“He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith”

The faith existing in the Church, from the beginning throughout all ages, is the infallible standard to determine the true sense of Scripture: and accordingly, it is certain, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the Redeemer is God, and hath filled us even with divine power. In fact, he who grounds his faith on Scripture only, that is, on the result of his exegetical studies, has no faith, can have none, and understands not its very nature. Must he not be always ready to receive better information; must he not admit the possibility, that by nature study of Scripture another result may be obtained, than that which has already been arrived at? The thought of this possibility precludes the establishment of any decided, perfectly undoubting, and unshaken faith, which, after all, is alone deserving of the name. He who says, ‘this is my faith,’ hath no faith. Faith, unity of faith, universality of faith, are one and the same; they are but different expressions of the same notion. He who, if even he should not believe the truth, yet believes truly, believes at the same time that he holds fast the doctrine of Christ, that he shares the faith with the Apostles, and with the Church founded by the Redeemer, that there is but one faith in all ages, and one only true one. This faith is alone rational, and alone worthy of man: every other should be called a mere opinion, and, in a practical point of view, is an utter impotency.

Ages passed by, and with them the ancient sects: new times arose, bringing along with them new schisms in the Church. The formal principles of all these productions of egotism were the same; all asserted that Holy Writ, abstracted from Tradition and from the Church, is at once the sole source of religious truth, and the sole standard of its knowledge for the individual. This formal principle, common to all parties separated from the Church;—to the Gnostic of the second century, and the Albigensian and Vaudois of the twelfth, to the Sabellian of the third, the Arian of the fourth, and the Nestorian of the fifth century—this principle, we say, led to the most contradictory belief. What indeed can be more opposite to each other, than Gnosticism and Pelagianism, than Sabellianism and Arianism? The very circumstance, indeed, that one and the same formal principle can be applied to every possible mode of belief; and rather that this belief, however contradictory it may be in itself, can sill make use of that formal principle, should alone convince everyone, that grievous errors must here lie concealed, and that between the individual and the Bible a mediating principle is wanting.

What is indeed more striking than the fact, that every later religious sect doth not deny that the Catholic Church, in respect to the parties that had previously seceded from her, has in substance right on her side, and even recognizes in these cases her dogmatic decisions; while on the other hand, it disputes her formal principles? Would this ecclesiastical doctrine, so formed and so approved of, have been possible, without the peculiar view of the Church entertained of herself? Doth not the one determine the other? With joy the Arian recognises what has decided by the Church against the Gnostics; but he does not keep in view the manner in which she proceeded against them; and he will not consider that those dogmas on which he agrees with the Church, she would not have saved and handed down to his time, had she acted according to those formal principles which he requires of her, and on which he stands. The Pelagian and the Nestorian embrace also, with the most undoubted faith, the decisions of the Church against the Arians. But as soon as the turn comes to either, he becomes as it were stupified, and is inconsiderate enough to desire the matter of Christian doctrine without the appropriate ecclesiastical form—without that form, consequently, by the very neglect whereof those parties, to which he is most heartily opposed, have fallen on the adoption of their articles of belief. It was the same with Luther and Calvin. The pure Christian dogmas, in opposition to the errors of the Gnostics, Paulicians, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites and others, they received with the most praiseworthy firmness and fervency of faith. But, when they took a fancy to deliver their theses on the relations between faith and works, between free-will and grace, or however else they may be called, they trod (as to form) quite in the footsteps of those whom they execrated….

This accordingly is the doctrine of Catholics. Thou wilt obtain the knowledge full and entire of the Christian religion only in connection with its essential form, which is the Church. Look at the Scripture in an ecclesiastical spirit, and it will present thee an image perfectly resembling the Church. Contemplate Christ in, and with his creation—the Church—the only adequate authority—the only authority representing him, and thou wilt then stamp his image on thy soul….

