The Primacy of the Bishop of Rome

Carson,

Well, I should have included the likelihood that the people compiling your work, would be educated on your writings (as the people who compiled the NT). Say, you had writings of somebody else mixed in with yours. They would be able to weed out the writings which were not yours.

Says you, and that's beside the point. You still did not answer my question.

Maybe you should expand your source material. Does F.F. Bruce count for you. I know he's not RC. But, here's a quote from him:

Thus, Apostolic Tradition is no longer oral, it's written and found in the Bible.

What does that have to do with anything? Paul wasn't even converted until after Jesus' crucifixion and ascension? He was still taught directly by the Holy Spirit.

Well, it was only impossible due to the likelihood that all was yet to be placed in writing.

You are missing the point. Paul did not trust his teachings to be spread by word-of-mouth unless he was speaking himself. Barring his presence, he chose to teach through the written word.

Of course not. The Apostles were still living and teaching among them.

Where does Scripture say that?

But, how do you know this?

Why do you think that the Traditions were not put in writing? Don't you think given the significance of what is being taught, that there was somebody somewhere taking notes?

Thought not.

That would be because they were not Scriptural/Biblical.

Yes, traditions can be passed on. But, you can not guarantee nor place anytype of God inspired authority.

Who says? Where does Scripture ever mention Apostolic Tradition? What began orally, became Scripture.

Yes, but there has always been debate as to the interpretation. Not all early fathers agreed with and taught the "Real Presence."

Thank you.

We are all instruments of the Holy Spirit.

That's why the Holy Spirit had one group of men write the inspired texts, and the other group merely compiled the writings and teachings that already existed and were in use. I refer to back to the quote from F.F. Bruce above.

Now, since those guys put their teachings in writing, we have the Bible as our guide.

Yet. But, clearly his teachings became Scripture pretty early because we have Peter saying:

2Pe 3:15 And account [that] the longsuffering of our Lord [is] salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;

2Pe 3:16 As also in all [his] epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as [they do] also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.

So?

I didn't say that, but maybe I haven't been clear enough. There may be things not contained. But do you think God would leave out something completely crucial to our salvation? I repeat: Now, look at the Bible. You have four (4) Gospels, 3 of which are so similar that they are referred to as "The Synoptic Gospels" and the forth is slightly different as to the parables and happenings, but the actual message is the same--isn't it? Then you have the rest of the NT. What do the authors of the remaining texts say/teach? They clarify or expound upon the teachings of Christ in the Gospels, no new content. So, why would God in His infinte wisdom, have left out anything He felt we should know, when so much of Scripture is seemingly redundant? BTW, would the people who compile your work into one text have authority over your work?

But, that is not the return He spoke of as His second coming. Even if that was the return, or believed to be His return, Paul died between 64 and 68 A.D. So, he was still waiting for the imminent return.

[ January 29, 2003, 12:17 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]

 

Armando,

1) Just because it was not in the OT does not mean it was not written somewhere.

2) Is there any type of authority attributed to those verses?

No one disputes the existence of "traditons." We dispute the authority give to "traditions" by the RCC.

 

Doesn't the fact that those verses are in the Bible give them authority? I am a Protestant and Sola Scriptura, so I see that them being included in the Bible gives them authority. Wouldn't you, Lisa?

Neal

[ January 29, 2003, 03:37 PM: Message edited by: neal4christ ]

 

Hi Lisa,

You wrote, "Maybe you should expand your source material. Does F.F. Bruce count for you."

Yes, he counts, but he is inaccurate in his account. Please let me show you how.

You quoted, "the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect."

F.F. Bruce is muddling the historical situation. The various churches had different canons. This begs the question, why would a council ratify an ecclesial council codify the canon if there was no need to do so? The answer is that such a need existed due to the disagreements about what was to be included in the canon between various regional churches!

Raymond E. Brown, a world renowed Sulpician Biblical Scholar, writes in his An Introduction to the New Testament:

"The Book of Revelation ... won acceptance in the West ... When Dionysius of Alexandria perceptively argued around 250 that Revelation could not have been written by the author of the Fourth Gospel and of the Johannine Epistles ... the acceptance of the book waned in the East. Hebrews had the opposit fate. Although cited at Rome by late-1st c. and early 2nd c. Christians, Hebrews was not accepted in the first Western lists of sacred writings. Christians in the East, however, from the end of the 2nd c. thought that it was written by Paul, an attribution which the Western churches long denied but which played a role in the inclusion of Hebrews in the canon."

