Posted on 05/10/2013 7:36:49 PM PDT by boatbums
It might be a good idea if you and your cohort, Natural Law, at least agreed on what your primary argument is going to be here. You repeat the assertion you started six hundred posts ago that concludes Protestant "heretics" do not have a complete Bible because they "chopped" books from it that are inspired by God and belong on the same level as the rest of the mutually agreed upon Scriptures. Yet, your good buddy, NL, insists:
Your position is an irrelevant non sequitur. No truth can be assembled from false premises and your dissection of the Catholic Canon of Scripture presupposes that Sola Scriptura was the purpose for that Canon. It was not. As I am stating now for the third time in this the Canon was established for the sole purpose of identifying those inspired texts suitable for inclusion in the Liturgy of the Word within the Mass. To suggest that non-Catholics would have a voice in the determination of which writings are suitable is preposterous.
Further, the Canon does not serve to identify the sole deposit of faith, nor does it attempt to suggest that within the canon a hierarchy of Scripture does not exist. Quite the opposite. The order of the readings, with the Old Testament, including the Deutercanonicals first, followed by the various letters and at the apex the Gospels is the Tradition that the Canon serves.
So, who's point IS the point? If Catholics receive a canon that contains books they acknowledge are NOT on the same level as sacred, inspired Scripture but accept them as useful for their "liturgy", what is the big dust up when the Reformers wanted to establish a canon so that it consisted of ONLY the inspired texts?
If, as Paul said, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works." (II Timothy 3:16,17), is a genuine Christian belief, then it SHOULD be obvious that they would need to know what WAS Scripture.
“Really? Why then did only 4/12 Apostles produce Scripture that was included in the Catholic canon? How do you explain than Mark and Luke, who were not Apostles, were included?”
Peter calling the writings of Paul “scripture”:
2Pe 3:15-16 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; (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.
Paul quoting the Gospel of Luke alongside Moses as “scripture”:
1Ti 5:18 For the scripture saith, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn. And, The labourer is worthy of his reward.
The greek follows the usage by Luke, a non-Apostle:
Luk 10:7 And in the same house remain, eating and drinking such things as they give: for the labourer is worthy of his hire. Go not from house to house.
And the reference from Deut:
Deu_25:4 Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn.
Here James quotes a teaching principally found in the Gospels by Jesus Christ:
Jas_2:8 If ye fulfil the royal law according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself, ye do well:
Evidently the Apostles had no problem considering their close associates to be scripture producers, the same as they. As for why not all the apostles wrote. Well, you’d have to ask them. It doesn’t disprove that they were producing scripture as was their right as the Prophets of old were wont to do. Not every single Prophet in the Old Testament wrote scripture either, even though they had that right if God so commanded.
If you have nothing intelligent to add to this conversation but childish cartoons and silly insults, please show a little self-control and refrain yourself. Grown-ups are talking. Thanks!
Please forgive if you will, my own failure to reply to your previous note sooner As much as for some primary consideration (there being multiple components to the points you raised in rebuttal) but for reason also of the acrimony, falsehoods & misrepresentations so abundantly on display in the thread from that point onward (including at least one instance of that "criminal" excerpting I made mention of, and another instance of an excerpted quote used as basis of argumentation, and that argumentative contentiousness being near fully 180 degrees out of phase in light of the snippet of quote being leveraged, in a near ceaseless repetitive flow of the like, and worse) the spirit evident behind such proceedings of rhetoric & dialog, grieved my own spirit to the extent I could not gather from within myself the exactitude required to reply in turn to items you touched upon, including their further reach of implication (as such was being sought to apply?) with any hope of doing so in brevity.
Though I no have real regret for not then furthering the discussion, and speaking light of historical record, (particularly from the very beginnings) as to logical examination of various, as I am wont to say, Romish claims or positions, as they are expressed and/or propounded to be today (as frequently witnessed on this forum), I did have regret for not responding in similar tone of cordiality earlier, such as you yourself had the courtesy of extending. My thanks to you for that sort of thing, and again, my apologies for failure to provide timely, further reply.