[The Catholic] is freely convinced, that the Church is a divine institution, upheld by supernal aid, ‘which leads her into all truth;’ that, consequently, no doctrine rejected by her is contained in Scripture; that with the latter, on the contrary, her dogmas perfectly coincide, though many particulars may not be verbally set forth in Holy Writ. Accordingly he has the conviction, that the Scripture, for example doth not teach that Christ is a mere man; nay, he is certain that it represents him also as God. Inasmuch as he professes this belief, he is not free to profess the contrary, for he would contradict himself; in the same way as a man, who has resolved to remain chaste, cannot be unchaste, without violating his resolution. To this restriction, which everyone most probably will consider rational, the Catholic Church subjects her members, and consequently, also, the learned exegetists of Scripture. A Church which would authorize anyone to find what he pleased in Scripture, and without any foundation to declare it as unecclesiastical, such a Church would thereby declare, that it believed in nothing, and was devoid of all doctrines; for the mere possession of the Bible no more constitutes a Church, than the possession of the faculty of reason renders anyone really rational. Such a Church would in fact, as a moral entity, exhibit the contradiction just adverted to, which a physical being could not be guilty of. The individual cannot at one and the same time believe, and not believe, a particular point of doctrine. But if a Church, which consists of a union of many individuals, permitted every member, as such, to receive or to reject at his pleasure, any article of faith, it would fall into this very contradiction, and would be a monster of unbelief, indifferent to the most opposite doctrines, which we might indeed, on our behalf, honour with the finest epithets, but certainly not denominate a Church. The Church must train up souls for the kingdom of God, which is founded on definite facts and truths, that are eternally unchangeable; and so a Church, that knows no such immutable dogmas, is like to a teacher, that knows not what he should teach. The Church has to stamp the image of Christ on humanity; but Christ is not sometimes this, and sometimes that, but eternally the same. She has to breathe into the hearts of men the word of God, that came down from heaven: but this word is no vague, empty sound, wherof we can make what we will.

Your position is precarious regarding the canon. SOMEONE had to determine the canon of Scripture. It did NOT fall out of the sky ready-made, with a handy index of the books near the front. If there were no councils to determine the canon, there would NOT be a canon at all, unless God Himself DIRECTLY intervened and told the whole world what that canon should be. He normally doesn't work that way, as there would be no need for faith in Him were such demonstrations of His existence and power were common in every contingency.

You're right when you say that "council's recognition of GOD's WORD did not make it GOD's WORD." The words were already God's words. The councils merely pointed to them, among other works which were of dubious inspiration, and said "THESE books, and no others among the collected candidates, are the inspired Word of God." That was the function of these councils and the papal ratifications of them. Get it right here. They did NOT "make" the NT books God's Word. They merely declared that those books ARE God's Word. Huge difference!

However, this all serves to underscore my point. Your system has no sensible way to point to the rationale for the canon without acknowledging the early Church Fathers. None. That you cannot even bring yourself to recognize their authority in at least this instance is most instructive to all of us. The Catholic Church, as I've said numerous times here, collected, vetted and canonized the Scriptures, the New Testament of which was written by eight of its members under the inspiration of Almighty God. It alone is the proper custodian and interpreter of the collection we call the Bible, and this office will properly remain with the Church till the end of time.

I am asking the following question, not to be facetious, but to understand.

You say the Church (an institution) alone has the custody of and authority to interpret scripture. Right?

[Joshua 1:8]: "Do not let this Book of the Law [Scripture] depart from you mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will become prosperous and successful."

This strongly infers that since each individual has his responsibility to meditate on the words of God's Word all the time so that one might obey them that a study of them on one's own is required - which scope goes far beyond what one's teachers would be capable of providing for him. A personal detailed study of those words by each individual would of course be required in order to understand them so that obedience to them would be possible.

History records that the individual Jew in the Mosiac Law period was expected from youth to memorize and study the Scriptures. And many faithfully did just that. Note that they did have the Levitical Priesthood to minister and intercede for them, yet they assumed the responsibility of study, interpretation and obedience to the Scriptures themselves.

[Cp Ps 1:1-2]:

(v. 1) "Blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked or stand in the way of sinners or sit in the seat of mockers.

(v. 2) But his delight is in the Law of the LORD, and on his Law he meditates day and night."

[Compare Ps 119: which is an entire 168 verse passage devoted to the praise, study, understanding and following of the Law by the individual. No mention of the responsibility of any appointed individuals other than God Himself was mentioned. Only the careful study of the precepts of God's Word by the individual and God's teaching of them thereby is emphasized, :

(v. 7) "I will praise you with an upright heart as I learn your righteous laws."

(v. 26) "I recounted my ways and You answered me; teach me Your decrees.

(v. 27) Let me understand the teaching of Your precepts; then I will meditate on your wonders."

(v. 94) "Save me, for I am Yours; I have sought out Your precepts."

