Skip to comments.Let the Bible be “entrusted” to the faithful
Posted on 04/12/2013 5:10:48 PM PDT by markomalley
click here to read article
“The Catholic Church’s doctrines are not traditions invented or manufactured centuries into the future. “
Well, not all. Just many. Just find that stuff during the Church’s first 100 years of life. If you find it in that timeframe, I will concede it is a tradition - not equal to inspired Scripture, but able to inform practice. That is plenty of time to see if there were any traditions being passed along.
... when they don’t show up for 300 years or more, it is silliness to claim they are not made up out of whole cloth and pagan roots.
The problem is that Tradition can also and has also preserved error. Indeed tradition has a place, as even in SS there is a Scriptural tradition on interpretation, but the problem is when amorphous oral tradition is made equal with Scripture - which is the only source that is wholly inspired of God - under an autocratic entity that has defined herself as assuredly infallible and alone being the supreme authority (sola ecclesia) .
Then traditions which are not reliant upon the weight of Scriptural substantiation become perpetuated doctrines, yet another sola ecclesia church can understands what tradition teaches differently.
"The Orthodox Church opposes the Roman doctrines of universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, purgatory, and the Immaculate Conception precisely because they are untraditional." Clark Carlton, THE WAY: What Every Protestant Should Know About the Orthodox Church, 1997, p 135.
Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church... http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076
Under SS and SE you have schisms and division, as well as basic unity, and the question is what basis for unity is Scriptural.
The church did not begin under the premise of assured infallibility, but in dissent from those who, like Rome, magisterially presumed more that is written, and instead established their claims upon Scriptural substantiation in word and in power. For of such is the kingdom of God. (1Cor. 4:20)
Most of what you're saying here, is that it's a damn shame that
And to that I say, "Amen, Brother!"
Substitute the word "Christian" (or Bible-church, or Presbyterian, or Evangelical, or What-have-you) for "Catholic", and to that I say, "Amen x5."
Have a nice afternoon. Bigger missive coming!
|But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Sama'ria and to the end of the earth."||
|All these with one accord devoted themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.||
|In those days Peter stood up among the brethren (the company of persons was in all about a hundred and twenty), and said,|
|16||"Brethren, the scripture had to be fulfilled, which the Holy Spirit spoke beforehand by the mouth of David, concerning Judas who was guide to those who arrested Jesus.|
|17||For he was numbered among us, and was allotted his share in this ministry.|
|18||(Now this man bought a field with the reward of his wickedness; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his bowels gushed out.|
|19||And it became known to all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so that the field was called in their language Akel'dama, that is, Field of Blood.)|
|20||For it is written in the book of Psalms, `Let his habitation become desolate, and let there be no one to live in it'; and `His office let another take.'|
|21||So one of the men who have accompanied us during all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us,|
|22||beginning from the baptism of John until the day when he was taken up from us -- one of these men must become with us a witness to his resurrection."|
|23||And they put forward two, Joseph called Barsab'bas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthi'as.|
|24||And they prayed and said, "Lord, who knowest the hearts of all men, show which one of these two thou hast chosen|
|25||to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside, to go to his own place."|
|26||And they cast lots for them, and the lot fell on Matthi'as; and he was enrolled with the eleven apostles.|
For instance, just because the words "Incarnation" and "Trinity" don't appear until a couple of centuries later, doesn't mean that nobody believed in the Incarnation or the Trinity until, say, 325 AD.
BTW, do you believe in the Incarnation of Christ, and the Trinity?
How very democrat of you to hurl insults, rather than argue from an academic position.
But thank you just the same.
Catholicism is orthodox Christianity!
Where are you getting the information you seem to want to post?
Someone who hates Catholics?
A pamplet or two?
A comic book?
I asked questions. Is that so wrong?
You seemed to put yourself on an even keel with Pope Francis with the words, “No sale, Francis.”
Hence my questions about your position.
Please don’t make the thread about me by saying things I didn’t say or do.
I know nothing of 20K denominations you mention. But I'd rather side with liberty and free debate over hermaneutical issues, than have people drowned and burnt at the stake because they didn't subscribe to a central authority telling them what Scripture says. And it worked out quite well for the establishment of this country, in searching for a place to freely worship God as an act of conscience, and not by obligation.
