Posted on 06/15/2010 6:38:10 AM PDT by bkaycee
Welcome and thanks for the long post that will take me days to read/understand. It would help a little if your link titled “here” lead to something other than; “The requested document does not exist on this server.”
Gentlemen, please pick up the white courtesy phone.
The direct link with all the tags working is here.
http://www.christiantruth.com/articles/Testimony.html
Thank you very much.
And the Catechism can be found on the Vatican website (Link to Catechism). No reason for us to hide it from anyone, nor to hope that Protestants don't read it.
Nor is "because we said so" a good reason to claim that Sola Scriptura is illegitimate. That the idea is foreign to the first 1200+ years of Christianity will suffice.
Read for later - interesting.
But as I have said before, Christians of all stripes need to unite against Islam - our common enemy.
Trouble with that is, your reasoning is circular. The reason the "first 1200+ years" of Christiantity are said to have rejected sola scriptura is because Catholicism, which actually developed at a very late date, "says" so. Hence, Catholicism's assertion is self-fulfilling because it depends on itself to be true.
Right you are! The same could be said for Americans.....Americans of all stripes/gender/races/ethinicities/sexual orientations etc etc etc need to unite against Islam
Roman Catholic theologian, Louis Bouyer, likewise confirms this, writing:
it is right to insist that this narrow ‘biblicism’ is by no means to be confused with the affirmation that the Bible, and in one sense the Bible alone, is the ‘Word of God’ more directly and fully than any of its other expressions, since it alone is so inspired by God as to have him for its author. In making their own this assertion, and giving it the vigour and emphasis so characteristic of their doctrine, the Protestant reformers did not go beyond the unanimous verdict of Judaism on the Old Testament, once constituted, and of the Fathers and theologians on the Bible as a whole. The cautious reservations introduced by modern Catholic writers, as a result of the controversies of the sixteenth century, cannot disguise the fact that the Protestants, in the positive statements we refer to, say no more than the unanimous ecclesiastical tradition
The Fathers of the Church, St. Augustine above all, themselves practiced that devotion derived from Scripture, whose ideal the Protestants steadily upheld; they hardly knew any other. No doubt they were much more careful than many Protestants not to isolate the Word of God in its settled form of Scripture from its living form in the Church, particularly in the liturgy. But, this reserve apart they were no less enthusiastic, or insistent, or formal, in recommending this use of Scripture and in actually promoting it. Particularly from St. John Chrysostom, one might assemble exhortations and injunctions couched in the most forcible terms; they have often been recalled by those Protestants, from the sixteenth century onwards, the best grounded in Christian antiquity. It would be impossible to find, even among Protestants, statements more sweeping than those in which St. Jerome abounds: Ignoratio scripturarum, ignoratio Christi is doubtless the most lapidary, but not necessarily the most explicit.
What is more, in this case just as when the authority of Scripture is viewed as the foundation of theology, the constant practice of the Church, in the Middle Ages as well as in the patristic times, is a more eloquent witness than all the doctors. In the same way that Popes, Councils, theologians, always resorted to the scriptural argument as the really fundamental one, the practice of the great spiritual writers of every epoch attests the fully traditional character of a devotion based on the Bible. Writers as eminent and influential as Origen in the East and Augustine in the West equally prove the truth of this. Their entire spirituality in both cases is but an immense meditation on Scripture. The same is true of the great teachers of the Middle Ages, who often enough are disciples of both, as was St. Bernard. We can apply to them all that we said of the best of Protestant spirituality: not only did they know the Bible and make abundant use of it, but they moved in it as in a spiritual world that formed the habitual universe of all their thoughts and sentiments. For them, it was not simply one source among others, but the source par excellence, in a sense the only one.
Acts 17: 10-14).
Are you now going to argue that what they said they did, they actually did not do? Careful, you could soon be seeing pink unicorns from Jupiter. If you do not believe people meant what they said, then why bother with Scripture? It doesn't make any sense. Unless you just want to argue. Or defend the indefensible.
Oh c’mon, just post a link to an article about Ted Haggard’s sexcapades, and how this is indicative of all Evangelicals, and be done with it. That’ll save you a couple of hours and a couple of dozen posts.
Sorry, I’m skeptical of any website that has the word “Truth” in its name.
- Jp
That’s true.
All non-Muslims regardless of religious affiliation or even lack of any are in the cross-hairs of this abominable international cult of hatred and murder.
1) The Orthodox Church rejects Sola Scriptura also. Are they newcomers as well? If they are, what do we make of the first 1024 years before the Catholics and Orthodox split?
2) Read the Early Church Fathers... in their writings, you see clear bits of nascent Catholicism/Orthodoxy. You do not see nascent Protestantism.
John 5:39: Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life; and they are they which testify of me.
What is so hard to understand about searching the ot scriptures and finding Christ? Unless you don't believe Christ meant what he said..
Well, I guess Mr. Webster will find out if he was right or wrong on judgement day.
Do you have a link so that I can see this in context? Otherwise, I have no idea what “narrow ‘biblicism’” Bouyer was talking about.
Yes. Eastern Orthodox, which split off from Catholicism during the Schism, arose from the same gradual development of doctrine and practice that continued well into the Medieval period.
2) Read the Early Church Fathers... in their writings, you see clear bits of nascent Catholicism/Orthodoxy. You do not see nascent Protestantism.
You know what's funny? I DO read the patristics. I have the complete set on my home computer. Reading them has done more than anything else to convince me of the AHISTORICAL nature of Catholicism, that whatever else they may have been, they WEREN'T Catholics, no matter how much Catholicism tries to claim them.
I have a lot to do today, and I don't really intend at the present time to get into a whizzing match with some Catholic apologist on a facelsss internet forum about whether Irenaeus believed in the "Real Presence" (which he didn't). Will check in later, perhaps.
Great summary of why they are stuck on the wrong side of the Cross.
They have systematically attempted to recreate the Temple system with it's hierarchy and ritual driven requirements for salvation. It's why they really don't understand The Gospel, revealed to us by Paul, but instead point towards the beatitudes.
Praise the LORD that He has always had an independent remnant that knew The Gospel and believed. We can only hope and pray that the RC's reform their church and come join Christianity that stands on the other side of the Cross.
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.