Posted on 06/29/2019 7:40:17 PM PDT by ebb tide
So what?
My point, ealgeone, is that you faulted the Catholic Church for not giving authoritative, line-by-line interpretations of all the Scriptures. So what? What does that prove?
Then you are left with YOPIOS for those not authoritatively defined by the Catholic church. The very thing we are regularly condemned and castigated for doing.
IOW, we are criticized for doing the very thing you allow yourselves to do. That's more than a tad hypocritical.
If Catholics are allowed the freedom to do such, then why not others? Why do you all demand of non-Catholics what you yourselves don't do?
Off the top of my head, Jonah is referred to by Jesus, although it may not have been directly quoted.
That’ll need to be taken out.
I’d have check out the others.
Roman Catholics continue to cite "apostolic tradition" claiming it is all the church has believed and taught even though this has been shown to you personally on too many occasions to be an error.
Too many of Rome's dogmas are in contradiction with Scripture.
Too many of Rome's dogmas are often in contradiction among the ECFs.
Where does that leave the RC? Confused about what their own denomination teaches.
It isn't "Cranmerization" any longer. The Anglican rite has been thoroughly gone through to bring it fully into compliance with the Novus Ordo Roman rite for the English language.
What has been retained is the beauty of Elizabethan English of the day, which, for English speakers is, IMO, far superior to the current English form.
Having attended pre-Vatican II TLM services with some of my Catholic friends "back in the day", the Anglican rite of today is a full match in reverence and beauty for it.
Henry VIII did huge damage, both the Church and English society, but that is past and done. Perhaps some benefit can be gained from the experience.
Not so.
"Too many of Rome's dogmas are often in contradiction among the ECFs."
Not so. We do not claim that the ECF's were unanimous on every possible point, but we do find them in consensus on the essentials, that is, the majority of opinion being in general agreement or concord.
That is well covered in the teaching of St. Vincent of Lerins, which you will find here (LIBK)
As you will see by reading Commonitorium, he discusses his famous "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" --- "That which has everywhere, and always, and by everyone been believed."
If this were not the case, you would have to be content to believe that the Holy Spirit did not, through time, and through many dangers, toils and snares, effectively guide the church. In which case, you would not even know who wrote the Four Gospels of the NT, let alone have a settled canon of Scripture.
Do you accept the Nicene Creed?
"Where does that leave the RC? Confused about what their own denomination teaches."
There are obviously people throughout the Church (including at times this pope, this present pope, this alleged pope, who is rather anomaly; and others) who are confused about what the Church teaches. Poor Senor Bergoglio seems quite comprehensively confused.
However, the Catechism given to us in 1992, signed by Pope St. John Paul II, and edited by Ratzinger, is a good compendium which comprises all of the doctrines of the Faith and of Moral Law. It comprises a true and internally non-contradictory consensus stretching back through the centuries.
Rooted in Scripture, I find it quite clear, and I rely on it as a sound summary of the teachings of the Church, suitable to me as a Catholic catechist.
Rooted in Scripture, it is the standard by which I and the rest of the Christifideles laici can instruct the the flock, and to which we can call back priests, bishops, and the pope.
Yes, Jesus made references to OT prophets including Jonah, but the particular reference was to particular verses as quotes (and, as my source says, near-quotes).
Not so.
>>"Too many of Rome's dogmas are often in contradiction among the ECFs."<<
Not so. We do not claim that the ECF's were unanimous on every possible point, but we do find them in consensus on the essentials, that is, the majority of opinion being in general agreement or concord.
The Immaculate Conception is a prime example of a RCC dogma in contradiction of Scripture.
It is also a prime example of the ECFs not being in unanimous consent....unless Roman Catholicism has redefined this term as well.
"That which has everywhere, and always, and by everyone been believed."
Sorry, but again no. The Immaculate Conception proves this. It was not always believed by everyone everywhere, etc.
Rooted in Scripture, it is the standard by which I and the rest of the Christifideles laici can instruct the the flock, and to which we can call back priests, bishops, and the pope.
Except, as admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia, the IC is not found in Scripture. I'm not going to post again what I've already posted too many times.
Rome is in contradiction of its own sources.
Do you accept the Nicene Creed?
Which one?
Question: Do you believe that from the beginning of her life, Eve was free of original sin; that is, was she pure and blameless in the first moment of her creation? -- and then later fell from this state of Original Justice and Original Holiness because of her sin in disobeying what God commanded? Do you agree that this is called "The Fall"?
If you will answer that, we will have some basis to discuss your question about Mary.