(v. 95) "The wicked are waiting to destroy me, but I will ponder Your statutes."

(v. 99) "I have more insight than all my teachers, for I meditate on Your statutes."

[Notice that the individual gained more insight into the Word of God than his teachers as a result of his meditation upon them]

(v. 124) "Deal with your servant according to your love and teach me Your decrees."

(v. 125) "I am your servant; give me discernent that I may understand Your statutes."

[Notice that the discernment comes from God not a designated human teacher]

(v. 130) "The unfolding of Your words gives light; it gives understanding to the simple"

(v. 135) "Make Your face shine upon Your servant and teach me Your decrees."

These verses above suggest the image of an individual who is examining the words of God's Word directly and understanding them - with the teaching help of God Himself]

All throughout the scriptures we are commanded to meditate upon, heed to, hearken to and study the word of God for ourselves that we may have understanding of them. We are told that God's people (the believers) are destroyed for a lack of knowledge. We are warned of our duty to discern rightfully the truth from the lies. We will not be held blameless or left with an excuse for not doing so. We will not be able to say Father John told me this or Reverend Doe told me this.

God's word tells us the Holy Spirit will show us ALL things. [Jn 14:26]: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you."

If God intended for an institution rather than His Spirit to interpret His word for us, why the obvious commands for us to do it ourselves?

Are we to believe that only a select few men claiming unbroken apostolic succession are the ONLY individuals capable of discerning the truth from scripture and interpreting it for us?

I think what bothers me is there is sufficient biblical evidence stating God intended and made allowances for all believers to rightfully interpret His word but none stating an institution is the sole authority on His word.

In believing this we can become intellectually lazy, biblically illiterate, slothful in our study habits, and even often steal the learning of others in order to hide our own disobedience. If we can boast of anything, let it be we boast of knowing God in His fullness as He shows Himself to us collectively and individually.

The Gospel is the Good News. It is the preaching of Jesus Christ.

" The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel"

What good news was Jesus talking about? How do we know what it is?

I don’t find any mention of the Gospel being referred to as writings IN THE SCRIPTURES! The names of the authors of the Gospel, (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) are not even part of the Scriptures!

The last 4 books of the Old testament ( before the declaration of the New Covenant, death and resurrection of Christ are called the Gospels. They contain the Gospel but are not THE Gospel .

The Gospel is an ORAL PROCLAMATION as shown above in the beginning of Mark’s Gospel.

The Gospel can be orally transmitted as the preaching of the word is one of the ordained methods of salvation along with the reading of the word.

as Surely, you don’t think that Jesus was referring to the Gospel as a yet unwritten book???

The "gospel " is the Good news, The problem is you see the Gospel as "books" .

The Gospel was written and preached in the Old Testament.

"For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it" (Heb. 4:2)

The gospel was preached by the OT prophets and prefigured in the system of types and figures, in sacrifices, miracles, holy days and the Temple .

If you see the "gospel" as just those 4 books you have a limited understanding of the Gospel.

Let us look at Christ when tempted. What was his response?

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

Luk 4:10 For it is written, He shall give his angels charge over thee, to keep thee:

Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

When Jesus taught how did he teach?

To the tradition based Pharisees Jesus said this

Mat 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

As he taught he relied on the witness of scripture

Mat 26:31 Then saith Jesus unto them, All ye shall be offended because of me this night: for it is written, I will smite the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad.

Luk 4:4 And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.

Luk 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.

I could go on, but I have made my point that even Jesus, God and man used the word of God to teach and reprove men.(2Ti 3:16 All scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:)

A quick survey of the epistles finds the OT Scriptures used as substantiation and proof of their words. Peter considered the doctrinal epistles of Paul as scripture long before the canon was decided.

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.

The bereans were honored for looking to the word of God to check the truth of what they were being taught

Act 17:11 These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.

The Gospel can certainly be orally presented, that is not, nor has that ever been denied. BUT the evidence of the correctness of the gospel presented is substantiated by the inspired writing found in the bible.

Have you ever played the parlor game where a story is whispered to someone and they are told to tell the story to the next in line and then they repeat it to the next one and so on. By the time that the story has been whispered to 10 people one can hardly recognize the original story as it has been added to and changed in the telling. That is why if you ever venture into an Evangelical Protestant church you will find the members reading the scripture along with the Preacher in a sense holding his feet to the fire to make sure he is accurately presenting the word of God in context.

