What did the Early Church believe about the authority of Scripture? (sola Scriptura)

Christian Answers ^ | William Webster

[Gamecock]

The sixteenth century Reformation was responsible for restoring to the Church the principle of sola Scriptura, a principle that had been operative within the Church from the very beginning of the post apostolic age.

Initially the apostles taught orally, but with the close of the apostolic age, all special revelation that God wanted preserved for man was codified in the written Scriptures. Sola Scriptura is the teaching, founded on the Scriptures themselves, that there is only one special revelation from God that man possesses today, the written Scriptures or the Bible.

Consequently the Scriptures are materially sufficient and are by their very nature (as being inspired by God) the ultimate authority for the Church. This means that there is no portion of that revelation which has been preserved in the form of oral tradition independent of Scripture. We do not possess any oral teaching of an Apostle today. Only Scripture therefore records for us the apostolic teaching and the final revelation of God.

Where things went wrong - The Council of Trent denied the sufficiency of Scripture

The Council of Trent in the 16^th century declared that the revelation of God was not contained solely in the Scriptures. It declared that it was contained partly in the written Scriptures and partly in oral tradition and, therefore, the Scriptures were not materially sufficient.

This was the universal view of Roman Catholic theologians for centuries after the Council of Trent. It is interesting to note, however, that in Roman Catholic circles today there is an ongoing debate among theologians on the nature of Tradition. There is no clear understanding of what Tradition is in Roman Catholicism today. Some agree with Trent and some do not.

The Apostolic Fathers and the Apologists held to sola Scriptura

The view promoted by the Council of Trent contradicted the belief and practice of the Early Church. The Early Church held to the principle of sola Scriptura. It believed that all doctrine must be proven from Scripture and if such proof could not be produced, the doctrine was to be rejected.

The Early Church Fathers (Ignatius, Polycarp, Clement, the Didache, and Barnabus) taught doctrine and defended Christianity against heresies. In doing this, their sole appeal for authority was Scripture. Their writings literally breathe with the spirit of the Old and New Testaments. In the writings of the apologists such as Justin martyr and Athenagoras the same thing is found. There is no appeal in any of these writings, to the authority of Tradition as a separate and independent body of revelation.

Irenaeus and Tertullian held to sola Scriptura

It is with the writings of Irenaeus and Tertullian in the mid to late second century that we first encounter the concept of Apostolic Tradition (tradition handed down in the Church from the apostles in oral form). The word tradition simply means teaching. Irenaeus and Tertullian state emphatically that all the teachings of the Bishops that was given orally was rooted in Scripture and could be proven from the written Scriptures.

Both men give the actual doctrinal content of the Apostolic Tradition that was orally preached in the churches. From this, it can be seen clearly that all their doctrine was derived from Scripture. There was no doctrine in what they refer to as apostolic Tradition that is not found in Scripture.

In other words, the apostolic Tradition defined by Irenaeus and Tertullian is simply the teaching of Scripture. It was Irenaeus who stated that while the Apostles at first preached orally, their teaching was later committed to writing (the Scriptures), and the Scriptures had since that day become the pillar and ground of the Churchs faith. His exact statement is as follows:

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than from those through whom the gospel has come down to us, which they did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the ground and pillar of our faith." [1]

Tradition, when referring to oral proclamation such as preaching or teaching, was viewed primarily as the oral presentation of Scriptural truth, or the codifying of biblical truth into creedal expression. There is no appeal in the writings of Irenaeus or Tertullian to a Tradition on issues of doctrine that are not found in Scripture.