"It is also a prime example of the ECFs not being in unanimous consent....unless Roman Catholicism has redefined this term as well."
I do not find the phrase "unanimous consent" anywhere in the Catechism, or in any explanation I have ever read about the ECF's.
Have you taken it upon yourself to say the ECF's must be unanimous? In that case, that is your criterion --- and an impossible one --- not the Church's criterion.
As I explained before --- and I notice you ignored this --- we do not claim that the ECF's were unanimous on every possible point, but we do find them in consensus on the essentials, that is, the majority of opinion being in general agreement or concord.
That is well covered in the teaching of St. Vincent of Lerins, which you likewise ignore. (LIN particularly in the Commonitorium he discusses his famous "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est" --- "That which has everywhere, and always, and by everyone been believed."
Since you do not comment on this, I wonder if you would tell me frankly if you read it? If you had, you would not have thought that "consensus" meant "unanimous consent." It is a common error indicative that you missed the definition of the kind of consensus Vincent of Lerins is talking about.
"...as admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia, the IC is not found in Scripture"
The IC is not expressed directly in Scripture ipsissimi verbi (as neither are the Incarnation nor the Trinity--- nor even the Canon of Scripture!). But it is based, -- to take the first instance --- on our standing of our Original Parents and hence our understanding of Original Sin. This is it based in Scripture, starting in Genesis.
I think you may have missed that Genesis is the necessary context for Mary.
Then I googled "unanimous consent" and found some religious discussions using that term. I noticed two things:
1) Somewhere in the discussion, somebody always points out that this cannot mean "there was never any variability or dissent on this."
Nor, logically, could there be. Much of the early apologetic literature was written precisely to refute heresy, therefore there were dissenters out there pitching heretical ideas in the midst of the early Church, which needed to be refuted!
So they say that in this context, it means "widespread agreement, substantial harmony," not that "no one differed from this.
2) it's pointed out that the Church must never teach against doctrines which had the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers.
Excellent. Show me even one doctrine which had the "unanimous consent" of the Fathers, and where the Church contradicts it, and we'll have well-focused discussion!
I still think Vincent of Lerins should have the last word. Read what he said about ""Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est".
JUst for convenience, here’s the first Nicene Creed I came across, from the United Methodist Church:
The Nicene Creed
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary
and became truly human.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered death and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in accordance with the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son
is worshiped and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic* and apostolic church.
We acknowledge one baptism
for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen.
*universal
http://www.umc.org/what-we-believe/glossary-nicene-creed
Do you believe this creed to be true?
No. It's. Not.
No direct or categorical and stringent proof of the dogma can be brought forward from Scripture.But the first scriptural passage which contains the promise of the redemption, mentions also the Mother of the Redeemer. The sentence against the first parents was accompanied by the Earliest Gospel (Proto-evangelium), which put enmity between the serpent and the woman: "and I will put enmity between thee and the woman and her seed; she (he) shall crush thy head and thou shalt lie in wait for her (his) heel" (Genesis 3:15).
The translation "she" of the Vulgate is interpretative; it originated after the fourth century, and cannot be defended critically.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
In other words, the dogma is not based on Scripture because it's not in Scripture. And the Scripture Rome tries to use is from a translation that CANNOT be defended critically.
That's a pretty poor foundation upon which to build a dogma.
>> "It is also a prime example of the ECFs not being in unanimous consent....unless Roman Catholicism has redefined this term as well."<<
I do not find the phrase "unanimous consent" anywhere in the Catechism, or in any explanation I have ever read about the ECF's.
Ok...lesson time again. Class is in session.
Hence, it is the clear and unanimous opinion of the Fathers that the most glorious Virgin, for whom “he who is mighty has done great things,” was resplendent with such an abundance of heavenly gifts, with such a fullness of grace and with such innocence, that she is an unspeakable miracle of God — indeed, the crown of all miracles and truly the Mother of God; that she approaches as near to God himself as is possible for a created being; and that she is above all men and angels in glory. Hence, to demonstrate the original innocence and sanctity of the Mother of God, not only did they frequently compare her to Eve while yet a virgin, while yet innocence, while yet incorrupt, while not yet deceived by the deadly snares of the most treacherous serpent; but they have also exalted her above Eve with a wonderful variety of expressions. Eve listened to the serpent with lamentable consequences; she fell from original innocence and became his slave. The most Blessed Virgin, on the contrary, ever increased her original gift, and not only never lent an ear to the serpent, but by divinely given power she utterly destroyed the force and dominion of the evil one.http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9ineff.htm
Now, from the Catholic Encyclopedia regarding the ECFs on this issue....
