Posted on 06/15/2010 6:38:10 AM PDT by bkaycee
Welcome to Free Republic!
sigh ...
Thank you!
What is this??
You’re a trooper! Thanks
Read it.
No thanks.
Excellent article if I do say so myself ;)
Not buying it.
Yep, the Truth will set you free.
BTTT
Catholics and Calvinists’ favorite saying, “You just don’t understand _______” Fill in the blank.
IF you Want to be set free. There are those who somehow find comfort in ignorance and refusal to emulate the Bereans. Wailing and gnashing while lamenting is not pretty.
What each apologist believed individually was never the doctrine of the Church, so if Cyril believed scripture (which was not even canonized at that time) was the sole source of authority, that was not the opinion of the rest of the Church. What the Church believes and sets as dogma is what the Church as a whole (consensus patrum) declares at a General (Ecumenical) Council.
So, the short answer to his drawn-out question is: yes, he did leave the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church!
Your prejudice is showing.
What scriptures would the Bereans follow in 55 AD? The Old Testament. And since when does the OT lead one to believe in Jesus Christ without the New Testament?
I predict, however, that before this thread finally dies down, you will be:
Secondly, Webster finds himself in a pickle regarding his approach to Sola Scriptura, once one looks at the works of the Early Church Fathers in their entirety. He makes the claim that "Sola scriptura was the universal teaching of the church Fathers and for the church as a whole through the later Middle Ages." If this is the case, then he must take one of the following three positions:
1) Since the Fathers used Sola Scriptura, the other doctrines that they advocated (Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, saving efficacy of Baptism, ordination of clergy, use of images in worship, etc) should also be believed, since they were ultimately derived by this method.
2) That the mode of thought used by the Fathers (namely SS) which led to the doctrines that Webster refuses to accept must itself be flawed and thus unworthy of conveying the Gospel - thus Sola Scriptura ought be rejected.
3) That the Fathers, as evidenced by the rest of their theological positions, obviously did not advocate Sola Scriptura as Webster understands it, and that it is a later theological novelty. This would make Webster's portrayal of history inaccurate at best, and maliciously dishonest at worst.
Which is it? Webster wishes to have his cake and eat it too.
I personally choose #3 - but further discussion of this dilemma can be found on this page, which discusses the illogical approach that Webster takes.
In short, YES, Webster did leave the Holy Catholic Church.
Since you're new, I don't know what your MO is - but if you want to actually DISCUSS what Catholics believe, you would be better off avoiding anti-Catholics (and especially EX-Catholics, who tend to be rabidly anti-Catholic) and instead look at what the Church REALLY teaches, by going and reading the Catechism of the Catholic Church (available online), the documents of the Councils, and the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
What I have encountered in these two groups has turned me off of them. So, yes, I am prejudiced.
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.