed to be up here on the shelf." "No, what on earth are you on about?" "Someone's moved my Gibbon....Ah, here it is."); in ch 15 of The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire he sketches his view of the gradual centralisation of ecclesaistical government over the first few centuries of the Church. It has to be said, however, that Gibbon subscribed to what is commonly called the 'Whig view of Church history', where any concentration of ecclesial power is viewed negatively as a kind of proto-Roman Catholicism; thus he criticises his High Church Tory contemporaries. He is also candid about drawing a lot of his material for that chapter from Mosheim, whose historical credentials I would regard as being somewhat suspect. Don't forget that this Whig view of history has as its extreme 'provisional' wing (to borrow a term from the IRA over here) the likes of Carroll's Trail of Blood and Broadbent's The Pilgrim Church, and has the tendency IMO to make a mockery of Christ's claims referenced in my OP about building His Church and sending the HS to guide the Apostles into all truth (Carroll is at least honest about that, although that honesty leads him to propose an 'alternative Apostolic Succession' of Novatians, Paulicians, Bogamils, Waldensians, Cathars etc which is largely without historical merit; he also borrows heavily from Mosheim).

That said, the Whig view on the point of the development of monarchical episcopacy does have some merit in that I think most if not all scholars are united in saying that there was a development of this concept and practice in the first couple of centuries of the Church. The fact that there was that development, particularly in understanding, however does not IMO illegitimate that. Returning to my OP, the Church had to 'fill in the gaps' left by Scripture as it went along, remaining faithful to Scripture whilst so doing. Development only tended to happen when there was a problem or controversy to be addressed. Thus the Early Church made no ruling about whether rock music should be listened to by Christians, simply because it was a non-issue, in contrast to the big issue it seems to be today, to judge by the content of the Music Board here. But the point was that the Church did recognise - sometimes to a degree retrospectively with the benefit of hindsight - both episcopacy and AS, as its understanding of what had happened and was continuing to happen developed. Again, Hippolytus is a good example of that kind of retrospective recognition in the passage from AT quoted above, as is Tertullian, in The Crown of the Soldier:

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent.

There is also the point that the Early Church did practise both AS and episcopal government, even though its understanding of both may have taken some time to develop - see eg: Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica. This brings me to finally answering your question about my view of AS - put simply, I believe that there is an unbroken line of episcopacy in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and, to an extent, Lutheran Churches going back to the Apostles and Christ Himself which, for the first thousand years of Church history at least, guaranteed a sufficiency of indefectability through Scripture and Tradition in matters of faith and practice. The Apostles themselves, in contrast to their successors, were to a degree unique, in that their office was commissioned directly by the Risen Christ rather than fellow-bishops; there is of course an unrepeatability about that aspect.

 

[Bro. James]

One basic point:

The unbroken line of faith and practice to which you refer changes in every generation--it evolves, as some have alluded.

God does not change. Evolution is a man-made hoax which permeates his "religion of science" and his theology.

Jude 3 tells us "The faith" was once (for all) delivered unto the saints. One has a problem going through Rome for "The Faith" and the authority thereof--she never had it. She would never give it to anyone, even if she did. So now we are dealing with excommunicated regal rogues and defrocked romish priests, who claim the have the authority and the faith.

What's in your wallet?

Selah,

Bro. James

P. S.It is no wonder, Satan himself is become an angel of light.

 

[Matt Black]

I'm not sure how this contributes to the discussion. Do pray enlighten us.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

I'm not sure how this contributes to the discussion. Do pray enlighten us.

Other than wanting to know what's in your wallet...I'd have to agree with you Matt.

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[BRIANH]

my view of AS - put simply, I believe that there is an unbroken line of episcopacy in the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican and, to an extent, Lutheran Churches going back to the Apostles and Christ Himself which, for the first thousand years of Church history at least, guaranteed a sufficiency of indefectability through Scripture and Tradition in matters of faith and practice. The Apostles themselves, in contrast to their successors, were to a degree unique, in that their office was commissioned directly by the Risen Christ rather than fellow-bishops; there is of course an unrepeatability about that aspect.