If you will allow...(and at risk of further irritating those whom scroll through comments without there being way to exclude the RF--- for I can relate to and understand that sort of suffering, and so do beg their pardon also) there was a point you touched upon I desire to address. At risk of too harshly chopping at your own comment, which risk I'm willing to venture, for you yourself know best what idea was being expressed, this fragment isolates;
To this, must be reference to developmental theory(?), a proposal along the lines of Newman terming it an "unpacking" of what is claimed to have been there all along? Explanations for how things became as they are today, for things not found support for in the scripture, but even more for all else, I suppose...
Yet...for where criticism of that same be due, what is there but otherwise proclaimed so often, "as handed down by Christ to the Apostles" to which the more subtle of the Sophists will be careful to add the loophole "...Apostles, and their successors" while pointing simultaneously rather vaguely towards "oral tradition" as cover for doctrinal mindsets opening up only many centuries later, or simply "tradition" itself for basis of yet more of the same [expansions] and outright adoption of development as dogma --- with such ideas oft times in opposition to the earliest of the "Patristic Fathers" whom were much closer to anything resembling oral tradition as handed down to and from the more original capital "A" Apostles. Patristic Fathers (from the first centuries, when they are accessed in effort to reach back to beginnings) are much edited, cherry picked for *some* quotes much massaged in support of Rome (when possible) often by way of criminal ellipse from wider context, and all too often totally ignored when opposition be found there for these "unpacked" things, such as papal supremacy, when under closer examination, and/or being promoted and spoken of.
It was not for nothing I supplied link previous to a letter of (pope) Gregory the Great, for although he came along centuries later than the Apostles and their most immediate successors;
In the same letter, here is yet another snippet driving the same point home, which the lengthy note did over and again, there being one central theme;
What then, dearest brother, will you say in that terrible scrutiny of the coming judgment, if you covet to be called in the world not only father, but even general father? Let, then, the bad suggestion of evil men be guarded against; let all instigation to offense be fled from. It must needs be (indeed) that offenses come; nevertheless, woe to that man by whom the offense comes [Matthew 18:7]. Lo, by reason of this execrable title of pride the Church is rent asunder, the hearts of all the brethren are provoked to offense. What! Has it escaped your memory how the Truth says, Whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a mill stone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea (Ib. 5:6)? But it is written, Charity seeks not her own [1 Corinthians 13:4]. Lo, your Fraternity arrogates to itself even what is not its own. Again it is written, In honour preferring one another [Romans 12:10]. And you attempt to take the honour away from all which you desire unlawfully to usurp to yourself singularly. Where, dearest brother, is that which is written, Have peace with all men, and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord [Hebrews 12:14]? Where is that which is written, Blessed are the peacemakers; for they shall be called the children of God [Matthew 5:9]?
Complicating things yet further when one reaches back to quote-mine ECF's, is that usage of the word "pope", it's THEN inherent meanings and thus implication, ... in more ancient catholic tradition, pretty much all bishops, wherever located were called "pope" with that title being synonymous with "bishop". Stop and think about THAT for a moment in light of excerptings, "criminal" or not. Earliest ECF, could be directly quoted, yet 'misquoted' as to what their own meanings actually were at the time which they spoke or wrote,...and this by default, due to the direction of change in the application and meaning of the word "pope", would produce positive error towards support of possibly first, papal primacy, and dependent upon context of usage (say in a column of quotes purporting to "establish" there have been always such a thing as "pope" as it is known today, but with that not being at all true. In this sort of thing, I am not speaking here of the once upon a time, three-at-a-time Latin "popes" competing for office of the Latin church, or even of literature dated centuries previous to that, speaking of popes simultaneously in Rome, North Africa, and Asia Minor, as such were addressed among others, but speaking towards as it was in the beginnings not limited to those three, and that also all [bishops] were theologically speaking, to be considered on the same level, even as at the same time human beings (Christians) did ascribe particular panache to the double Apostolicity (Peter & Paul) for the bishopric of Rome. Which through wagging tongues, and the weaknesses of men, and their failure to submit themselves one to another as Christ directed, in sundry ways led eventually to Rome asserting herself over all others, resulting in the Great Schism itself; Which leaves myself no possibility for any real acceptance of the claim there was much possibility as you put it, for;
As it does today. ??? No sir, it is far too far now expanded, to state it like that. Bringing others under subjection by force, even if today it be but force of much brow-beating (along with intimations and more open attempts of intimidation, zealously demanding that today's era Roman Pontiff be Christ's own representative on earth, (except for when or if he can be seen to not be) and that to oppose in deed or word is to oppose God (at times that may be so, depending upon what idea is being spoken of at any one time, and how that same be presented) which overstates the case for one bishop having that much invested, even if it be also true at the same time, that the whole dang crowd is said to speak for God, as if they only were prophets (as if, Ha!) and that by committee(!), yet those committee proceedings need too be carefully weighed and considered in their own little hierarchies of what can be under further debate and what cannot, etc. Say hello to the latter-day Sanhedrin? Almost...but with some significant, positive differences perhaps, it should be granted...yet with latter-day rabbinical tendencies also, as underpinnings to this religious "Court".