Rather, these men had to contend with the Gnostics who were the very first to suggest and teach that they possessed an Apostolic oral Tradition that was independent from Scripture. Irenaeus and Tertullian rejected such a notion and appealed to Scripture alone for the proclamation and defense of doctrine. Church historian, Ellen Flessman-van Leer affirms this fact:

"For Tertullian, Scripture is the only means for refuting or validating a doctrine as regards its content… For Irenaeus, the Church doctrine is certainly never purely traditional; on the contrary, the thought that there could be some truth, transmitted exclusively viva voce (orally), is a Gnostic line of thought… If Irenaeus wants to prove the truth of a doctrine materially, he turns to Scripture, because therein the teaching of the apostles is objectively accessible. Proof from tradition and Scripture serve one and the same end: to identify the teaching of the Church as the original apostolic teaching. The first establishes that the teaching of the Church is this apostolic teaching, and the second, what this apostolic teaching is." [2]

The Bible was the ultimate authority for the Church of the Early Church . It was materially sufficient, and the final arbiter in all matters of doctrinal truth. As J.N.D. Kelly has pointed out:

"The clearest token of the prestige enjoyed by Scripture is the fact that almost the entire theological effort of the Fathers, whether their aims were polemical or constructive, was expended upon what amounted to the exposition of the Bible. Further, it was everywhere taken for granted that, for any doctrine to win acceptance, it had first to establish its Scriptural basis". [3]

Heiko Oberman comments about the relationship between Scripture and Tradition in the Early Church:

"Scripture and tradition were for the Early Church in no sense mutually exclusive: kerygma (the message of the gospel), Scripture and Tradition coincided entirely. The Church preached the kerygma, which is found in toto in written form in the canonical books. The tradition was not understood as an addition to the kerygma contained in Scripture but as handing down that same kerygma in living form: in other words everything was to be found in Scripture and at the same time everything was in living Tradition". [4]

Cyril of Jerusalem held to sola Scriptura

The fact that the early Church was faithful to the principle of sola Scriptura is clearly seen from the writings of Cyril of Jerusalem (the bishop of Jerusalem in the mid 4^th century). He is the author of what is known as the Catechetical Lectures. This work is an extensive series of lectures given to new believers expounding the principle doctrines of the faith. It is a complete explanation of the faith of the Church of his day. His teaching is thoroughly grounded in Scripture. There is in fact not one appeal in the entirety of the Lectures to an oral apostolic Tradition that is independent of Scripture.

He states in explicit terms that if he were to present any teaching to these catechumens which could not be validated from Scripture, they were to reject it. This fact confirms that his authority as a bishop was subject to his conformity to the written Scriptures in his teaching. The following excerpts are some of his statements on the final authority of Scripture from these lectures.

"This seal have thou ever on thy mind; which now by way of summary has been touched on in its heads, and if the Lord grant, shall hereafter be set forth according to our power, with Scripture proofs. For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." [5]

"But take thou and hold that faith only as a learner and in profession, which is by the Church delivered to thee, and is established from all Scripture. For since all cannot read the Scripture, but some as being unlearned, others by business, are hindered from the knowledge of them; in order that the soul may not perish for lack of instruction, in the Articles which are few we comprehend the whole doctrine of Faith…And for the present, commit to memory the Faith, merely listening to the words; and expect at the fitting season the proof of each of its parts from the Divine Scriptures. For the Articles of the Faith were not composed at the good pleasure of men: but the most important points chosen from all Scriptures, make up the one teaching of the Faith. And, as the mustard seed in a little grain contains many branches, thus also this Faith, in a few words, hath enfolded in its bosom the whole knowledge of godliness contained both in the Old and New Testaments. Behold, therefore, brethren and hold the traditions which ye now receive, and write them on the table of your hearts". [6]

Notice in the above passage that Cyril states that catechumens are receiving tradition, and he exhorts them to hold to the traditions, which they are now receiving. From what source is this tradition derived? Obviously it is derived from the Scriptures, the teaching or tradition or revelation of God, which was committed to the Apostles and passed on to the Church, and which is now accessible in Scripture alone.

It is significant that Cyril of Jerusalem, who is communicating the entirety of the faith to these new believers, did not make a single appeal to an oral tradition to support his teachings. The entirety of the faith is grounded upon Scripture and Scripture alone.