"even works (Heb, Rev, Jas, II and III John, Jude, II Pet) were cited from the 2d to the 4th centuries and accepted as Scripture by some churches but not in all."

"The Syriac-speaking communities eventually replaced the Diatessaron with the four Gospels but did not include the minor Catholic Epistles and Revelation. The Ethiopian Church used a larger canon often estimated at thirty-five books."

I said, "the earliest writing of Paul that we do have comes from nearly 20 years after Christ ascended into heaven." and you asked, "What does that have to do with anything?"

It shows that the first Christians held to Apostolic tradition as the word of God. If the first New Testament writing was 1 Thess circa 51 A.D., then what were the other twelve apostles doing? Certainly not writing a New Testament!

You wrote, "Well, it was only impossible due to the likelihood that all was yet to be placed in writing."

But, if it all was to be contained within Scripture, then why doesn't our New Testament contain writings from all 12 Apostles? In fact, we do not have a single written word from the majority of the Apostles.

Perhaps the Apostles didn't plan on a Sola Scriptura church?

John 21:25 tells us that much of Revelation will never be written down. Remember, all that Jesus said and did was divine revelation, "But there are also many other things which Jesus did; were every one of them to be written, I suppose that the world itself could not contain the books that would be written" (Jn 21:25).

You wrote, "Paul did not trust his teachings to be spread by word-of-mouth unless he was speaking himself. Barring his presence, he chose to teach through the written word."

You are incorrect. Listen carefully to his words to St. Timothy, "what you have heard from me before many witnesses entrust to faithful men who will be able to teach others also" (2 Tim 2:2). You said, "Paul did not trust his teachings to be spread by word-of-mouth", but look at what Paul writes about this himself!

I wrote, "the New Testament Church did not adhere to Sola Scriptura, as it was de facto impossible for them to do so.", and you responded, "Of course not. The Apostles were still living and teaching among them."

Exactly! Jesus didn't write a New Testament! You see, the Church didn't begin with the Apostles. The Church began with Jesus Christ, and he formed men around him as a rabbi and teacher, giving to them the secrets of the mystery of the Kingdom of God (Mark 4:1-20 - this was today's Gospel reading throughout the world in the Catholic Church's daily liturgy), and they taught and formed men as well (see above citation from 2 Tim 2:2).

To usurp Christianity of this living, breathing, teaching body that began with Jesus Christ giving his authority to the twelve men he formed to teach all that he had given them.. is to radically alter the composition of the Christian Church!

I wrote, "the Magisterium is guided and protected by that same Spirit" and you asked, "But, how do you know this?"

I know this from what Jesus told his Apostles, the New Testament Church's Magisterium, at the Last Supper, "When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth" (Jn 16:3). He was speaking specifically to his Apostles in the Upper Room, not to every Jane and Joe who professes faith in him. And, the bishops are those who succeed the Apostles and are given a share in that same charism.

That can be demonstrated from Matthi'as replacing Judas Iscariot in Acts 1. Acts 1:20 literally says, "His bishopric let another take."

You asked, "Why do you think that the Traditions were not put in writing?"

Well, let's take, for instance, the belif, practice, and teaching that in the Eucharist, the bread and wine are transformed into Jesus Christ so that his real, abiding presence comes into our midst and we are able to receive him in Holy Communion.

This is all over the pages of Scripture, and Tradition (the teaching, belief, worship, etc.) of the Eucharist that has been going on for 2,000 years now is what clarifies exactly what this Scripture means and how it is lived out (before you reply to this statement of mine, read what I have to say about the Fathers below). The Scripture and the Tradition go hand in hand.

I wrote, "Scripture is Apostolic Tradition (the word of God) written down in the words of men." and you responded, "Who says? Where does Scripture ever mention Apostolic Tradition? What began orally, became Scripture."

Exactly! You said "what began orally" (Apostolic Tradition) "became Scripture" (written down in the words of men).

I wrote, "The Tradition continues up until this very day. We're still celebrating and worshipping the Eucharist, and we've never stopped." and you responded, "Yes, but there has always been debate as to the interpretation. Not all early fathers agreed with and taught the 'Real Presence.'"