A very moderate, I do not know enough about Whigs, Federalists, Anti-Federalists or the Natural Law Party, to give a good analogy about what political spectrum your view falls in, view of Apostolic Succession.
An unbroken line of episcopacy is very hard to support historically, but likewise it is hard to refute because of the lack of documentation that addresses it.
We know that, for example, that Rome has contradicting lists about who served as the bishop in Rome.
I will also point out that Tertullian, writing at the end of the 2nd century, has an interesting comment about this:

To this test, therefore will they be submitted for proof Probabuntur. Another reading is provocabuntur, “will be challenged.” [Not to one particular See, but to all the Apostolic churches: Quod ubique.] by those churches, who, although they derive not their founder from apostles or apostolic men (as being of much later date, for they are in fact being founded daily), yet, since they agree in the same faith, they are accounted as not less apostolic because they are akin in doctrine

It is also interesting to me that you believe this indefectability lasted 1000 years, and I of course understand why. Were you a RC apologist, you would contend the "gates of hell" not conquering extends past that timeline.
I also appreciate the irony of you using an "Antipope" to support the view of Apostolic Succession.
Thank you for clarifying. I am sure we have much to discuss at a later date. We do have differing underlying presuppositions but I have engaged in this debate with the more rigid Orthodox and Catholic apologist. An Anglican is new territory.

 

[Matt Black]

I think you've got the wrong Eusebius as 'Antipope'; I'm talking about Eusebius of Caesarea rather than Eusebius of Nicomedia (who is more accurately termed an 'Antipatriarch').+

Re Whig, I'm using the British definition here rather than the American. Broadly speaking, two parties emerged in England after the 17th century civil war. One was the Tories, the party of King, Court and the Church of England; they supported episcopacy and the Anglican Prayer Book. The others were the Whigs, who were largely non-conformist* in origin. They favoured the Dissenters (in particular Presbyterians) and were in favour of a more parliamentary form of government (albeit an oligarchy rather than a true democracy). It was from this latter group that Edward Gibbon sprang.

*Or at least 'low-church Anglicans', feeling they had more in common with Calvinists on the continent than with their fellow-Anglicans in England. See here and here for more detail.

[+Actually, someone's kindly pointed out that you were of course referring to Hippolytus who did head up a separate congo at Rome and is therefore dubbed in some quarters as 'the first Antipope' - d'oh!; he's still regarded as a Saint, though]

 

[BRIANH]

Re the Didache calling for the apostles and prophets to be 'tested', I would read this as a reference to those who are masquerading as apostles and prophets; if you look at the tests laid down, they have to do with the extent to which the visitor is freeloading off the congregation (cp modern televangelists); I wouldn't view this as negativing the authority of the genuine apostles and bishops, the Real McCoy as it were, in any way.

.

For clarity, those of our readers not familiar with the passeage, I thought I should include it. I do think the passage refers to real Apostles as well as fake. I think it is important to note that what is evaluated is their DOCTRINE. I, obviously, think that at a certain stage, depending upon the particular doctrine, the church did fall away from the teachings of the Apostles and Christ.
I think it is important because I do not find the concept of Apostolic Succession usually defended by RC, EO, or OO apologists in the Bible or early Christian writings.
The view of Apostolic Succession advocated by Mr. Black, while I disagree, has not produced the insistence about believing the Marian dogmas, Papcy, and others as being needed for salvation.

 

[Matt Black]

The bit of the Didache to which I believe you refer is here:-

Chapter 11. Concerning Teachers, Apostles, and Prophets. Whosoever, therefore, comes and teaches you all these things that have been said before, receive him. But if the teacher himself turns and teaches another doctrine to the destruction of this, hear him not. But if he teaches so as to increase righteousness and the knowledge of the Lord, receive him as the Lord. But concerning the apostles and prophets, act according to the decree of the Gospel. Let every apostle who comes to you be received as the Lord. But he shall not remain more than one day; or two days, if there's a need. But if he remains three days, he is a false prophet. And when the apostle goes away, let him take nothing but bread until he lodges. If he asks for money, he is a false prophet. And every prophet who speaks in the Spirit you shall neither try nor judge; for every sin shall be forgiven, but this sin shall not be forgiven. But not every one who speaks in the Spirit is a prophet; but only if he holds the ways of the Lord. Therefore from their ways shall the false prophet and the prophet be known. And every prophet who orders a meal in the Spirit does not eat it, unless he is indeed a false prophet. And every prophet who teaches the truth, but does not do what he teaches, is a false prophet. And every prophet, proved true, working unto the mystery of the Church in the world, yet not teaching others to do what he himself does, shall not be judged among you, for with God he has his judgment; for so did also the ancient prophets. But whoever says in the Spirit, Give me money, or something else, you shall not listen to him. But if he tells you to give for others' sake who are in need, let no one judge him.
Chapter 12. Reception of Christians. But receive everyone who comes in the name of the Lord, and prove and know him afterward; for you shall have understanding right and left. If he who comes is a wayfarer, assist him as far as you are able; but he shall not remain with you more than two or three days, if need be. But if he wants to stay with you, and is an artisan, let him work and eat. But if he has no trade, according to your understanding, see to it that, as a Christian, he shall not live with you idle. But if he wills not to do, he is a Christ-monger. Watch that you keep away from such. Chapter 13. Support of Prophets. But every true prophet who wants to live among you is worthy of his support. So also a true teacher is himself worthy, as the workman, of his support. Every first-fruit, therefore, of the products of wine-press and threshing-floor, of oxen and of sheep, you shall take and give to the prophets, for they are your high priests. But if you have no prophet, give it to the poor. If you make a batch of dough, take the first-fruit and give according to the commandment. So also when you open a jar of wine or of oil, take the first-fruit and give it to the prophets; and of money (silver) and clothing and every possession, take the first-fruit, as it may seem good to you, and give according to the commandment.