If God had desired or ordained that gospel be carried by tradition, he would not have inspired the writings of the NT.

It is only later, the Apostolic Traditions, that determined that the 4 books of the Evangelists were known as “Gospels”.

Some of us believe that the canon was ordained and inspired and preserved by God.
Neither the church nor councils made any book canonical or authentic, as we see from the declaration of Peter in 2 Peter the book was authentic or it was not at the time it was written. It did not become inspired because a council decided it was. It was what it was. The church simply canonized what was already the inspired word of God. They were tools in the hand of God to finalize on earth what was already finalized in Heaven

Thus, the “Word” refers to the preaching of the Apostles, both oral and written, not a FUTURE BOOK!!!

Jo, you have a very shallow understanding of the Gospel when you see it as a set of Books.

You again quote non contemporary "histories" . There is no evidence that Peter died in Rome.
We can accept the oral tradition on this as it is spiritually inconsequential, as no mans salvation rests on the shoulders of Peter , the place of his death is irrelevant. The question is was he taken to rome in chains or was he the "POPE " the Bishop of Rome.. again no evidence .

It seems to me that the historical evidence is quite clear. Peter was in Rome, and Peter died in Rome. Paul didn't go to Rome right away because he "didn't like to build on another's work".

Paul's letter to Rome indicated that he had a desire to go there. He would not have written a doctrinal treaties and stated a desire to go there if Peter had been there, because as you point out he did not want to build on another foundation.

Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established.Is it your position that Peter spent 16 years there and the church is still not established?

There was a time when with great fan fare it was announced that Peters very bones were discovered in Rome, only later to find out the bones actually belonged to three people, one of them a woman, and from a variety of barnyard animals. There is no evidence of truth in this "tradition", it indicates the spiritual danger of building ones faith on tradition and not the word of God.

Yes, the first time I read the entire NT, I was amazed at what I found. Who would have thought that the Catholic Church was the true Church established by Christ? But there is was. And it is corroborated by ancient testimonies of the men who were there. People who disapprove of the evidence are just refusing to see what history presents - that the Catholic Church is the continuation of the seed planted by Christ, the mustard seed that grew into the largest of bushes

Did you read it for yourself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit or under the teaching of the church Magistrum ?

I know of no denomination that actually follows the precept of Sola Scriptura. For example, most Christians who are affiliated with communities that have come into being since the 16th century would say that justification by faith alone is a critical doctrine--perhaps the critical doctrine, and reading of the Bible must start from that proposition. However, Scripture never actually says that we are justified by faith alone.

Perhaps that is because you have never read the NT ?

Jhn 3:18 He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

Jhn 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

Jhn 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.

Jhn 6:28 Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?
29 Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

Jhn 6:47 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life.

Jhn 8:24 I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

Jhn 16:8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment
9 Of sin, because they believe not on me;

Jhn 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Act 13:39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses

Act 16:31 And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house.

Eph 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: [it is] the gift of God:
Eph 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:

Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is counted for righteousness.

Rom 5:1 Therefore being justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ:

Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10 For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.

Gal 3:22 But the scripture hath concluded all under sin, that the promise by faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe.

Faith and belief are the flip sides of the same coin

Jesus taught Salvation by Faith not works. He said our works are the fruit of our salvation

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. What is the will of the Father?

Scripture says this is His will for men

Jhn 6:40 And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

So the hypothesis of justification by faith alone was a theological innovation of the 16th century that is not contained in Scripture, but many who hold to that belief insist that it holds equal standing with Scripture as a point of belief.

Translations prior to Luther used the terminology of faith alone with respect to Romans 3:28. The Nuremberg Bible of 1483 had "allein durch den glauben," while the Italian Bibles of Geneva in 1476 and even 1538 had "per sola fide."

From my perspective, asserting that one follows the Bible alone is not an accurate description of how one actually operates.

Perhaps you do not understand what sola scriptura mean ? Ya think? :)

Dear Sister, why are you telling me that I "have a very shallow understanding of the Gospel when you see it as a set of Books"? You should know me better than that from our very long conversations! The Gospel is the Good News of Jesus Christ, OUR savior, whether it is related by Scripture or by Liturgy, or by other means.

Let me refresh your memory what I wrote in post #71 less than 24 hours ago...