Leaving mankind's "by committee", long in developing "reactions" to the Lord's own sacrifice, in comparison and in mixture with man's still much fallen state for a brief moment, before again returning to that;
It was for as remedy for the sinful, fallen creature that man became at the fall of Adam, that The Creator himself, in the form of his only begotten son, placed himself upon a cross, dying in our place.
In contrast to that, it is because of the sinfulness of mankind, even those whom would be and are to this day, a part of His church, that things much are as they are, today...with this less than desired symptom certainly not limited to the Latin church and it's closest affiliates.
I contend that it was not by foreknowledge of the Lord and his own heart's desire, nor by his own direction as handed down to the Apostles, nor yet by those Apostles directions themselves, that such as office of the papacy, with all the baggage associated with it's slow, unfolding arrival upon the scene, and it's present meanings... be desired to be in existence in the first place, even if it be inevitable that such would come about, due again to the sin nature of man, and what was done with what had been received, handed down by Christ and the Apostles, for on issue and yet more, it has became changed from the original articles.
Among all of God's creatures, it does appear that man alone is the one with capacity for both; some semblance of divinity, and great depravity, with these both playing a part, being present on both sides of the aisle as it were...with the "singular" office being a reaction to man constantly "not getting it right" in regards to the Lord, and the need also for order in the church, among these same willful men. Thus this need of mankind generally for near constant correction, the sinfulness spoken of, the remedy sought by the impatient whom fantasized if it were only themselves, their own group in "control" (whom themselves as a group were less than fully enlightened, less than "spiritual" themselves, or else soon reverted to being so) their "group" being not that much more special than the ones whom they displaced or sent away) caused yet more offense in the very pushing for Latin church primacy (in the person of Peter's claimed-to-be "sole" successors, grievous divisions being the fruit.
"And with necessity, / The tyrant's plea, / excus'd his devilish deeds", John Milton, Paradise Lost, Book iv, line 393
However we look at it, again as I mentioned before, we cannot find passed down by the Apostles such office as singular papacy, nor find it in the most primitive traditions, which once understood, leaves only later development, showing that such statement as (though I concede you yourself not say this here to me);
"As instituted by Christ, handed down to his Apostles and their successors"
is seriously flawed...for there is subtle (but significant in implication) disconnect between Christ and the original Apostles, and those successors of many later centuries, with it now being pretended that this (papal supremacy) was clear intent from the very beginning, for such is simply not so ----- unless for the first few hundred years (think---as long as the United States has been in existence an then some) those earlier successors were themselves quite blinded to the Lord's own intent, with only many centuries later "successors" to the bishopric of Rome, along with an "army of priests in preparation for him" ...[ ] ..."the king of pride" who would do the deed, later [ahem] showing us all the way, which again underlines the disconnect from earliest traditions, with the disconnect making the overall statement I underlined immediately above, to be a monstrous lie from it's original onset, albeit I do not lay the formation of this lie at the feet of the present occupant of that office, the more immediate predecessors to that office, nor entirely at the feet of those presently in communion with Rome either.
John 3:8
The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
If one can find the Spirit of the Lord there, in communion with the Roman church, so be it and ever moreso. Yet know this; it is not for reason of some sole perfection of doctrine or teaching found only there, but for reason of God's grace itself as personified by Christ's blood itself, that He gives grace to any of us to discern His presence. Which, if you can forgive my own opposition to some items of faith you may hold dear (or understand to be true) while I plainly do not the same for particular items, one thing I am certain we may find some agreement for, is the very blood featured so prominently in the old hymn which I included a ping to yourself towards. Or so it was hoped for...