Gregory of Nyssa held to sola Scriptura

Gregory of Nyssa also enunciated this principle. He stated:

"The generality of men still fluctuate in their opinions about this, which are as erroneous as they are numerous. As for ourselves, if the Gentile philosophy, which deals methodically with all these points, were really adequate for a demonstration, it would certainly be superfluous to add a discussion on the soul to those speculations. But while the latter proceeded, on the subject of the soul, as far in the direction of supposed consequences as the thinker pleased, we are not entitled to such license, I mean that of affirming what we please; we make the Holy Scriptures the rule and the measure of every tenet; we necessarily fix our eyes upon that, and approve that alone which may be made to harmonize with the intention of those writings." [7]

The Early Church operated on basis of sola Scriptura

These above quotations are simply representative of the Church fathers as a whole. Cyprian, Origen, Hippolytus, Athanasius, Firmilian, and Augustine are just a few of these that could be cited as proponents of the principle of sola Scriptura in addition to Tertullian, Irenaeus, Cyril and Gregory of Nyssa. The Early Church operated on the basis of the principle of sola Scriptura. It was this historical principle that the Reformers sought to restore to the Church. The extensive use of Scripture by the fathers of the Early Church from the very beginning are seen in the following facts:

Irenaeus: He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. He lived from c 130 to 202 AD. He quotes from twenty-four of the twenty-seven books of the New Testament, taking over 1,800 quotations from the New Testament alone.

Clement of Alexandria: He lived from 150 to 215 AD. He cites all the New Testament, books except Philemon, James and 2 Peter. He gives 2,400 citations from the New Testament.

Tertullian: He lived from 160 to 220 AD. He makes over 7,200 New Testament citations.

Origen: He lived from 185 to 254 AD. He succeeded Clement of Alexandria at the Catechetical school at Alexandria. He makes nearly 18,000 New Testament citations. By the end of the 3^rd century, virtually the entire New Testament could be reconstructed from the writings of the Church Fathers.

Customs and Practices as Apostolic Oral Tradition

It is true that the Early Church also held to the concept of tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices. It was often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles, even though they could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. These practices, however, did not involve the doctrines of the faith, and were often contradictory among different segments of the Church.

An example of this is found early on in the 2^nd century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a different day from those in the West, but each claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the apostles. This actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who demanded that the Eastern Bishops submit to the Western practice. This they refused to do, firmly believing that they were adhering to apostolic Tradition.

Which one is correct? There is no way to determine which, if either, was truly of Apostolic origin. It is interesting, however, to note that one of the proponents for the Eastern view was Polycarp, who was a disciple of the apostle John. There are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a certain Church Father claims that a particular practice is of apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily was. All it meant was that he believes that it was. But there was no way to verify if in fact it was a tradition from the Apostles.

There are numerous practices in which the Early Church engaged which it believed were of Apostolic origin (listed by Basil the Great), but which no one practices today. Clearly therefore, such appeals to oral apostolic Tradition that refer to customs and practices are meaningless.

The Roman Catholic Church’s appeal to Tradition as an authority is not valid.

The Roman Catholic Church states that it possesses an oral apostolic Tradition which is independent of Scripture, and which is binding upon men. It appeals to Paul's statement in 2 Thessalonians 2:15: "Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle".

Rome asserts that, based on Paul's teaching in this passage, the teaching of sola Scriptura is false, since he handed on teachings to the Thessalonians in both oral and written form. But what is interesting in such an assertion is that Roman apologists never document the specific doctrines to which Paul is referring which they claim they possess, and which they say are binding upon men. From Francis de Sales to the writings of Karl Keating and Robert Sungenis there is a very conspicuous absence of documentation of the specific doctrines to which the Apostle Paul is referring.

