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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

>>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.

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...

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.

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.

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

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.