Replies

Thank you for your willingness to educate me, but as a confirmed Catholic and former alter boy, it is not necessary.

Well, then I am a little bit puzzled. I assume you are no longer a practicing Catholic, then, right? If you are, you must also realize that your positions are contrary to that of the Church. How do you reconcile this for yourself? If you are no longer a Catholic, what is your current denomination, if any? You also state that Sacred Tradition is "very useful," but "not equal to God's revealed and holy Word." If this is a misinterpretation, I trust you will correct me on this.

I don't know how you can say this, given the fact that the first Christians did not have a complete Bible. Nor does this statement make much sense when you consider that the Church produced the Bible and not vice-versa. How do you resolve this in your mind?

Let's consider the facts. Biblical scholars tell us that the last book of the New Testament was not written until the end of the 1st century A.D., that is, until around the year 100 A.D. THis fact would leave roughly a 65-year gap between Our Lord's Ascension into Heaven and the completion of the Bible as we know it. The question that begs to be asked here, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during this time?"

If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time. But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church--particularly, "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20)--not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

You also quote Liftin:

Each local church supports the witness of each believer in it and holds that testimony up before the world. Paul did not elaborate how it does this here, though the models suggested by the terms “shepherd” (“pastor”), “elder,” “overseer,” and “deacon” provide some clues.

I am not sure I fully understand what this passage is meant to convey, but I believe I have already refuted this idea--which seems to be the idea that the Church is just the invisible collection of believers around the world. See my previous thread, above, which you may have already commented on--in which case I will reply shortly. There, I state that the Mystical Body of Christ, yes, is the Church, but the Church is also the unbroken Apostolic line that is represented by the visible Church as the Deposit of Faith.

Finally, no, the Church does not have the same history of vacillation and changes that the Protestant churches have had, not when it comes to major doctrinal issues. One must differentiate between Tradition (upper-case "T") that is part of divine Revelation, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, Church traditions (lower-case "t") that, although good, have developed in the Church later and are not part of the Deposit of Faith. An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism; an example of a Church tradition would be the Church's calendar of feast days of Saints. Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable, while Church traditions are changeable by the Church. Sacred tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing whta the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it has always understood any given portion of the Bible. One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church's public worship.

>>>If you are, you must also realize that your positions are contrary to that of the Church.

Yes. The great news is that they are in line with God's Word. I can live with that dichotomy.

>>>I don't know how you can say this, given the fact that the first Christians did not have a complete Bible.

What a blessing that we do today! Great news, huh!

>>>Nor does this statement make much sense when you consider that the Church produced the Bible and not vice-versa. How do you resolve this in your mind?

The Church didn't produce the Bible. The Church, as an instrument of God, formalized the Canon of Scripture - for which all Christians should be thankful. Count me in!

>>>The question that begs to be asked here, therefore, is this: "Who or what served as the final, infallible authority during this time?"

The existing portions of God's Word (the Hebrew Scriptures and completed Books) and the authority of the Apostles who were alive at the time.

>>>If the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura were true, then since the Church existed for a time without the entire written Word of God, there would have been situations and doctrinal issues which could not have been resolved with finality until all of the New Testament books were complete. The ship would have been left without a rudder, so to speak, at least for a time.

See above

>>>But this goes contrary to the statements and promises that Our Lord made about His Church--particularly, "Behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world" (Matt. 28:20)--not to mention that He told His disciples: "I will not leave you orphans." (John 14:18).

I know the verses. I don't think they support your conclusion.

>>>I believe I have already refuted this idea--which seems to be the idea that the Church is just the invisible collection of believers around the world.

You spoke to your believe about this issue, but let me say with genuiness, I don't find your view to coincide with the Biblical view, so I don't find it convincing. The Church, the Bride of Christ, is composed of all Christians (alive or dead) who are sealed in Christ by the Holy Spirit. On earth, among the living, the Church is composed of gatherings of believers - regardless of denomination - who have received God's gift of grace. So I agree, we are not completely invisible! I'm a member of the Catholic Church - just not the Roman variety.

>>>There, I state that the Mystical Body of Christ, yes, is the Church, but the Church is also the unbroken Apostolic line that is represented by the visible Church as the Deposit of Faith.

Thanks. Read your statement. The Greek Orthodox Church would have some things to say to you about who has the unbroken line of Apostolic succession. Personally, I do not see that concept in Scripture, nor necessary to establish a gathering of believers into a church. Nor do I see that as a required definition of the Church. I don't see that in the scriptures either. Do you have a passage that states this?

>>>Finally, no, the Church does not have the same history of vacillation and changes that the Protestant churches have had, not when it comes to major doctrinal issues.

Ah, my FRiend. I've studied more pages of Church history than I ever wanted to, including the history of doctrine in the Roman Catholic Church. I find much disagreement with your statement.

>>>An example of something that is part of Tradition would be infant Baptism;

I'd love to see that in Scripture.

>>>Anything that is part of Tradition is of divine origin and hence unchangeable

Made up out of the opinion of men, unfortunately - not revealed by God. The claim of divine origin is unprovable.

>>>Sacred tradition serves as a rule of faith by showing whta the Church has believed consistently through the centuries and how it has always understood any given portion of the Bible.

"Always", I would find to be an inaccurate description of many doctrines, based on Church history. What you view as "Sacred Tradition", I have no problem with, as long as it doesn't violate the clear teaching of scripture. If it does, it doesn't matter what men call it. If scripture is silent (in that case), there is room for practice. No argument from me on that. Our point of difference is that I don't find the concept of Sacred Tradition provable... so I guess we have to disagree.

>>>One of the main ways in which Tradition has been passed down to us is in the doctrine contained in the ancient texts of the liturgy, the Church's public worship.

Ditto above.

I've learned that I have far more in agreement - and the essentials of the Christian faith - in common with your Church than we have differences. Other groups who are represented on this thread, like the cultic mormonite group, are a whole new religion. Are you aware that they have restored what your group lost? They don't need the Apostolic succession either, they have a "Living Prophet"! :-)

best,

ampu