Sungenis edited a work recently on a defense of the Roman Catholic teaching of tradition entitled Not By Scripture Alone. It is touted as a definitive refutation of the Protestant teaching of sola Scriptura. His book is 627 pages in length. Not once in the entire book does any author define the doctrinal content of this supposed apostolic Tradition that is binding on all men! Yet, we are told that it exists, that the Roman Catholic Church possesses it, and that we are bound, therefore, to submit to this church which alone possesses the fullness of God's revelation from the Apostles.

What Sungenis and other Roman Catholic authors fail to define, is the contents and precise doctrines of the claimed “apostolic Tradition”. The simple reason that they do not do so is because it does not exist. If such traditions existed and were of such importance why did Cyril of Jerusalem not mention them in his Catechetical Lectures?

We defy anyone to list the doctrines to which Paul is referring in 2 Thessalonians 2:15 which he says he committed orally to the Thessalonians. The only special revelation man possesses today from God that was committed to the Apostles is the written Scriptures.

This was the belief and practice of the early Church

. This principle was adhered to by the Reformers. They sought to restore it to the Church after doctrinal corruption had entered through the door of tradition.

The teaching of a separate body of apostolic revelation known as Tradition that is oral in nature originated not with the Christian Church but rather with Gnosticism. This was an attempt by the Gnostics to bolster their authority by asserting that the Scriptures were not sufficient. They stated that they possessed the fullness of Apostolic revelation because they not only had the written revelation of the Apostles in the Scriptures but also their oral tradition, and additionally, the key for interpreting and understanding that revelation.

Just as the Early Church Fathers repudiated that teaching and claim by an exclusive reliance upon and appeal to the written Scriptures, so must we.

"My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" John 10:27.

What does the Bible teach about sola Scriptura (final authority of Scripture)? Answer

Endnotes

1. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, editors, Ante-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Vol. 1, Irenaeus, “Against Heresies” 3.1.1, p. 414. [up]

2. Ellen Flessman-van Leer, Tradition and Scripture in the Early Church (Assen: Van Gorcum, 1953) pp. 184, 133, 144. [up]

3. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1978), pp. 42, 46. [up]

4. Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366. [up]
5. A Library of the Fathers of the Holy Catholic Church (Oxford: Parker, 1845), "The Catechetical Lectures of S. Cyril" Lecture 4.17. [up]

6. Ibid., Lecture 5.12. [up]

7. Philip Schaff and Henry Wace, editors, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers (Peabody: Hendriksen, 1995) Second Series: Volume V, Gregory of Nyssa: Dogmatic Treatises, "On the Soul and the Resurrection", p. 439. [up]

[Rashputin]

And what was handed down orally was written down as the basis for the CCC. As in other earlier writings, not everything is tied to scripture verses and direct quotes exactly because it is much older than the writings that make up the Bible and there were not chapters and verses until much, much, later. That's why the early fathers usually say, "Thus it is written ...", or "... the holy word saith ..." rather than making exact direct quotes complete with a reference. Likewise, what Apostles passed down was most often attributed to them as a group with, " ... the Apostles taught us ...", that sort of thing. Given the circumstances, I'm sure that save for what was written by each one individually the chain of who in particular said what was long gone by the time the Bible was put together. Naturally, then, it would be gathered together and written down. When there was no way to be sure which Apostle said a particular thing, it was written without attribution other than reference to something that was saved and included in the Scripture or with something like, "as were were instructed".

No matter what anyone tells you, CCC was not spun from whole cloth to suit someone in particular, but was carefully gathered up from the oral tradition passed down by the Apostles. It is exactly what you asked for, the oral tradition written down.

There are available speakers who go paragraph by paragraph and disagree with parts, but I have found that when pursued beyond taking the speakers own word, you find the speaker is himself misinterpreting a paragraph due to what he may have been told or understood. If you follow through and read the Scripture that supports various paragraphs, seven eighths of what Catholics are accused of vanishes. I did not start my journey with Catholic writings and I assure you I never planned on agreeing with and reconciling with the Catholic Church. It is, however, the Church Christ established and it is hard for me to, "... kick against the goads" (NKJV, pricks in KJV).