Oh, but Lisa, this is where you've been misguided! All of the Church fathers.. every last one of them taught, believed, and practiced the doctrine of Christ's Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. Yes, you will find anti-Catholics such as J. White, W. Webster, and the like who will take the writings of the Fathers out of context (esp. of the corpus of their writings) in order to impose their Post-Reformation doctrine upon these same men. But, this has been pointed out articulately by individuals such as Stephen K. Ray, who, as a Baptist, read the Church Fathers daily with great scrutiny, and converted to Catholicism due to his study. His text entailing all of this is entitled Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historical Church". If you do one thing tonight besides read and respond to my reply here, read this (all the way through, too!):

http://www.catholic-convert.com/Page_Viewer.asp?inc=writings/fathers.html

You wrote, "We are all instruments of the Holy Spirit."

But that is besides the point. The Spirit gives different charisms to different members of the Body. Have you been given the charism of inspiration? Of course not. What you write isn't inspired (and part of Scripture). The Apostles Thomas and James the Lesser were not given this charism either.

This part of our conversation began with your insistence that the canon is the work of the Holy Spirit (thus precluding any action of man, i.e., the Magisterium's decisions at Hippo and Carthage in Northern Africa).

We know that not every Christian is given the charism of infallibility (i.e. "being led into all truth") because if that were so, the Holy Spirit would be leading different Christians into different truths (this is especially marked in conflicting Protestant confessions; i.e. Lutheran Missouri-Synod vs. Southern Baptist Convention).

You wrote, "There may be things not contained [in Scripture]"

Good.. I'm glad that you're beginning to see how Scripture does not contain the quality of what Biblical scholars call "formal sufficiency".

Of course, I believe that enough is contained in the written Word to come to salvation. That is what we call "material sufficiency". The principle of Sola Scriptura tends to hold to the formal aspect, which, as you are beginning to see, is untenable from Scripture's own witness, historical record, and logic.

Even with material sufficiency, you can run into grave misinterpretations of the text. Take, for instance, baptism. I can demonstrate reasonably (prove is an impossibility; because interpretation is always subjective) that we are reborn in the sacrament of baptism (John 3:5). You, I am sure of it, can demonstrate reasonably that we are not reborn in baptism and that Jesus is not speaking about baptism in his discourse with Nicodemus in the 3rd chapter of John's Gospel.

This is where Tradition and the Magisterium are necessary even with the material sufficiency of Scripture because Scripture itself, when approached by different subjects, results in mutually exclusive and contradictory interpretations. It is Tradition and the Magisterium, which allows the Bible to be itself, that is, the word of God interpreted correctly, in the light of the 2,000 year life of the Church (teaching, believing, and worshipping).

God bless,

Carson

[ January 29, 2003, 11:42 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Hi there, Carson.
I posted earlier on this thread re church councils, canon law and papal rulings being the basis of the ghettoisation of european Jewry. Given that the Bible teaches us to love our neighbours, and this practice went on for hundreds of years, affecting hundreds of thousands of people, and given that persecution and breaking God's commands are both matters of faith and morals, why do you continue to try and set the church above the Bible? Here you have a clear case of profound disagreement. Where would you have stood? Would you have obeyed pope and church council (quoting canon law), and imprisoned your neighbour, or would you have obeyed God rather than men, and shown them love?
Take care, Colin

 

Hi Colin,

I'm completely unfamiliar with the situation at hand, so I can't give you an answer.

God bless,

Carson

 

Hi Colin,

I suggest that you read Nostra Aetate, which is the ecumenical conciliar infallible teaching by the Magisterium. It may help in this area of your thesis:

http://www.ewtn.com/library/COUNCILS/v2non.htm

"Furthermore, in her rejection of every persecution against any man, the Church, mindful of the patrimony she shares with the Jews and moved not by political reasons but by the Gospel's spiritual love, decries hatred, persecutions, displays of anti-Semitism, directed against Jews at any time and by anyone." (N.A. 4)

God bless,

Carson

[ January 30, 2003, 03:09 AM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Neal,

Okay, I wasn't very clear. Once those sayings were quoted, irregardless of their source, they became Scripture. Upon a second look, I guess I missed Armando's point. And I'm still not sure what it was. All Scripture began as traditions. So, I'm still not sure what his point is.