That’s what I expected. You’re certainly predictable.
Hard to stay awake during pew duty huh?
Ain’t that the truth!
I got one of those too...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/3018091/posts?page=1147#1147
I guess some people just want attention any way they can get it! If they actually had anything constructive to add to the discussion, I’d think they would, but comments like these are pitiful AND disruptive. On the bright side, as a representative of the group, it makes them ALL look pretty petty and sorely lacking in the charity they so decry others are without.
“Are you willing to stick to the point of what we are discussing? You made a statement using the term “exactly” to say what the Vulgate of the fourth century held matches the canon of the modern RCC. It doesn’t. Are you willing to concede this point?”
IF you don’t believe that this ought to be the canon than why are you bringing it up?
“Are you willing to stick to the point of what we are discussing? You made a statement using the term “exactly” to say what the Vulgate of the fourth century held matches the canon of the modern RCC. It doesn’t. Are you willing to concede this point?”
IF you don’t believe that this ought to be the canon than why are you bringing it up?
Argument is thesis vs thesis. Your thesis is that the protestant version is the correct version. As threadstarter that was your rationale for starting this thread.
Now, you’re arguing for a separate set of books that isn’t the protestant Canon as the true canon?
I’m happy to concede this point - but only if you’re willing to concede that the protestant Canon is false. So, are you? Or is this just a smokescreen for the central issue of the authority of the magisterium.
“It might be a good idea if you and your cohort, Natural Law, at least agreed on what your primary argument is going to be here.”
My primary argument here is that the magisterium settled the issue of the canon with the list of books found in the present list of the Catholic catechism.
You’ve countered with a different list that’s neither the protestant or precisely the Catholic list. So, I’m making you an offer - this is the third option you’re presenting here.
I’m willing to give up the core point for this second point - with the core issue intact that the magisterium sets the canon and the protestant canon is false. Game?
I’m calling your bluff boatbums. Let’s see your hand.
“No truth can be assembled from false premises and your dissection of the Catholic Canon of Scripture presupposes that Sola Scriptura was the purpose for that Canon.”
Again, you seek division where none exists. I am simply arguing from your premise to show why your premise is false. The bible does not exist independent of the church. Sola scriptura is false.
“If, as Paul said, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished to all good works.” (II Timothy 3:16,17), is a genuine Christian belief, then it SHOULD be obvious that they would need to know what WAS Scripture.”
It should also be equally obvious that ‘chopping books’ would run afoul of this rather explicit principle. All scripture and not some, or does all simply mean, “whatever books I happen to believe in?”
This is the Marcion problem. Same argument, same consequences.
“1. contrary to the idea that i argued celibacy was a doctrinal requirement, i specified this was only “church law “ (canon law) and changeable.”
Which is what the Catholic church teaches. Your error is not in what you assert being contrary to the Church your error is attributing to the Church what she does not teach.
“2. contrary to the assertion that that celibacy is not a requirement at all”
It’s not a requirement to ordination either in the Byzantine rite or in the Latin rite. Converted clerics don’t have to divorce their wife once regularized, even in the Latin rite.
“3. contrary to different titles for classes of pastors and titled priests, in Scripture bishops are elders and elders are bishops, the distinctive hierarchical titles being a latter development”
I would contest this. The disciples came first. The disciples being apostles and bishops came before there ever was a priest. The distinction between the two would come up at the first council in Jerusalem and well within the first century. Assertions that the ‘threefold structure’ did not exist in scripture is not only contrary to acts, but is evidence of reading into the text what is not there. You may believe this - the text does not support it.
“4. contrary to your assumption, i myself did not argue for married priests ‘so married men don’t feel excluded’.”
You go on to argue, “but they make excellent preachers”. Either you believe that the church would benefit (which is a utilitarian ethos, or that you believe the exclusion is unwarranted, which need I elaborate is a bad basis to base canon law on the self-esteem of the recipient.
5. “Rome and the EO have differences in celibacy requirements.”
It’s not a requirement. Again. It’s a discipline. Words are important because misuse of words is what is tripping you up here.
“6. contrary to your blanket assertion otherwise, the Catholic church does have celibacy requirements.”