I have studied for many years to reach the point I'm at now and I have talked to many people who argue by rote and when that is insufficient become emotionally involved. I am surprised to find, however, that such an approach and such a reaction are the norm here. Cutting and dismissive quips, or statements clearly not in keeping with His command to be as harmless as doves are the normal responses around here. To date, I see far more people concerned with the reaction of cheerleaders than with the risk of turning others away from Christ with their responses. It is absolutely amazing to see so many people leaping with joy at their own ability to feed their own ego and display their own cleverness while no doubt calling that "witnessing" or "defending the faith". I am well aware that the vast majority of Protestants of all denominations are earnest in their faith, but I was unaware until recently how many put their own pride far above the Word they claim to cherish.

Rather than give in to the urge to be angry with such reactions, I try to take folks at their word and so you must be sincere in wanting to spread what you see as the Truth, so I will pray that you find some better way to deal with those who are seeking it. May God have mercy on the lot of you.

have a nice day

[sr4402]

The reason Catholics hold to Tradition and Oral authority is to support Marianism. In 1854 Pope Pius IX gave All Salvation, All Grace and All healing to Mary. He also proclaimed her immaculate conception (not that of the Lord Jesus Christ). Pope Pius XII in 1950 proclaimed her Bodily Assumption (without sin into heaven).

Thus you need Tradition to support the takeover of Salvation from the Lord Jesus Christ to Mary and worship her.

After all, that was what the Rosary Beads signified.

Your choice is simple, Continue in the Catholic Church and Worship Mary as your Savior or follow the Lord Jesus Christ. It is that simple.

[sr4402]

The reason Sola Scriptura is rejected by Catholics is to Support the Tradition of Maranism.

Pope Pius IX in 1854 gave ALL SALVATION, ALL GRACE, ALL HEALING to Mary. He also gave her a sinless birth. In 1950 Pope Pius XII proclaimed her Sinless assumption into heaven.

Thus is the reason Catholics support Tradition, It is to support Mary as their Savior. Thus your choice is simple, Follow Mary as your Savior or Follow the Lord Jesus Christ.

Only the Scriptures show the way.

[Jvette]

Though we, 2000 years down the road accept the doctrines of the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the two natures of Jesus, there was much debate and dissension on these very crucial teachings of who and what Jesus is in relation to God and the Holy Spirit, to man and creation and to redemption and salvation.

These theological debates took place over years and through councils and synods the teachings took shape and definition. The pope of the time did not just make a proclamation and demand that it be binding. Each detail of the doctrines were examined and delineated in regards to

This goes back to what I said in an earlier post or on a different thread(?)that the Holy Spirit works through many. Catholics do not believe that He only moves through the pope.

There is a general misunderstanding among Protestants regarding the pope, his infallibility and doctrine. Let’s look again at the council of Jerusalem which is the first such council and the template for those that followed.

Peter proclaimed that the Holy Spirit has shown him that God has redeemed even the Gentiles. Note that NO ONE questions, disputes or rejects his claim. The question of the council was “How were the Gentiles to be brought into this new faith? Would they be required to undergo circumcision, which was a ritual that consecrated the Jewish man to God and set him apart from non-Gentiles?”

Peter reminds those gathered of what had happened earlier and how God had spoken through him. Again, no one disputes his authority in pronouncing that. Discussion ensued with Paul and Barnabas supporting Peter who said that the Gentiles were not to be burdened with the “laws” that had burdened the Jewish people and were not enough to save them. Gentiles and Jews alike were saved by the grace of God, through Jesus and were no longer yoked by the law.

