Posted on 03/26/2008 5:30:38 PM PDT by annalex
You are correct, -- I should not have said "believe". We should listen and view the inspired scripture through their lens, when that particular aspect of an individual patristic thought belongs to the consensus of the Fathers. For example, when Origen allowed that at the end of times Satan himself will be redeemed, that position did not emerge as the position of the entire Church: it is his personal opinion, and it was deemed heretical by the consensus. But Origen was absolutely instrumental in analyzing the scripture and defining the canon of scripture. Most of his writings reflect the mind of the Church.
Why cannot Luther, or other leaders of the Reformation be looked at witht he same sense of relative authority? Because they do not trace to the early Church. They themselves trace to St. Augustine, and very selectively so, on the parts of augustinism that precisely fall out of the consensus, and often were later corrected by Augustin himself. The anticlericalism of the Reformation has no patristic support at all, and in fact it has no scriptural support.
On the other hand, there is healthy diversity in the Church. The Eastern Orthodox Church, for example, has strong patristic roots, and even her late theologians, such as Palamas are patristic in spirit. Even pre-Chalcedon churches have something to tell us as they, too, are historically authentic. We expect the Eastern Orthodox tradition to merge painlessly with the Western as both have an authentic root in the Church of the Seven Councils.
A prooftext for sola scriptura it is not, -- it has nothing to do with it, other than to mantion the fact that this particular piece of instruction Paul is delivering in writing. You are familiar with the passage where he states that he is writing because he is delayed in coming, the implication being that he'd rather be present in person?
Yet Paul is clearly talking about what he is WRITING being the instructions on how to behave in the Church - correct?
IN other words, this is a section of the canon of the New Testament which endorses the use of this WRITTEN letter we are reading - inspired by the Holy Spirit - written down by Paul == to instruct the CHURCH on how it is to conduct itself.
Correct?
Case in point. Sure they did, -- they were, after all, Catholic.
In this you are wrong. There were five main patriarchs, only one of whom was the Bishop of Rome.
The Reformation has less to do with it's patriarchs than it has to do with the printing press, and the ability, for the first time, of the people to read the Word in their own language, free from the obscurity of Latin readings, and interpretations which favored the RCC's quest for power.
IOW, The anticlericalism born of the Reformation particularly, could be argued as justified. Especially so, as the RCC clung stubbornly to it's claim of being inerrant in the light of what people found to be true according to the Word, and as read by their own eyes.
Whatever bastard roots one might lay upon Protestantism according to the errant RCC, particularly as errant as it was at that time, would seem to be rather Pharisaical. One might look less at patronage and look to Christ's own definition of a true Church- That being one where the gifts of the Spirit are in evidence.
If you would care to deny that the gifts of the Spirit are present in all of Protestantism, or even in the main of her factions- If you feel you can question the fruits of her labors, her witness for Christ, and her faithful spreading of the Gospel, then you might have standing to question her legitimacy.
Oops, ping to #65
Of course, and we have many other passages of scripture that endorse the use of the scripture for instruction. That is not under dispute. The specific canon of Old Testament is under dispute, the relationship between the Scripture, the Church, and the Tradition is under dispute, and self-sufficiency and perspecuity of scripture is under dispute.
Which Church Father disputed the authority of the Bishop of Rome?
Catholics printed Bibles and made translations as well. I agree that the Reformation had more to do with the new bourgeois society with all its elements, than with the Christian patrimony. I would go further and say that Protestantism is better suited for the modern world, with its secularism, individualism, and democracy. But that should condemn Protestantism as inauthentic by the same token.
The decentralization of Christian instruction, most evident in the printing press and translated Bibles, is not an inadulterated good. This also lead to the loss of common precise theological language, and gross inaccuracies in translations that persist to this day.
If you would care to deny that the gifts of the Spirit are present in all of Protestantism, or even in the main of her factions- If you feel you can question the fruits of her labors, her witness for Christ, and her faithful spreading of the Gospel, then you might have standing to question her legitimacy.
Of course I deny it. The gifts of the Spirit, to the extent that they are present in individual Protestants, -- of whom I know and admire many,-- are in them to the extent that they remain in part orthodox Catholic. The Reform movement as a whole has done nothing but damage to Christianity, it subverted the message of the Gospel, mangled the Holy Scripture, and continues to drift away from authenticity. The abominations such as celebrations of gay "marriage", prosperity "gospel", indifference to contraception and often even cohabitation and abortion, servility to the democratic process no matter where it leads, -- are all evil fruit of Luther and his followers.
LOL
I doubt it.
This festered for centuries, leading eventually to The Great Schism of 1054...and the birth of the Eastern Orthodox Church.
For ten centuries the Eastern Patriarchates were in complete communion with the Pope, and they continue to recognize his primacy of honor today. There is no room for Reformed heresies in the East either, regardless of their views on the papacy.
The discussion, however, is not about the adminitrative structure but the Church Fathers being Catholic, and in order to refute that you need to find a patristic teaching that is recognized either in the West or in the East, which would be contrary to Catholicism.
Note that most Church Fathers are also saints of the Catholic Church: St. Ignatius, St. Irenaeus, St. Justin, St. Cyprian, St. Cyril, St. Basil, St. Ambrose. Those that are not, such as Origen Tertullian or Athenagoras are not canonized in the East either. Good luck.