 

"F.F. Bruce is muddling the historical situation. The various churches had different canons. This begs the question, why would a council ratify an ecclesial council codify the canon if there was no need to do so? The answer is that such a need existed due to the disagreements about what was to be included in the canon between various regional churches! "

This is inaccurate in several ways. Foor one thing, Brown does not, in the quotes provided, say anything that conradicts Bruce.

First the fact is that the codifcation of the canon as far as the RCC is concerned is Trent. That's 15 centuries almost after Christ. If the need for some kind of codification was disagreement, then the church was VERY slow to getting to fixing the problem.

The real moving force behind standard lists was the Rioman Empire. Constantine articulalrly was forceful about unity and uniformity. This is partuicularly pertinnet to the issue of canon when we consider how Constantine ordered Eusebius to oversee the prduction of 50 coies of theScriptures (which is presumed to mean the NT) for use in Constantiople. One cannot underestimate the impact of these copies on laster opinion as to what did and did not belong. Some believe that they foprm the foundation for Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus, two of the most important biblical mss. Not that he made up the list. By Constantine's time there was a pretty well defined list for the NT.

This calls into question something RCs assumr: who was the authorty in the church? RCs asssume a Pope (though none existe, another thread), but given the behaviour of consnatine, and the way he enforced uniformity without regard to any ecclesistical authority.

I have posted this before as to the impact of Councils but it apparantly bears repeating:

"Although a number of Christians have thought that church councils determined what books were to be includd int he biblical canons, a more accurate reflection of the matter is the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities. The following examples of of church council decisions illustrate this point. If any decisions were made by such councils, they wer made only in regard to to books that were on the fringe of some recognised collections and often not in otehr collections at all. These decisions came at the end of a very long process of recognitionn in the churches and were not unilateral decisions "from the top." Cburch councils did not create biblical canons but rather reflected the state of affairs in thier geographical locations." L.M. macDonald, The Formation of the Chritian Biblcal Canon, Hendrikson, 1996, p. 116.

 

Here's a good article:

http://tear.sinfree.net/RCC/CanonInScripture.html

"Sola Scriptura: The Canon of Scripture Found in Scripture"

by Dan Curry

Introduction

When defending the doctrine of Sola Scriptura, all too often is the doctrine misrepresented for the sake of easily "disproving" it's credibility. For example, Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible contains all knowledge! However, this does not stop many people from assuming that it is. One such argument widely used today is that "Sola Scriptura is false because it doesn't reveal what books of the Bible should be in the Bible!" To a Christian who is new to the faith and has not had experience defending many of the doctrines of Christianity, the other person can easily suggest to the Christian that since the Bible should reveal which books of the Bible are truly supposed to be part of the Bible, and if it doesn't, than that Sola Scriptura is false. To someone who knows what the doctrine of Sola Scriptura is, they would easily recognize that this is a "non sequitor" argument. One should not require another person to meet their needs if that need is not relevant to the doctrine which they claim requires that need to be true. Therefore, since Sola Scriptura is not a claim that the Bible itself reveals what books of the Bible should be considered Scripture, and which should not, nobody who believes in Sola Scriptura should be bound to either defend the claim, or else forfeit the legitimacy of the doctrine of Sola Scriptura.

However, this essay is devised to show that even this attempt to misrepresent Sola Scriptura, is false! Even though for the doctrine of Sola Scriptura to be true, the following information is not needed, the information does exist. Therefore, the claim that Sola Scriptura is false because it doesn't reveal the canon of Scripture is bunk on two points:

1. It is a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura.
2. The argument itself is false, because there is evidence that the canon of Scripture can be known only through Scripture, at least in part, and perhaps even in its entirety.

It should be noted that I will be working under the presupposition that the 66 book Protestant canon is entirely Scripture. The goal of this paper is merely to demonstrate that that very Scripture reveals itself to be scripture in that it testifies to itself as Scripture.

 

Hi Lisa,

Do you know Dan Curry? I met him online about a year and a half ago on Carm.org just after he was converted from cradle Catholicism to an Anti-Catholic Protestant sect, and his knowledge of Catholicism was poor, to say the least. He would continually misrepresent Catholic doctrine in his attempts to "convert" us "heathens".

Dan is hardly an authority on the Canon of Scripture. He's an undergrad studying art with little knowledge of theology or history.