James agrees and thus Peter has been affirmed. This is the purpose of these councils and synods. The Holy Spirit moves and the leaders of the church pray and study Scripture and Tradition to discern the truth the Holy Spirit is leading them to understand. These things are not done solely and arbitrarily by a pope. He has Scripture and he has the advise and council of not only his contemporaries, but of the Fathers and Doctors of the church who came before him. Exactly the same things Peter had at that very first council.

Thus when the pope declares as binding and without error a matter of doctrine, or faith and morals, we can trust that the Holy Spirit has moved through him to preserve the truth and protect us from error. This does not mean that everything the pope says or does is binding or doctrinal or that the pope is perfect in his words and deeds.

Even today there are those who reject the Trinity and that Jesus is true God and true man. Were Scripture itself so self explanatory and self illuminating, there would be no question or dispute regarding what we accept as true. But, we know that is not the case and so we have the Holy Spirit guiding us through the Church, and the pope is the earthly and visible head of that Church. He is not a dictator or tyrant as some would claim.

[pgyanke]

Beautifully written... lovingly explained.

[GCC Catholic]

You can scream all you want but with the Pope snuggling up with the Muslims and the picture of him kissing the Koran they have a point.

I'm well aware of that photo. It's scandalous to many Catholics as well.

The whole religion has a problem with there view on Muslims in my view. This from their own catechism.

# 841 [...]

When we look at that line within the context of the rest of the section, it is brought into perspective. That whole section speaks of those OUTSIDE of the Church and in CCC 846-848 reiterates the Church's teaching of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus - Outside the Church, there is no Salvation, which is followed by an explanation of the necessity of missions.

In that context, it begins to make more sense. Let's break it apart now...

# 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims.

“The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator,

Of course God's plan of salvation includes them... it includes EVERYONE - whether they accept or reject the plan of God is another matter entirely.

in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims;

"in the first place" meaning of this group that acknowledges the Creator - Orthodox and Protestant Christians and the Jews are discussed in the previous paragraphs 836-840. Each of those groups acknowledges more than just the existence of the Creator - The Jews being partakers in the old Covenant, Protestants acknowledging Jesus Christ, and Orthodox acknowledging Jesus Christ as well as the Sacraments (to put it rather simply).

these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

Whether they ACTUALLY hold to the Faith of Abraham is another matter entirely. If they really do adore the God of Abraham, then we are speaking of the same God - but whether they do or not is a legitimate issue in my mind (and one that I really think was naively omitted in the Vatican II document Nostra Aetate where this quote comes from).

---

Context is important.

Incidentally, it is this same "prooftexting" approach (sans context) that led Webster in the original article to draw an incorrect conclusion about the Fathers, which was easily debunked.

[CynicalBear]

I gotta tell ya GCC, I don’t think you’re going to convince anyone who is not entrenched and looking for some sort of placebo to justify the church they belong to. I do feel for your position but my advice would be to take a really close look at what’s happing today in the RCC.

[bronx2]

Your reply demonstrates an uneducated understanding of Catholicism. You have a problem with accepting the fact that Catholics do not worship Mary notwithstanding the rant you offer as proof. Perhaps full comprehension of this salient facts transcends an ability to comprehend complex situations.

Limited comprehensive skills might well explain why so many reformers have flawed interpretative skills of biblical materials.

Sola scriptura is not supported by the bible itself and of course the Church with the guidance of the Holy Spirit provided the compilation of sacred scripture.But I would bet you can't accept that fact but cling to some revisionist historical fantasy.

[Jvette]

Thank you.

I was in a hurry this morning because of work and failed to finish this sentence....

Each detail of the doctrines were examined and delineated in regards to what it said about Jesus and what obligations it placed on the faithful.

[Jvette]

The pope is not just the head of the Catholic Church, he is also the head of an independent state. There are certain protocols he has to follow.

I will admit that I had no idea this had happened since at the time I was an agnostic who professed no real faith or attended any church.

