Skip to comments.The Truth is to Be Found Nowhere Else But in The Catholic Church, The Sole Depository of....
Posted on 12/10/2010 9:27:36 AM PST by marshmallow
The truth is to be found nowhere else but in the Catholic Church, the sole depository of apostolic doctrine. Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles.
1. Since therefore we have such proofs, it is not necessary to seek the truth among others which it is easy to obtain from the Church; since the apostles, like a rich man [depositing his money] in a bank, lodged in her hands most copiously all things pertaining to the truth: so that every man, whosoever will, can draw from her the water of life. Revelation 22:17 For she is the entrance to life; all others are thieves and robbers. On this account are we bound to avoid them, but to make choice of the thing pertaining to the Church with the utmost diligence, and to lay hold of the tradition of the truth. For how stands the case?
Suppose there arise a dispute relative to some important question among us, should we not have recourse to the most ancient Churches with which the apostles held constant intercourse, and learn from them what is certain and clear in regard to the present question? For how should it be if the apostles themselves had not left us writings? Would it not be necessary, [in that case,] to follow the course of the tradition which they handed down to those to whom they did commit the Churches?
2. To which course many nations of those barbarians who believe in Christ do assent, having salvation written in their hearts by the Spirit, without paper or ink, and, carefully preserving the ancient tradition, believing in one God, the Creator of heaven and earth, and all things therein, by means of Christ Jesus, the Son of God; who, because of His surpassing love towards His creation, condescended to be born of the virgin, He Himself uniting man through Himself to God, and having suffered under Pontius Pilate, and rising again, and having been received up in splendour, shall come in glory, the Saviour of those who are saved, and the Judge of those who are judged, and sending into eternal fire those who transform the truth, and despise His Father and His advent.
Those who, in the absence of written documents, have believed this faith, are barbarians, so far as regards our language; but as regards doctrine, manner, and tenor of life, they are, because of faith, very wise indeed; and they do please God, ordering their conversation in all righteousness, chastity, and wisdom. If any one were to preach to these men the inventions of the heretics, speaking to them in their own language, they would at once stop their ears, and flee as far off as possible, not enduring even to listen to the blasphemous address.
Thus, by means of that ancient tradition of the apostles, they do not suffer their mind to conceive anything of the [doctrines suggested by the] portentous language of these teachers, among whom neither Church nor doctrine has ever been established.
3. For, prior to Valentinus, those who follow Valentinus had no existence; nor did those from Marcion exist before Marcion; nor, in short, had any of those malignant-minded people, whom I have above enumerated, any being previous to the initiators and inventors of their perversity. For Valentinus came to Rome in the time of Hyginus, flourished under Pius, and remained until Anicetus. Cerdon, too, Marcion's predecessor, himself arrived in the time of Hyginus, who was the ninth bishop. Coming frequently into the Church, and making public confession, he thus remained, one time teaching in secret, and then again making public confession; but at last, having been denounced for corrupt teaching, he was excommunicated from the assembly of the brethren.
Marcion, then, succeeding him, flourished under Anicetus, who held the tenth place of the episcopate. But the rest, who are called Gnostics, take rise from Menander, Simon's disciple, as I have shown; and each one of them appeared to be both the father and the high priest of that doctrine into which he has been initiated. But all these (the Marcosians) broke out into their apostasy much later, even during the intermediate period of the Church.
Does this mean that it is not to be found in Scripture?
No, it means that Scripture is given to us by the Church, to whom is entrusted its authentic interpretation.
That’s not what Jesus said.
God’s Church and the Catholic Church are not one in the same, though. Catholics constitute part of God’s Church, but are not its only component.
It’s not what Gallileo said either.
Oh bother. Mohammedans.
Ephesians 2:1 And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins;
Ephesians 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:
Ephesians 2:3 Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.
Ephesians 2:4 But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
Ephesians 2:5 Even when we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;)
Ephesians 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:
Ephesians 2:7 That in the ages to come he might shew the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness toward us through Christ Jesus.
Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
Ephesians 2:9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
You’re a masochist, no?
THIS is utter and absolute blasphemy on a scale beyond comprehension.
How many of the folks replying indignantly have actually read either the article, or the publication date?
The writings of the Early Church Fathers open a window many never knew existed, as some of the comments here are witness.
I'm happy to post them. It's not about me and I don't take it personally.
They probably got no further.............
So everyone outside the Catholic “Church” is devoid of all Christian truth?
I’m always struck by how very little has changed since the Patristic age.
the same question can just as easily be asked of those who heartily endorse it.
Suggest you point them to 2 Peter 1:20.
Irenaeus is recognized as a saint by the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, the Lutheran Church - Missouri Synod, and the Episcopal Church (United States).
Elements of truth are to be found outside the Catholic Church.
The headline assumes the word "whole" before the word "truth". Written in 185 AD, "truth" meant truth; i.e. the "whole" truth.
Today, "truth" can mean anything; a half-truth, a kind of truth..........we parse and sift words.
We've lost the sense of truth. Once upon a time, truth was understood to mean something uncorrupted and entire.
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." ~ Jesus Christ
The latter "interpretation" rings loud and clear.
Christ did NOT command us to humor an elite corrupt "church," its corrupt "leaders," its corrupt "interpretation," and an Apostles Creed that is found NO WHERE in the Holy Scriptures.
We are commanded to cut out the "middle man," and go straight to Jesus, thank you.
"If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it." ~ Jesus Christ
Irenius was before the selling of indulgences and the other corruptions and Luther’s call to end the practices. A question that Protestants and Catholics might answer differently is: Would the early Christians have stood with the Catholic sellers and betrayers of the faith in the middle ages or with the Catholic reformers? It was only after reform was rejected that the Protestant / Catholic schism happened (prior reformers were killed as heretics). I think that pervasive and long term corruption shows that the Catholic church is not the one true church but is one of many demoninations. The one true church is that of Christ, all true Christians regardless of denomination. Christ should be the focus, not denomination.
Once you've read the title with the assertion: ("The Truth is to Be Found Nowhere Else But in The Catholic Church"), the rest really doesn't need to be read, does it?
Who EXACTLY sold indulgences in the Middle Ages?
Make your point. I don’t understand it.
I asked a simple question. Who sold indulgences in the Middle Ages? Name the people who did it. You say other would not stand with them. How many of these sellers or indulgences were there?
Leroy Whitby. Franklin Xu. Moonbeam Zappa. And the infamous Chuck Mucklow. Standing against them were the Rock, Ginger Spice and Howdy Doody.
2 Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for instruction in righteousness:
17 That the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works.
True...but who compiled and created the canon of scripture?
“No, it means that Scripture is given to us by the Church, to whom is entrusted its authentic interpretation.”
The blasphemy is scary. I continue to be amazed that so many Freepers are staunchly committed to strict adherence to the Constitution. It would be nice if they had the same respect for the Scriptures.
Your comment sounds a lot like: "Don't confuse me with the facts ... my mind is already made up".
What a lovely post ! Please ping all the usual Mormon bashers to this thread. They band together to label the Mormons “a cult”; it’d be enjoyable to see them “hoist on their own petard”.
Here in Texas, many Baptists still don’t realize at one point we all came from the SAME Church.
I love pointing out a bit of history. I get looks like I just told them Aunt Gertie was a Nazi :)
You mkae lots of assumptions ... when you gain wisdom, the assumptions will melt away. You might even learn that the god of Mormonism and the jesus of Mormonism are not the same as the God and Jesus of the Bible. ... But i doubt seriously that such is in your future.
It is possible to pick and choose points they made, but tracing ideas to the early church fathers is not the same as tracing them to the apostles.
Some may act otherwise, but the catechism and doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church are not infallible. The Roman Catholic Church may contain errors and falsehoods.