In regard to the sinlessness of Mary the older Fathers are very cautious: some of them even seem to have been in error on this matter. •Origen, although he ascribed to Mary high spiritual prerogatives, thought that, at the time of Christ's passion, the sword of disbelief pierced Mary's soul; that she was struck by the poniard of doubt; and that for her sins also Christ died (Origen, "In Luc. hom. xvii").
•In the same manner St. Basil writes in the fourth century: he sees in the sword, of which Simeon speaks, the doubt which pierced Mary's soul (Epistle 260).
•St. Chrysostom accuses her of ambition, and of putting herself forward unduly when she sought to speak to Jesus at Capharnaum (Matthew 12:46; Chrysostom, Homily 44 on Matthew).
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07674d.htm
It is clear, there is NO unanimous consent among the ECFs.
Question: Do you believe that from the beginning of her life, Eve was free of original sin; that is, was she pure and blameless in the first moment of her creation? -- and then later fell from this state of Original Justice and Original Holiness because of her sin in disobeying what God commanded? Do you agree that this is called "The Fall"?
I hope you're not going to try to appeal to the recapitulation theory. You're not...right?
No where does the NT carve out an exception for Mary for this. Luke, in his research, did not include this as a special condition of Mary....and please, don't appeal to the flawed rendering of the Vulgate. We've already witnessed the undefendable translation of Genesis 3:15. In fact, it is the NT that argues against the dogma.
It only took Roman Catholicism 1830 years to get this proclaimed.
The theological underpinnings of Immaculate Conception had been the subject of debate during the Middle Ages with opposition provided by figures such as Saint Thomas Aquinas, a Dominican. However, supportive arguments by Franciscans William of Ware and Duns Scotus, and general belief among Catholics made the doctrine more acceptable, so that the Council of Basel supported it in the 15th century, but the Council of Trent sidestepped the question. Pope Sixtus IV, a Franciscan, had tried to pacify the situation by forbidding either side to criticize the other, and placed the feast of the Immaculate Conception on the Roman Calendar in 1477, but Pope Pius V, a Dominican, changed it to the feast of the Conception of Mary. Clement XI made the feast universal in 1708, but still did not call it the feast of the Immaculate Conception.[40] Popular and theological support for the concept continued to grow and by the 18th century it was widely depicted in art.[41][42][43][44] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immaculate_Conception#History<
The dogma is based on no Scriptural support, no clear consent of the ECFs, no clear consent with the RCC. It was only popular opinion that got this dogma declared.
It contradicts Scripture in so many places and is rejected by Christianity.
I don't have a problem with the Creed as long as we understand the terms correctly.
Now...who are the official Fathers used by Rome? **********
What's the bottom line?
The concept of the unanimous consent of the Fathers is widely misunderstood.
Trent established a discipline that barred Catholics—even in writings not meant for publication—from contradicting the unanimous consent of the Fathers regarding the interpretation of Scripture.
This law remained in force until the 20th century, but it lost legal force following the Second Vatican Council.
However, the law was undergirded by important theological principles that remain in force and that have been illuminated by doctrinal development.
The unanimous consent of the Fathers as a whole can manifest the unerring sense of the faithful, and the bishops among the Fathers represented the Magisterium of their day and thus could teach infallibly under the usual conditions for the infallible exercise of the ordinary magisterium.
The number of cases where this applies to the interpretation of a particular passage of Scripture is small, but such cases must be taken seriously.
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/the-unanimous-consent-of-the-church-fathers
As for "unanimous consent," in the sense represented by basic (say Nicene) dogma, it's practically a True Scotchman situation, since if they didn't accept the Nicene doctrines, I can hardly think they would be named Church Fathers at all. They wouldn't in the Church, and they'd be separated from the Father (and the Son.)
Now on that, there is unanimous consent!
As for "unanimous consent," in the sense represented by basic (say Nicene) dogma, it's practically a True Scotchman situation, since if they didn't accept the Nicene doctrines,
As I said before, IF the terms are properly understood, there is no problem with the Creed. Either of them.
Same with Sola Scriptura, I suppose: if it were defined suitably, it would be unexceptionable.
The conflicting opinions of your denomination that issue extra-Biblical dogmas in contradiction of scripture
Your denomination has ruled on but a handful of verses.
It has relied upon poor translations of Scripture, that in some cases are not defendable.
It has relied upon contradictory opinions of some undefined group of writers.
It has built dogmas upon books rejected by leaders and councils of the early church.
The definition of unanimous consent has changed since V1.