No, it does not. The Latin Rite has a discipline. The Byzantine Rite has a different one. The Catholic church has a continence requirement which is doctrinal and does not very across the rites, and the Catholic church has a celibacy discipline which does vary across the rites.
Continence and celibacy are two different things. I can see why you are confused since you are equating two different things together, that are not the same thing. This is why words are very important. Continence requirement, celibacy discipline.
“9. contrary to your assertions, the text does not actually say “but one wife, but simply “one wife, and “mia” is not always restricted to one, nonetheless contrary to your charge that i cannot accept the interpretation that “one wife” is forbidding polygamy, i can, but that the husband requirement goes beyond this.”
Ordaining a husband requires one to be married first then ordained. If you’re asserting a marriage requirement - this would actually rule out marrying after ordination altogether.
There’s nothing in scripture that permits marriage after ordination. Nothing at all. You say this is what the Church ought to do and teach - you should be able to provide some evidence for this from scripture.
“nowhere does he see fit to detail how single men should be likewise proven to be able governors.”
Yet you argue an ordained man should be allowed to marry. This is a paradox and demonstrates that your position is logically untenable.
Either discard one or the other, and we can go from there.
“were the norm”
I asked you to prove to me where scripture uses the word ‘norm’ anywhere. Does it use the word? No? Then why are you reading into the text something that the text does not say?
“but the case of widowed pastors.”
That’s a separate question. This is an excellent question. Canon law states that a widower may become a priest, as the sacrament of marriage no longer applies. The widower may not remarry after becoming a priest. Continence is required, virginity is not.
Snips random drivel.
“Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the Kingdom of heaven”
Finally the cite. Continence != celibacy.
“More than that, thou spammer. You’ve seen many more quotes from me than just these two. A “Pope,” Saints, Scholars, all explaining that the apocrypha are included for the “edification of the faithful,” but NOT as authoritative for the confirmation of doctrine.”
Once again - the magisterium has the authority, not the individual bishop.
“Once again - the magisterium has the authority, not the individual bishop.”
Which is irrelevant to me, since it took about 1,500 years for them to overrule “Pope” Gregory, Jerome, Athanasius, John of Damascus, Rufinus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and so on and so forth.
“Which is irrelevant to me, since it took about 1,500 years for them to overrule “Pope” Gregory, Jerome, Athanasius, John of Damascus, Rufinus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, and so on and so forth.”
Again, it all comes back to the one question. Does an individual bishop have the authority to change the Canon? Yes or no? If yes - then it’s not the canon of the Catholic church. If no - then it remains the canon of the Church in it’s entirety.
The only reason you are citing this list is because these folks agree with you on this hobby horse. Should I cite Athanasius on other things, you would swiftly turn on him. I find that very telling. I also find it unconvincing when someone who, at one stroke, attacks the Church as a whole cites the bishops to try to prove his point.
Unless you’re willing to submit to the authority of the Church - I really don’t see much value in citing the bishops. What’s at stake here? Absolutely nothing for you. If I’m correct, you’ll simply walk away. If you’re correct, I’m putting my faith in the ring here.
So, let’s turn this around again.
Your thesis is that the protestant church is correct. Are you willing to leave the Protestant church and return home if shown to be wrong?
“Again, it all comes back to the one question.”
No, it comes down to facts and evidence, not your sophistry. If you have evidence that the RCC always held those books as inspired scripture, which “Pope” Gregory was rebelling from, then produce it. Please show me where Gregory was rebuked by the ever-present RCC overlords of doctrine.
“Should I cite Athanasius on other things, you would swiftly turn on him. I find that very telling.”
Go for it. I guarantee that by the time I am done you’ll be telling me about how one person can’t overrule the Magisterium again.
“No, it comes down to facts and evidence”
Which is why the first manuscript with your entire list, OT and NT together is Erasmus.
“Which is why”
Your lame arguments and nonsensical comments have already been dealt with dozens of times. I’m not jumping down any of your silly rabbit holes anymore or repeating myself. I ask that you produce evidence for the Magisterium allegedly condemning poor “Pope” Gregory, the heretic, who didn’t believe what you claim they were supposed to always believe. Show me where Gregory was condemned, or that there was anyone even slightly offended by his words. Thank you.
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.