I had to do some research. I did not find any explanation from the pope as to his motives. I did find many Catholics and non Catholics alike who were troubled by the action.

It would be wrong of me to try to speak for him, but a sign of respect is not out of order for a head of state or visiting dignitary. For example, Nancy Pelosi and Hilary Clinton wear head scarves when they visit a Muslim country.
Do you think because they do that they are condoning the practice?

We don’t know God’s plan for the Muslims. They do profess to be descendants of Abraham, just as the Jews do and just as we Christians do.

Did he do it ecumenically, as a head of state or as an acknowledgment that the Islamic people are just like us in most respects? They seek to know and love God. They are not all murderous thugs and maybe it was to them that he was reaching out.

When the angels announced the birth of Jesus they said, “Peace to people of good will.” Maybe that was the pope’s way of saying that to the millions of Muslims who do seek peace and not war.

Again, the pope is not perfect in all he says and does. It is a mistake to think that and silly in light of the many faults and scandals involving popes.

However, when one looks back upon the history of the church, one sees that the Holy Spirit protects us from them in that while they may have been personally sinful and scandalous, they never declared that their sin was not sin or that the faithful should emulate them. They never declared as doctrine anything that would endanger the souls of those in their care.

Peter was not perfect, nor was Paul, in fact none of the Apostles were, yet when you read Scripture, you believe it and accept that the Holy Spirit worked through them to preserve the truth.

That is what we trust today. That the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit proclaims, teaches, preserves and protects truth.

[GCC Catholic]

I gotta tell ya GCC, I don’t think you’re going to convince anyone who is not entrenched and looking for some sort of placebo to justify the church they belong to. I do feel for your position but my advice would be to take a really close look at what’s happing today in the RCC.

Just because you may not find it convincing doesn't mean that others won't.

I'm perfectly aware of the real problems going on in the Catholic Church today. There are plenty - including the naiveté of many Catholic prelates concerning Islam.

If anything, a serious discussion concerning Nostra Aetate needs to take place - but CCC 841 is hardly the problem you made it out to be.

Or did you mean something else?

[Notwithstanding]

ALL of the material at the link I provided has been handed on through apostolic tradition. It is the deposit of faith, which is what the Church has always and shall forever preserve and pass along so that all might believe and be saved and be one in Him.

Your formula of billions of personal papacies defeats Christ’s prayer that all may be one.

[sr4402]

The appeal to tradition and against scripture supports Marianism. For Matthew 13:55 must be dismissed as well as other multiple verses disproving it.

This is what Man's Tradition does, it attacks Scripture and its authority.

Not one word of Scripture will fall to the ground, each verse is more precious than perishable gold. It is because God ordained it to be so and that He Himself is "The Word of God".

Catholics should leave any church that attacks Scripture and the Scriptures Authority. And especially in the light that the Tradition of Marianism will produce its fruit in due season. It just might not taste so good.

[bronx2]

Your flawed contention that Catholicism supports Tradition against scripture is fantasy of the highest magnitude. It is the Church inspired by the Holy Spirit which complied scripture as we presently know it to be. Yet the sin of Pride does not allow for one to acknowledge this salient fact.

The exegesis provided in your post is seriously flawed. Your understanding of historical reality leaves much to be desired and will not serve you well in your final judgment. It will only provide eternal disaster with a burning taste in your mouth.

[CynicalBear]

>>but a sign of respect is not out of order for a head of state or visiting dignitary.<<

I don’t think Jesus ever put state above faith. One cannot serve two masters you know. I’ll let the scriptures speak for the respect we should have of “other gospels”.

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.” Galatians 1:8-9

2 John 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. 10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

>>They do profess to be descendants of Abraham, just as the Jews do and just as we Christians do.<<

The promise is to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. God Specifically stated the lineage that was to be blessed as “sons of Abraham”.