It is a misrepresentation of Sola Scriptura.

On the contrary, the arguments Dan is facing acknowledge exactly what Sola Scriptura is. What Dan is doing here is trying to take the focus off of the legitimate points the arguments make by claiming "misrepresentation", which is not the case at all. The arguments show how Sola Scriptura relies upon Apostolic Tradition as a foundation for its very existence, as I've shown you in our correspondence above.

The argument itself is false, because there is evidence that the canon of Scripture can be known only through Scripture, at least in part, and perhaps even in its entirety.

I would be extremely, extremely, extremely impressed if Dan could accomplish this feat, which in itself is a mission impossible. This is a ludicrous task, if you ask for my personal opinion.

Hi Latreia,

Brown does not, in the quotes provided, say anything that conradicts Bruce.

I did not say that Brown contradicted Bruce. I said that Bruce is muddling the historical sitatuation, and I quoted Brown to clarify some of what Bruce muddled.

First the fact is that the codifcation of the canon as far as the RCC is concerned is Trent.

No, you are wrong. This is the final, infallible, ecumenical decree that closed all disputes once and for all. It is not the codification of the canon.

On February 4, 1442, we find the Council of Florence, the 17th ecumenical council, in its Eleventh Session, stating this:

“[T]his sacred ecumenical council of Florence . . . professes that one and the same God is the author of the old and the new Testament – that is, the law and the prophets, and the gospel – since the saints of both testaments spoke under the inspiration of the same Spirit. It accepts and venerates their books, whose titles are as follows. Five books of Moses, namely Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy; Joshua, Judges, Ruth, four books of Kings [i.e., 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel, 1 Kings, 2 Kings], two of Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah, Tobit, Judith, Esther, Job, Psalms of David, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Ezechiel, Daniel; the twelve minor prophets, namely Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; two books of the Maccabees . . . [they go on to list the 27 New Testament books we all accept today].”

That's 15 centuries almost after Christ. If the need for some kind of codification was disagreement, then the church was VERY slow to getting to fixing the problem.

Oh no, the problem dealing with the New Testament canon was fixed at Hippo and Carthage; there indeed was a need for codification because of disagreement. The reason for Trent's decree (which, as I've shown, confirmed Florence's decree which occurred well before the onset of the Protestant Reformation) was to definitively respond to the Protestant disposal of 7 books and other chapters of the Old Testament.

The real moving force behind standard lists was the Roman Empire. Constantine articulalrly was forceful about unity and uniformity ... By Constantine's time there was a pretty well defined list for the NT.

If the cause for codifying the canon was Constantine's urge for uniformity, then you have done nothing more than shown that there was disagreement on the canon in the various regional churches, which had to be overcome for this "uniformity".

Yes, you are correct in saying that there was a pretty well defined list for the NT, but "pretty well" does not mean "final". It means that there were still books considered not Scripture by various churches that other churches considered Scripture as I demonstrated by quoting R.E. Brown above.

This calls into question something RCs assume: who was the authorty in the church?

Well, let's look at the end of Canon 29 of the Synod of Hippo in 393 A.D. and see what the same canon that contains the canonical texts says about authority:

"Concerning the confirmation of this canon, the transmarine Church [i.e., the Roman church] shall be consulted."

the councils recognized or acknowledged those books that had already obtained prominence from usage among the various early Christian communities.

Yes, that is true. But, still, which communities found prominence/usage among which texts varied, and it was this variance that the Councils smoothed out, and in doing so, they definitively excluded various texts that you, Latreia, do not consider inspired Scripture today, and they included various texts that you do consider inspired Scripture today. It is this smoothing out that is the decision of the Council, and which effects your canon today.

Now, you are continuing the same "muddling" that F.F. Bruce did, and I will continue to point out that the Councils made decisions that effected the canon's content in history.. a fact that you seem to be smoothing over, like Bruce, in your attempt to discredit ecclesial authority wherever you witness its activity.

God bless,

Carson

[ January 30, 2003, 12:08 PM: Message edited by: Carson Weber ]

 

Please do.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how that makes my quote from Bruce incorrect.