Like I said, I think the thrust is more to do with problems with freeloaders turning up and imposing themselves on congregations and/or demanding monetary support (cf "Put your hand on the screen and pledge now!").

Brian, I'm intrigued - if you do think that the Church fell away from sound teaching, how do you see that as fitting in with Jesus' promises as referred to in the OP?

 

[BRIANH]

The bit of the Didache to which I believe you refer is here:-



Like I said, I think the thrust is more to do with problems with freeloaders turning up and imposing themselves on congregations and/or demanding monetary support (cf "Put your hand on the screen and pledge now!").

Brian, I'm intrigued - if you do think that the Church fell away from sound teaching, how do you see that as fitting in with Jesus' promises as referred to in the OP?

I think the Apostles mentioned in the passage were Apostles. What is the key is whether or not they were "false prophets". I do not see anything in the context of the passage to suggest they were not Apostles.
Please let me know what specific promise we are to address. Matthew 16:18?
But let me follow up your last question, with some clarification. Are you contending that all of the groups you mentioned agree? If not, when did the various groups fall away from sound teaching? Do you contend that the Anglican Church is the church that has not fallen away?

 

[Matt Black]

Brian, my original quote in the OP re the promises was here:

[Continued]

Now, two objections can and are often put to the above by sola Scriptura adherents. These are both good arguments and therefore deserve ventilation here:-
· “What if the consensus patri ie: the doctrinal and liturgical consensus of the ECFs to which Vincent alludes in his Commonitory above, quite simply got it wrong? After all, these were just men, they were fallible like you or me, and they could have made mistakes – in no way should their opinions and practices be elevated to the same status as Scripture.” First of all, as I have already said, I am neither claiming infallibility for the early Church, nor am I seeking to raise her doctrines and practices to the level of Scripture. The main trouble with this objection, though, is that it makes a mockery of Jesus’ promise to build His Church and the gates of Hades not prevailing in Matt 16:18-19, it makes Him out to be a liar when He promised the Apostles that the Holy Spirit would lead them into all Truth in John 16:13 and teach them all things in John 14:26, and it negates Paul’s statement in I Tim 3:15 that the Church is the pillar and foundation of the Truth. Furthermore, many of the Early Church Fathers whose writings we have were discipled by, and in some cases appointed by, the Apostles: for example, Ignatius (who wrote several letters which we have) was a disciple of John and appointed by him Bishop of Antioch; his writings date from within a decade of the Apostle’s death. Clement of Rome was the third successor to that Bishopric after the Apostle Peter and wrote c.85AD, John was still alive and before the NT was fully completed. As such, they were far, far better-qualified to interpret the portions of the NT penned by those Apostles than we are today.

Picking up on what you said earlier, why did you put a question mark over Ignatius of Antioch?

To try to answer your question re 'falling away', no, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodoxen and Lutherans do not agree. I would date this divergence and falling away from the Great Schism of 1054; prior to that, as I've stated to Bob Ryan earlier, I believe that there was - and remains - a sufficient depositum fideii arising from the consensus patri to be an adequate paradigm in matters of faith, doctrine and practice. And, no, the Anglican Communion is no more the true inheritor of this than the others.

 

[BRIANH]

Brian, my original quote in the OP re the promises was here:


Picking up on what you said earlier, why did you put a question mark over Ignatius of Antioch?

To try to answer your question re 'falling away', no, Anglicans, Catholics, Orthodoxen and Lutherans do not agree. I would date this divergence and falling away from the Great Schism of 1054; prior to that, as I've stated to Bob Ryan earlier, I believe that there was - and remains - a sufficient depositum fideii arising from the consensus patri to be an adequate paradigm in matters of faith, doctrine and practice. And, no, the Anglican Communion is no more the true inheritor of this than the others.

If one holds the view that view of Matthew 16:18, did the gates of hell prevail in 1054?

Phillip Schaff writes about the letters, of which a number of very good books exist in the topic:

But although the shorter form of the Ignatian letters had been generally accepted in preference to the longer, there was still a pretty prevalent opinion among scholars, that even it could not be regarded as absolutely free from interpolations, or as of undoubted authenticity.