Abraham released Ishmael and Hagar as slaves. At the age of fourteen, Ishmael became a free man along with his mother. Under Mesopotamian law, their freedom absolved them from laying claim to any inheritance that Abraham and Sarah had.

The Arabs have no special rights and the god they serve is NOT the God of the Bible.

>>Again, the pope is not perfect in all he says and does.<<

Non of us are perfect but when one openly receives the Muslims or any other who openly denies Christ as savior is “partaker of his evil deeds” and is to be condemned and avoided. I would suggest the Pope entered that category.

[CynicalBear]

See my post 195. I would suggest that not only is it important by cause for being “accursed”. Notice the “bid him Godspeed” portion of the verse.

[Iscool]

ALL of the material at the link I provided has been handed on through apostolic tradition. It is the deposit of faith, which is what the Church has always and shall forever preserve and pass along so that all might believe and be saved and be one in Him.

Naw, don't even play that game...

It was stated that the original Apostles passed on to your church oral tradition that was not included in the scriptures...

And scripture was provided which you guys say proves it...

So quit playing dodge ball and post the traditions passed on by Paul and Peter...

[sr4402]

Your flawed contention that Catholicism supports Tradition against scripture is fantasy of the highest magnitude.

Then defend it instead of showing such implacable hatred.

1) I claim that Matthew 13:55 is correct, and that Jesus's brothers by His mother Mary were "James, Joses, Simon and Judas". Catholic Tradition is that Mary had no other children by Jesus.

2) You also need to defend the Ubi Primam of 1849 which states "For, God has committed to Mary... all salvation" which is on the Catholic Website http://www.ewtn.com/library/encyc/p9ubipr2.htm

3)I maintain that Salvation was accomplished by Christ Alone for His people, and that "all salvation" is certainly not committed to Mary. Therefore, which is correct, the Papal Doctrine or Scripture?

4)Also I would remind you that Mary in the Magnificat said "God my Savior". Thus Mary claimed to be a Sinner and that God was her Savior. Again, which is correct, Papal Doctrine or Scripture?

I would remind you that this is an International Forum and Decorum is advised if any are to accept what you believe.

[Jvette]

CynicalBear, I did not say that Arabs have special rights nor did I say that they serve the God the God of the Bible. If that is what you think I said, it is a misunderstanding.

I am well aware of the the story of Hagar and her son and the Arab/Muslim claim that it was Ishmael whom Abraham was commanded by God to sacrifice.

I spoke of what they claim and how the pope may have been respectful of that in his actions. Isn’t it more important to start from common ground rather than what separates us?

Jesus went among and interacted with people that were prohibited to the Jewish people. He associated with sinners, a prostitute, lepers and tax collectors and by doing so, scandalized His fellow Hebrews.

Peter in the verse I gave you says quite openly that it is forbidden for him to be around Gentiles lest he be considered impure because of it. Yet, he knew the Holy Spirit had led him to do so.

Everyday I interact with people who are not of my faith. Am I to refuse service in my department store to a LDS family seeking to buy clothes for the son who is going on a mission? Shall I attack and curse the Jehovah’s Witnesses who come to my door? How about the many Indian/Pakistani/Iranian/Iraqi/Asian people I meet? Shall I curse them? Or can I be respectful without accepting their faith as truth?

Are they not children of God too? Does God not want them to be with Him in heaven for eternity?

For that matter, what of the protestant ministers who have attended mass or held prayer services with Catholics and people of non-Christian faiths? Remember those held after 9/11?

It is a complicated world in which we live. The pope, as do we all, must find a way to live in peace with others and pray that through our peaceful interactions we may be a light of truth for them.

[CynicalBear]

All nicey nicey pladitudes but the leader of a religion receiving the deniers of Christ? Well, once again, I’ll let scripture speak.

2 John 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: 11 For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds. >> Does God not want them to be with Him in heaven for eternity?<<

“…I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.” -Romans 9:15-16

“You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?” Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?” -Romans 9:19-21