Posted on 08/07/2009 5:46:07 AM PDT by Ottofire
>> So the church is held on it path by the laity, not those that teach the laity? <<
The difficulty with the doctrine known to us Papists as “sensuum fidelis” (sense of the faithful) is that people focus on only half of it, the “sensuum” part, and not the “fidelis” part. The Holy Spirit does guide the conscience of all faithful, so that the “top-down” hierarchy is interdependent with the “bottom-up” experience of the faithful.
But it’s not called “sensuum Joe Schmoe.” “Fidelis” refers to those who accept the authority of bible AND sacred tradition, who are in a state of grace, who reject heresy, and who strive to remain reconciled with the Holy Church.
So....
Lame-man: “We think abortion should be permitted!”
Bishop: “It is a sin”
Lame-man: “I don’t find it mentioned at all in the bible!”
Bishop: “The bible condemns murder, and abortion is murder! Pope John Paul II wrote an excellent explanation in his encyclical huma...”
Lame-man: “John Paul II? That right-wing, patriarchical, homophobic, anti-sex...”
BZZZZZZTT!!!!
Sorry, Lame-man, but you’re not part of the sensuum fidelis.
I should have added that Arian like Christological heresies persisted in the East and again in the greatest numbers within the Patriarchate of Antioch. Nestorianism (though Nestorius was Pat. of Constantinople) and Severianism spring to mind, so it certainly isn’t as if the East was free from heresy after Nicea. In fact, as a general proposition, it was the Church of Rome which was the bulwark of Christian orthodoxy against heresies which arose in the East until the 9th century at least.
bttt
“They provided scriptural references supporting the facts that the souls of the saints who departed pray on the behalf of the living, that the living can participate in the atonement of other sinners, that those who die in grace but with the stain of sin suffer temporal punishment in the afterlife (purgatory), etc.”
Do you have a reference? I’ve yet to see any Scriptures like that...
If Athanasius actually said this, I'd bet about anything that he said (c)atholic Faith...Small c...And likely he didn't say Catholic at all...Probably 'universal' faith...
And looking at what you posted as the 'Catholic Faith', minus a couple of twists and turns it is not exclusive to your religion...
Since your posted definition of Catholic Faith excludes anything about popes and focuses on the Trinity, what you describe is the Protestant Faith as well...So to claim Athanasius prescribed the Cathoic church is ridiculous...Any Trinitarian whether he be inside your religion or outside of your religion holds to these 'Christian' truths...Has nothing to do at all with 'Catholic Faith'...
You wrote:
“I guess my questions is, why did 56% of the council members believe that the biblical canon that was supposedly taught throughout church history, accepted by Hippo/Carthage and later confirmed by the Council of Florence, perhaps shouldn’t be an article of faith?”
Where are you getting your 56% from? 1) To vote against something in a procedure is not the same thing as voting against the content of the point. In other words, we know there were men who said no decrees or canons concerning papal infallibility should have been enacted by Vatican I and yet they themselves SUPPORTED THE DOCTRINE of papal infallibility. Many of them simply didn’t think it was a good time to make a formal decree on the matter. Also, when someone abstains from voting you cannot count that as a vote against the measure in any case. That’s exactly why the idea of abstaining from voting exists.
I guess it would be in bad taste to mention the Counter Reformation. Loved your post.
We’ll just end up in a debate about the interpretation of those scriptures; the relevant point is that Luther conceded the point, causing him to start removing books from the bible. The Old Testament books stayed out of Protestant bibles since then, although Luther removed portions of Daniel and Esther. The New Testament portions were restored, once Protestant apologists offered different interpretations.
You wrote:
“Since your posted definition of Catholic Faith excludes anything about popes and focuses on the Trinity, what you describe is the Protestant Faith as well”
No. Athanasius - living in a time almost 1200 years before Luther invented Protestantism - simply didn’t envision later heretics and schismatics and simply wrestled with those in his own day.
“...So to claim Athanasius prescribed the Cathoic church is ridiculous...Any Trinitarian whether he be inside your religion or outside of your religion holds to these ‘Christian’ truths...Has nothing to do at all with ‘Catholic Faith’...”
Sure it does. The Catholic faith, then and now, included a hierarchy, the Eucharist, veneration of saints, Church councils, and many other things Protestants simply cannot abide by. Protestants long ago excluded themselves from orthodox faith and practice.
>> If Athanasius actually said this, I’d bet about anything that he said (c)atholic Faith...Small c...And likely he didn’t say Catholic at all...Probably ‘universal’ faith... <<
The capitalization of Catholic only took place after there was that which was not Catholic, so the first part of what you say is true. However, the nation that ‘catholic’ merely means universal is false. If the faith is universal, how could there be dissent? Rather, what was meant was something closer to ‘objective’ or ‘consensual.’ At the time, people were applying their own interpretation of scripture to the bible, and the early ‘catholic apologists’ argued that they no authority to invent their own interpretation. Thus, the council of Nicea spoke of the church being ‘one,... catholic, and apostolic’ to describe its unity of doctrine: All Christians must share a common faith in a common doctrine.
I was quoting another fellow, but the point is this:
44% believed the canon was so clear and necessary that they voted to make it an article of the faith for Catholics. Given the incentive of the Reformation, why did 56% believe it was not important to make it an article of the faith - either by refusing to take a stand, or positively saying it was wrong?
You wrote:
“44% believed the canon was so clear and necessary that they voted to make it an article of the faith for Catholics.”
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!
That is NOT what happened. The whole article shows EXACTLY that that is NOT what happened. Now here you are making the same mistake you just renounced in post #8: “Thanks for the post on Trent. I didn’t know that, and I’m guilty of unintentionally spreading the misconception.”
“Given the incentive of the Reformation, why did 56% believe it was not important to make it an article of the faith - either by refusing to take a stand, or positively saying it was wrong?”
Your question is MEANINGLESS because it is based on a misconception you yourself renounced in post #8.
Luther removed nothing from the NT. His first edition translation included ALL of accepted NT canon. His questions about canon were not unusual for the time - some years passed before the Catholic Church made a definite and binding answer (for Catholics) on canon.
The problem with Purgatory, etc is that they are not taught in either Old or New, and multiple passages in both contradict the idea. Since Purgatory is an idea as significant as Hell, the absence is deafening.
That, and most Lutheran Bibles around the world have the other books in them.
They did in the US also, until Wilson made them be removed during WWI.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.