You know, Mrs. D....I can understand why the average RC is so confused.
.
Kinda a death spiral of reasoning for the Roman Catholic.
You have thoroughly misunderstood this. Scripture IS the ultimate source of authority, but it is not the ONLY source of authority. It is not self-collected, self-defined, or self-interpreting.
Apostolic Tradition, properly called as such, is equal to Scripture in such a way that the authority of the two is logically inseparable. Why?
First, Because Scripture actually commands adherence to Tradition: to the written words, the spoken words (preaching and teaching), the patterns, the practice, the example of the Apostles.
1 Cor 11:2As you can see from the above, written Tradition (Scripture) is a subset of the larger category, which comprises the total Teachings of the Apostles which have been handed down to us. This is what is defined as Tradition: EVERYTHNG that was handed down, whether written, or oral, or the imitation of the actions, practices and customs which were devotedly preserved in the churches.
I praise you, as you hold hold firmly to the traditions, just as I delivered them to you.1 Cor 4:16
Therefore I urge you to imitate me.Philippians 3:17
Join one another in following my example, brothers, and carefully observe those who walk according to the pattern we set for you.1 Thess. 1:6
And you became imitators of us and of the Lord when you welcomed the message with the joy of the Holy Spirit, in spite of your great suffering.2 Thess. 3:6
Therefore stand fast and hold the traditions you were taught, by word or by our epistle.
You think the Nicene Creed is legit? That is Tradition. You think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are legit? They are Tradition, too.
It is because the teaching of the Apostles (Tradition) is supreme, that Scripture possesses supreme authority. Sing it, brother: "The Bible's the Bible, this I know, /For Tradition tells me so."
It is Tradition which gives us Scripture. Without Tradition, you don't even know what the Canon of Scripture is. Nothing would have been preserved. It would not even exist. As I have said many times before -- and this cannot be refuted --- if you hit "delete" on Tradition, Scripture disappears from your screen.
Nothing from any of these sources (Scripture, Tradition, Natural Law, or the Ordinary or Papal Magisterium) can directly contradict each other, simply by the logical Law of Non-Contradiction. Something cannot be both True and Not-True at the same time and in the same manner.
If you don't have Tradition, you have, actually, nothing. Your entire edifice depends upon the trustworthiness of the authority of those people who handed all this down to you.
Why in the world would Paul say "Everything must be done so that the Church may be built up." ?- 1 Corinthians 14:26
Because he knew the Church of the living God is "the pillar and foundation of the truth." - 1 Timothy 3:15
Yes...but here is your delima and question you, nor any other Roman Catholic can answer.
What are the unwritten "traditions" you claim?
Us non-Roman Catholics have asked you and numerous other RCs for this and to date no one has been able to supply them.
And I still see context means absolutely nothing to the Roman Catholic in this conversation nor any other we have.
You think the Nicene Creed is legit? That is Tradition.
Not because of "tradition".
Do you even know why the Creed exists?
Have you actually read any of the ECFs, in totality, on these issues?
It is Tradition which gives us Scripture. Without Tradition, you don't even know what the Canon of Scripture is. Nothing would have been preserved. It would not even exist. As I have said many times before -- and this cannot be refuted --- if you hit "delete" on Tradition, Scripture disappears from your screen.
Uh...no. Tradition does not give Scripture.
The early ekklesia had decided on what a good part of the canon was before 70 AD.
For the Roman Catholic, your canon wasn't decided until Trent in the 1500s!
If you don't have Tradition, you have, actually, nothing. Your entire edifice depends upon the trustworthiness of the authority of those people who handed all this down to you.
If we don't have "tradition", we have the Scriptures. All that is needed for salvation and how to live the Christian life is in the Scriptures.
Roman Catholicism with its "tradition" has added to what Scripture says is necessary.
Consider just some of what your denomination has added in order for salvation:
you must be subject to the Roman Pontiff
you must believe in the Assumption of Mary
you must believe in the Immaculate Conception
you must attend "Mass" on certain days
and the list goes on and on of what you MUST do for salvation.
A person marooned on a desert island with only the Bible to read, and with no prior knowledge of any Christianity, can read the Bible, understand it, and come to faith in Christ. No "tradition" needed.
But here's the error of RC "tradition". It has given many incorrect dogmas it couldn't change now to save their life.
The Marian dogmas, which developed long after the Apostles, are so much a part of Roman Catholicism they often eclipse Scritpure.
“The Marian dogmas, which developed long after the Apostles, are so much a part of Roman Catholicism they often eclipse Scritpure.”
“Often” = “always”.
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.