"The Gospel is the Good News. It is the preaching of Jesus Christ. For example: Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel. (Mark 1:14-15) I don’t find any mention of the Gospel being referred to as writings IN THE SCRIPTURES!"

Now for the rest of your post...

What good news was Jesus talking about? How do we know what it is?

That Jesus Christ died for our sins, has risen from the dead, and has promised that we can become united with Him in heaven. That is the one sentence proclamation, but of course, there is more. We know what it is because the Apostles told others, who told others, and so forth, up to today.

The last 4 books of the Old testament ( before the declaration of the New Covenant, death and resurrection of Christ are called the Gospels. They contain the Gospel but are not THE Gospel .

You'll have to explain that one some more. I have never heard that the 4 "Gospels" are not really the Gospels.

The "gospel " is the Good news, The problem is you see the Gospel as "books" .

We now call the 4 books "Gospels" because they narrate the life and death of our savior, Jesus Christ, WHOM the Good News is based upon. They have always held pride of place within the entire Scriptures, because they relate how God became man and gave His life for the remission of sins. That is Good News for US, don't you think? The 4 Gospels are merely called "Gospels" because they relate the Good News of Christ.

The gospel was preached by the OT prophets and prefigured in the system of types and figures, in sacrifices, miracles, holy days and the Temple .

Is the Letter of Hebrews refering to the foreshadowing of the good things to come, Jesus Christ? Doesn't Hebrews relate that all of the sacrificial system and so forth were merely signs pointing to the Christ, the superior Covenant with mankind? But the Jews didn't see through the signs given.

Let us look at Christ when tempted. What was his response?

Sister, it is not good to take things out of context and missing the FACT that Satan, too, quoted Scriptures. ANYONE can quote Scripture. It is PROPER interpretation that is paramount to knowing and doing God's Word and Will.

I could go on, but I have made my point that even Jesus, God and man used the word of God to teach and reprove men The bereans were honored for looking to the word of God to check the truth of what they were being taught

The Bereans consulted the Old Testament, not the unwritten New Testament, first of all. And secondly, the Bereans were "honored" because they ACCEPTED PAUL'S WORD, the Gospel, while the Thessolonicans DID NOT! They BOTH consulted Scriptures, but the Bereans' eyes were opened to the Gospel, while the Thessolonicans were not - using the same OT Scripture. You are saying too much here.

Have you ever played the parlor game...

First of all, we don't follow "ORAL" traditions all the way back 2000 years. Apostolic Tradition just means it wasn't written down into inspired Scripture. BUT these teachings WERE written down elsewhere. Secondly, if God is guiding the Church, the pillar and bulwark of the truth, can the Church falsify or misinterpret the Gospel?

It did not become inspired because a council decided it was.

The Church, as the protector of God's Word here on earth, merely validitated the inspiration of a given letter. Where men disagree on this, the Church must decide - "yes" or "no". And being given the power to bind and loosen by Christ, their decision is binding on the rest of the Church. They RECOGNIZED and VOUCHED for the Scripture's source. But the letter was inspired when first written, of course.

Regards

Joshua 1:8 does not really imply what you say. First, the text seems to indicate that God was speaking to Joshua only. When He refers to the rest of the Israelites, He does so by using the third person "them, they, this people," etc. God is asking Joshua to meditate on the Torah. Also, please understand, when the Lord spoke these words to Joshua, the Hebrews had not even crossed over into the Promised Land. They had just finished a 40-year wandering through the Sinai. They were illiterate children of illiterate slaves of the Egyptians. Moreover, at this point in the story, it is *impossible* that they would have had enough copies of the Torah (for, of course, that's all there was to the Bible at this time) to hand out to the hundreds of thousands of families, even if they all *could* read. There would not have been enough resources in the form of ink and parchment during their wanderings, and, in any event, it would take months for one scribe to carefully copy the Torah by hand *once*.

As for the situation later, it is true that, by the time of the Return from exile, the Jews were among the most literate people in antiquity. Not universally literate, but it seems that most people could at least read enough to get by. And it is true, as you say, that many of the Jews could quote much Scripture from memory. But this was a result of the synagogue services they attended, as well as less formal study with the local rabbi. Very few individual Jews could personally own a Torah, nevermind an entire Old Testament. The cost and the time factor in making one would prohibit this.