Wrong...there were schisms occurring as early as the second century (Victor, Stephen, and Damascus - later the Acacian [AD 482], one under Patriarch Photios I of Canstantinople [AD 866], and continued through the Great Schism of 1054. It is a myth that there has been harmony amongst the patriarchs of the Early Church.
The discussion, however, is not about the adminitrative structure but the Church Fathers being Catholic, and in order to refute that you need to find a patristic teaching that is recognized either in the West or in the East, which would be contrary to Catholicism.
Those schisms I referenced were not over administrative authority - they were all doctrinal.
The Acacian controversy was an episode in the Arian heresies. Pope Damasus (not Damascus) had to contend with an anti-pope. I don’t who Victor and Stephen of that era are.
Patriarch Photios is outside of the patristic period completely.
I still don’t uinderstand what these people contributed, on either side, to the consensus patrum.
"Should" is a bit absolute. I would accept might, could, or can, but 'should" condemns all Protestants or at least their Orders (denominations), which is an absurdity.
The decentralization of Christian instruction, most evident in the printing press and translated Bibles, is not an inadulterated good.
Granted, but it is arguably and overwhelmingly good. One could argue that the RCC had injected too may 'rites of men' into the purity of the Word by way of their traditions.
To borrow an adage or two from the computing community (as the adage fits so perfectly), Perhaps our Lord saw the inherent problems that come with cathedrals and controlled compilations, and chose the bazaar- God went open-source- For good or bad (I would say good), it has forever changed the layout of the field.
This also lead to the loss of common precise theological language, and gross inaccuracies in translations that persist to this day.
That would be true, but it has also preserved the Truth in a way that can never be extinguished.
Of course I deny it.
Then it is obvious to me that you have little experience to bolster your opinion, or bias has blinded you to the truth. The Ghost is most certainly present, and His blessings are bestowed upon the Protestant churches. One could suggest that the Spirit is more evident therein, particularly within fundamental and charismatic evangelical churches. At least, that has been my experience.
The Reform movement as a whole has done nothing but damage to Christianity, it subverted the message of the Gospel,[...]
Nonsense.
[...] mangled the Holy Scripture,[...]
More nonsense.
[...] and continues to drift away from authenticity.
A ridiculous assertion.
The abominations such as celebrations of gay "marriage", prosperity "gospel", indifference to contraception and often even cohabitation and abortion, servility to the democratic process no matter where it leads, -- are all evil fruit of Luther and his followers.
Bah! Best look to the board in your own eye... One can just as easily accuse liberal leaning RCC, who say one thing an do quite the other. One may also build quite the historical case for abominations performed in the name of God and the seat of Rome. MANY heresies (rightly named by the RCC, to be fair) have come from within the RCC sphere.
Need I remind you that in all of Christendom, it was the Roman Catholic nations of Europe that fell first to apostasy, socialism and liberalism, not the Protestant nations.
The only difference between this era and the past is the Open Source Bible and the bare fact that Rome no longer can exert her powers and preference by way of empire.
Such a false sense of piety is tiresome to me.
Your most sturdy allies in the fight against Satan are the Evangelical Protestants and the Orthodox (and Messianic) Jews. Those same, as I am certain you will admit, are also the most knowledgeable in Scripture and history, and their arguments against the RCC are often valid, even by your (collectively) own admission. Their reverence toward translation of the Scriptures is equal to your own.
To ascribe all the ills of this world to Luther and the Reformation is an insult to good sense, is inflammatory, and simply is not true.
I think I made it clear in 69 that individual Protestants may have the life of the spirit, and many do, to the extent that they retain Catholic beliefs.
God went open-source
The scripture was never a trade secret before the printing press, and accurate translations are available as they always have been, from Catholic or Orthodox sources. I don't see any good in the proliferation of truncated, badly translated Bibles.
you have little experience
My wife of 14 years just converted from Protestantism (hence my celebration). She did much church shopping till she finally came home to the Catholic Church, and I accompanied her as a good husband should, through it all, Congregational, Baptist (of two kinds), Assembly of God, you name it. I made friends with several Protestant pastors in the process. I think I am qualified to see both good and bad of Protestantism. A lot, -- far more than is usually admitted -- in Protestantism is Catholic, after all. But the direction of the Reform movement is not good, as the abominations such as Rev. Osteen (Olsteen?) or the liberal denominations clearly demonstrate.
One can just as easily accuse liberal leaning RCC
Yes, but not the Church as a whole. We have bad Catholics who disobey the solid Catholic doctrine. Protestantism is a collection of differently bad doctrines, and often very good Christians trapped therein.
Your most sturdy allies in the fight against Satan are the Evangelical Protestants and the Orthodox (and Messianic) Jews
Like I said, whoever reflects, knowingly or not, the teaching of the Church is our ally. There are many pro-life atheists for example, and most Muslim are pro-life, but you did not mention them. Besides, one quarells with one's own. I am not going to sort out religion for the Jews or the Muslim, but of fellow Christians more is required.
Jesus didn’t ride around in a chauffered, bullet proof chariot.
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.