Biblical Law and biblical teaching had already been estblished as teaching authority by God--The OT. The New Testament is not a new, novel idea. It was a given fact that there would be a New Testament. What does the fact that there was no Table of Contents disprove? How many writers of books begin with a Table of Contents, then go on to write the story? I'm sure some. But is that the most known and accepted way? Again, I do not deny that up and until the word of God was provided in writing, people did follow the teachings of the Apostles.

So, how does this prove that they apostles and teachers of this time period had absolutely not written form of the teachings at their disposal? Do you deny the possibility that there were notes passed around for the teachers to follow? Is it an absolute proven fact that there were absolutely no written sources prior to the Thess date 51 A.D.?

How do you know the other twelve were not writing Scripture? I'm sure they were teaching, but what makes you say they weren't writing Scripture?

Ahhhhhhhhhh. I see what you're not getting now. Who ever said that the twelve apostles were teaching twelve separate doctrines? Nobody. I've told you there is but one Gospel. Why would the Bible contain writings by each and every apostle, if the teachings are repetitious. Back to my analogy of an anthology and my point: Now, look at the Bible. You have four (4) Gospels, 3 of which are so similar that they are referred to as "The Synoptic Gospels" and the forth is slightly different as to the parables and happenings, but the actual message is the same--isn't it? Then you have the rest of the NT. What do the authors of the remaining texts say/teach? They clarify or expound upon the teachings of Christ in the Gospels, no new content. So, why would God in His infinte wisdom, have left out anything He felt we should know, when so much of Scripture is seemingly redundant? BTW, would the people who compile your work into one text have authority over your work?

Once again my question above about repetition in the Gospels. Jesus did perform many, many miracles according to Scripture. Who can begin to know how many others were not mentioned? However, we don't need to know about every miracle since His message never varied. His mission never varied. So, what the Holy Spirit has provided us with in the written word is everything we need to know who Jesus is/was, everything essential to our salvation, and how we as Christians should live. That does not mean that those who adhere to sola scriptura believe that every move He made, every breath He took, word He spoke is in the Bible.

Okay, I have already said that I do realize during the Apostolic Era the Gospel was spread orally. However, look at what Paul says above: "what you have heard from me . . . " Paul knows that Timothy heards the words directly from him (Paul). He knows that Timothy did not hear His words from a middle source. Timothy is a disciple chosen by Paul to continue spreading the word, a person who has been well educated on Scriptures since childhood, not just an average gentile or prospective christian who has never heard the Gospel or set eyes on Paul. Also, just because Paul used the word "heard" hear does not rule out that Timothy received his (Paul's) teachings in writing. I mean, haven't you asked a friend, "Heard from so-and-so laterly?" and your friend reply: "Yeah, got a letter from him last week."

Still does not disprove the necessity of the Traditions being taught by Christ and the apostles being established in writing. Tell me, what was the reason for the OT?

Then why was Scripture ever written?

Here's some interesting words from Augustine:

Okay, I'll let you slide on that one. Because I have to many other verses that tell me that I too am lead by the Holy Spirit. But, this is too much:

What don't these bishops have the same powers possessed by the Apostles. How come they can't tell crippled men to get up and walk? How come they can't tell dead people to get up they were only sleeping?

No. The false claim only bestows mythical substance to the RCC's claimed right of Apostolic Tradition so that they can take a verse and completely distort as it has done with Communion. Without, this so-called power, the RCC would fall flat.

You are the one who is misguided and also guilty of misguiding others. I read the Early Fathers myself. I don't rely on Webster or anybody else to take things out of context. The RCC does enough of that.

I'm out of time for now, I will have to get to the rest of your post later. See ya!

 

Carson

Well, the quotes from Brown don't do that either. Bruce's statements are perfectly consistent with that of Brown that you posted.

A distinction without a differnce. In the RCC it is a decree that counts in settling differences. IOW the differences you claim were behind the codification were not settled until Trent.

Florence is still some 10 centuries after the differnces you claim were such a problem. I don't see how that helps your position at all. And Trent contrdicts some of the early local councils of Hippo and Carthage anyway. The whole mix up about the various esdras in the LXX vs. that of the Vulgate. Since those councils were local anyway they have no authority to settle anything. In fact I can cite Hippo and Carthage for what they are; expressions of local consensus.