According to the Roman Catholic Church, there are only a few select statements that are infallible. I think either a council or a Pope can make an infallible statement, but each has special rules.
The Scriptures are without error or contradiction. They are of a different order. Most Scripture is easy to understand. For difficult Scriptures, a main point can often be gleamed while accepting an imperfect understanding. However, we should be able to flip our focus and say "I may not understand what it does mean, but I do understand what it doesn't mean."
I think we can agree on 4 givens: Perfect God, Perfect Scripture, imperfect man and imperfect interpretation.
How can the idea of perfect interpretation be based on the imperfect interpretations of imperfect writings of imperfect men with imperfect knowledge? Seriously.
The early church fathers understood the universal church as those who are saved. The universal faith as that which saves and will not be burned away on judgment day. The use of the word Catholic by the early church fathers did not point to the earthly, temporal structure of the Roman Catholic Church, but to perfection and eternity.
In 180 AD, Irenaeus wrote in "Against Heresies", that "the Catholic Church possesses one and the same faith throughout the whole world." The correct interpretation is that there exists one faith that leads to salvation. Those who share the true faith are part of the Universal Church.
To use Irenaeus' statement to support an earthly, temporal authority is a clear example of imperfect interpretation.
As a matter of fact Christ's own words are "fact" more than enough for me.
Does Scripture often confuse you?
Keep in mind this was before the Great Schism so the term Catholic included the Church of the East.
Reading it might make them think. Shame on you.
What is the pillar and foundation of truth?
Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ...
Ahhh, another spurious generalization about FReepers. How juvenile
Actually, I find it quite interesting that no mormons have entered into this discussion since they are the ones who persistently claim that they and only they have the “true” and “restored” gospel.
It would be something to see them attempt to defend their “whore of Babylon” and all other religions being apostate doctrine. But knowing what I know about mormonism, I’d be really surprised if they tipped their hand.
But don’t let pesky little things like facts get in the way of your puerile and inane emoting regarding the “anti’s”.
I don’t need to “band together” with anyone to label mormonISM a cult. I lived it.
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 (Heiko Oberman, The Harvest of Medieval Theology (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1963), p. 366). (See Sola Scriptura and the Early Church)
It is true that the early Church held to the concept of Tradition as referring to ecclesiastical customs and practices and that they often believed that such practices were actually handed down from the Apostles even though could not necessarily be validated from the Scriptures. But these practices 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 second century in the controversy over when to celebrate Easter. Certain Eastern churches celebrated it on a certain day, while the West celebrated it on a different one, but both claimed that their particular practice was handed down to them directly from the Apostles. It actually led to conflict with the Bishop of Rome who was demanding that the Eastern fathers 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 ascertain 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. And there are other examples of this sort of claim in Church history. Just because a particular Church father claims that a particular practice is of Apostolic origin does not mean that it necessarily is. All it means is that he believes it was. But there is no way to verify if in fact it truly was a tradition from the apostles. There are numerous practices which the early Church engaged in which they believed were of Apostolic origin which are listed for us by Basil the Great which no one in the Church practices today. So clearly, such appeals to oral Apostolic Tradition are meaningless. (William Webster, Sola Scriptura and the Early Church)
Argument from age
Dont confuse Catholic with Roman Catholic. See Apostles Creed.
This thesis is pure balderdash. Truth is to be found in what the Holy Spirit reveals to each one of us who really know Jesus, God’s Son. We do not need a church telling us what is God’s mind. Churches are all part of the Religion that man created. Jesus did not come to start a new religion, or to start a church.
He came to set each one of us free from the bondage of sin and death. He came to draw each one of us into a personal relationship with Himself. He came to find fellowship with man. He finds that 24/7 with those who are really a part of His kingdom. We are kings and priests in His Kingdom.
God walked with Adam in the garden in the cool of the day. God sought companionship with the created.
Enoch and Noah walked with God. Enoch and Noah responded to God’s cry for fellowship in ways that Adam did not.
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.