It would certainly have been profitable for the Israelites, and later the Jews, to learn the Torah, and many did so. Powers of concentration were much more highly developed then, as there were fewer distractions and a higher motivation to memorize things, since, of course, they couldn't simply refer to things at their leisure stored on a CD or in a hard drive! ;-)

The oral transmission of events and culture was much more widespread throughout the ancient world than we often realize. This not only figures-in with the discussion of the Tradition we Catholics are always referring to, it also helps to explain the relatively widespread knowledge of Old Testament Scripture among a small, culturally isolated group of people whom we know as the Jews.

You again quote non contemporary "histories" . There is no evidence that Peter died in Rome.

The evidence is quite clear, if you care to read the many writings of the men who were writing during the same period of time. It is unanimous among ancient authors that Peter died in Rome. No one suggests anything other than Rome. It is only Protestant fantasy that even hopes that Peter didn't die in Rome. The same men also universally list Peter as the first bishop of Rome. This is undeniable by anyone who is aware of the historical evidence.

Romans 1:11 For I long to see you, that I may impart unto you some spiritual gift, to the end you may be established.Is it your position that Peter spent 16 years there and the church is still not established?

Peter did not spend his entire time in Rome. There is quite a bit of evidence that he came and went to other places throughout the known world, such as England. It is not my position that Paul was writing a letter to an "church that was still not established". That is ridiculous logic. The word "established" obviously has a different meaning - probably established into the fullness of Christ.

Considering Peter was buried under a bascilica altar, an active Church, I don't find much merit in that. No one has disproved the finding of Peter in the late 1940's right where the Church said he was.

Did you read it for yourself under the guidance of the Holy Spirit or under the teaching of the church Magistrum ?

They move in the same direction. Isn't that obvious?

Regards

Sorry. I had to wrap the post up before I was done. since I *am* at work, after all!

Anyway, I have to again truncate the answer to the latter part of your questions, so bear with me.

Your citation of John 14: "God's word tells us the Holy Spirit will show us ALL things. [Jn 14:26]: "But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you." This, if anything, bears-out the Catholic position. Jesus is speaking to the Apostles - the original bishops - and is in the process of commissioning them to be the chief teachers of the new Faith in His stead. Jesus is not directing this command to all of His disciples, then or now, but to the Apostles and their successors.

It is manifestly right that He should do so. Dissention and division within the Church were MUCH less prevalent in the days before the Protestant revolt, and for many good reasons. Chief among them was the fact that a universally understood knowledge of the hierarchical nature of the Church existed among all Christians. Interesting, isn't it, that the only two forms of Christianity that have an organic, traceable link to the Apostolic Church - Catholicism and Orthodoxy - have maintained such a structure.

Not without reason, as it goes back to the beginning. The office of bishop ("episkopos" in Greek, sorry, I don't have Greek fonts) literally means "overseer." From the beginning, evident throughout St. Paul's writings and pretty much any early Christian writing from the 2nd Century on, the gradation of authority into different levels is very plain to see. As the Church, as an institution, understood *itself* to be the "pillar and bullwark of the Truth" (1Timothy 3:15), it understood, in that context, that the ultimate responsibility for the pure transmission and safeguarding of the Faith rested with the "higher levels" of authority, the bishops and then the priests who acted at the local level in the bishops' stead. Then, too, remember that MOST of the early Christians were illiterate, coming disproportionately from the slave and plebeian classes within the Empire. Such a state of affairs was true, more or less, throughout the world, in all centuries. Even in the more developed Christian lands, near-universal literacy wasn't attained until the 1800's, so it is a chronological prejudice of modern Christians to suppose that access to the written Word of God was something that everyone could take for granted in previous times.

Gotta go again, but suffice it to say that Sola Scriptura has many practical problems as well as theological ones. Not the least of which is the utter impossibility for it to work in illiterate societies. As for authority, again, the Protestant concept of the perspicuousness (ability to be plainly understood by all) of Scripture is manifestly false. The multitude of opinions regarding almost any given passage belies the notion. We can certainly see that with each and every thread pertaining to Scripture here on FR! An ultimate authority is needed for ultimate interpretation. The Church, prior to the emergence of Protestantism, had such an undisputed authority within the episcopacy and papacy. Much less turmoil involving scriptural interpretation existed, and heresy was much easier to isolate. In contrast we now live in the type of climate St. Paul warned about, where "every wind of doctrine" (Ephesians 4:14, notice the appeal to unity in verse 13, and the division of roles in verse 11!) infects the entire Body of Christ.

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.