I am of course aware of the reactionary nature of Trent. That it does not follow in the footsteps of at least one Pope, Jerome, nor even Carinal Cajetan, and other Fathers is, I have seen from experience, of no real concern to you. Don't take that the wrong way, I am simply reminding you that we've ben down the road of evidence and counter evidence on this question, and there is no need here to reproduce that argument.

First, there is no "if" about it. You shuld read Eusebius "life of Coinstantine". Second, what I have shown is tha the churches had no problem with having different canons. I don't deny that there wre differnet canons. What I deny is that it has to be the problem you assume it to be. The urge for uniformity that is so much a part of the RCC today does not pring from the early church but from the Roman Empire. The churchs were content with unity without uniformity. It was constantine who introduced uniformity. And the RCC picked it up.

But this misses th epoint. Much o the NT was setlled beofre a council ever said anything. If any amount of scripture can be determined without a council, then the argument that we must have a council's authority is at all is bogus. Even those later councils ar eivdence of a growing consenssu. The impications of authoirty are neither necessary nor in truth really there. You have to import the idea.

This is an excellent example of what I mena by importing the idea. Of course Rome, as the only Western Apostolic See and the seat of the Empire would be consulted. Consultation does not mean authority. This can as easily be seen as a gesture of colegiality or respect. You are of course aware of how Cyprian (I believe, going by memory) later tells us the reasons I state above are the cause of Rome's promience.

"and it was this variance that the Councils smoothed out,"

No. For the extent of the canon remained in question. The Apocrypha remained as not canonical in the same sense as the OT, and Trent contradicts Hippo. Origen, Melito of Sardis, Athanasius, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, Hilary of Poitiers, Epiphanius, Basil the Great, Jerome, Rufinus all disagree with Hippo as well. Those councils didn't settle anything. Even the New Cathlic Encyclopedia says that the fact that no definitive statement was made until Trent is reflective of the uncertianty surrounding the canon in RC circles to the time of Trent.

YOu really should understand that no one denies that councils made decisions. What you fail to understand is what that means. The deicisions ae reflections of pre-existing consensus. They didnot impact the practice of the churches. The decisions are based on church practice, they didn't determine church practice. Scholarship is aginst you in this regard, and you have yet to provide any evidence to the contrary. You have said there were differences, which no one denies. You have said that councils made decisions whch no one denies. What is denied is the impication that you draw from these facts.

You semingly wish us to assume that the implication you draw is the right one, or perhaps even the only one. But even RC sources are not in agreement with you, and it is certainly not the only possible inference. You assert that we muddle history, but you have not proven it. You have simply asserted it based on unspken assumptions you require us to acccept. But we reject the asumptions Carson. Why should anyone who dopes notaccept the RC paradigm be persuaded of the correctness of your implication without any corroboration? You will have to actually prove the correctness of of the unspoken assumptions.

Thank you btw for your irenic tone. It is appreciated.

 

Just making sure, Lisa!

Neal

 

Carson,

Never met the man.

I have yet to see a Catholic who doesn't claim that anyone who left the RCC, doesn't understand it. So, since you've informed me of Mr. Curry's shortcomings, I should completely disqualify anything I've read by him. You bet.

 

Carson,

I'm back.

Have you ever heard of Mike Taylor? He spent many years in a Jesuit order. You should read what he has to say about the "Real Pesence."

Here's the link to his web site:
http://members.aol.com/epologist/index.htm

So?

Now you are implementing your Catholic skill of twisting words. I never said men were not used as instruments to compile the Bible.

Odd? Hmmmm. I can not seem to find "infallibility" listed as a Gift of the Holy Spirit anywhere.

Just can't shake that habit of twisting words can ya? No beginning to it. As far as sufficiency goes, we have II Tim 3:14-17:

2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned [them];

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.

2Ti 3:16 All scripture[is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

Where does Scripture ever speak of traditions in such high regard? If Scripture can do for us all that II Tim 3:17 says, what can possibly be missing?

Tradition and the Magisterium are only necessary if people doubt the ability of Christ and the Holy Spirit to reveal the Gosple to them.

1Cr 2:5 That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.

Hbr 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Eph 1:16 Cease not to give thanks for you, making mention of you in my prayers;

Eph 1:17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Jam 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all [men] liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.

Mat 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

Mat 21:22 And all things, whatsoever ye shall ask in prayer, believing, ye shall receive.

[ January 30, 2003, 03:18 PM: Message edited by: LisaMC ]