“We do, as Paul commanded, “stand fast, and hold the traditions” -—capital-T “Traditions” -—which we have received from Apostolic teachings. E.g., the Nicene Creed, a capital-T Tradition which summarizes, interprets and applies the teachings we have from the Apostles.”
As has been shown in previous posts, quoting Augustine, Theodoret, and even a “Pope” of the Catholic Church (and I can bring to bare many others), it doesn’t appear that there is a 2,000 year long history of Roman tradition, capitalized or not. What we do have, however, is the unchanging scripture, and lots of people with very different opinions from the Romanists of today, even on the primacy of Rome from a Bishop of Rome!
Thus, the entire argument that follows from you is simply irrelevant. Its foundation does not exist. The Roman church is not the successor of anyone but their own innovations, which are everyday still innovating new things.
I’ll stick with scripture. It is, after all, useful for reproof, doctrine so that the man of God may be perfect. Your contradictory (T)raditions are not mentioned.
“Acts: 1:15-26 — tradition of Peter as the leader and the tradition of apostolic succession”
Acts 15 — tradition of James presiding over church-wide councils, hearing the discussion of the Apostles (including Peter, who gave an opinion contrary to what was accepted), and making the final decision which the church accepts.
“You seemed to put yourself on an even keel with Pope Francis with the words, No sale, Francis.”
All Christians are actually on a superior level than Pope Francis. He’s still stuck on preaching a Gospel wherein man is told about what he must do for God, and where man venerates dead saints and Mary for their salvation instead of to God who gives the Holy Spirit freely to all those who ask; it is nothing more than idolatry and dead tradition . The real Gospel is about what God has done for us, by whose grace and works we produce fruit for His Holy purpose.
All Christians are Kings and Priests in the sight of God, who can march boldly into the Holy of Holies and petition God face to face. Not because we are holy, but because we have the imputed righteousness of the perfect Christ.
It's fascinating watching those who claim that their pocket version of Christianity (varying as the days wax and wane) is superior to those to whom Christ entrusted His Church. The Church was begun by Christ. Where was your church begun? After a long and significant look in the mirror?
If you would, examine the Nicene Creed and the Apostle's Creed. If you get brave, examine the Athenasian Creed, which is the most definitive of all Christian creeds. Note the term 'communion of saints' and then think on your statement. Also think on your statement regarding the Gospel.
They include traditions which were made into doctrines, as were those which the Lord rebuked by Scripture, and which all must be subject to, as it is abundantly evidence to be the standard for obedience and testing/establishing truth claims.
And what you cannot prove was that the traditions referred to by Paul had not been written elsewhere or were not subsequently written as Scripture, but were strictly oral.
St. John the Evangelist says if it all were written down
The Word of God does include more than what is written, (2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 10:4) but the problem is we can only know if something is the word of God by subjecting it to the only class of revelation that is the assured word of God, the Scriptures, as they alone are affirmed to be wholly inspired. And you will hard pressed to find many texts which refer to the word of God/the Lord that was not written, or would be.
Scripture calls the Church, "the pillar and foundation of the Truth..."
The church of the living, not institutionalized. God that is, and despite RC attempts, the text does not state anything more than that the church supports the truth, not that a church based in Rome is the supreme authority above Scripture.
Jesus' warnings about pride did not mean that nobody should wear a robe...Scripture itself shows people bowing down to, even prostrating before...
But consistent with the "but I say unto you" teaching of the Lord, He warns against ostentatious religious clothing (which cardinals and popes exhibit), and an exalted-class attitude among brethren which prostrating obeisance shows, (Mt. 23:5-12) and accordingly the Holy Spirit explicitly reveals Peter as disallowing even a lost Gentile from bowing down to him. (Acts 10:25-26) And which you nowhere see btwn NT believers, while the language of Gal. 2., where it would be fitting, hardly supports the Roman adulation of its popes. If Peter refused such so much more lesser "popes."
Nor will you find even one example out of the multitudinous prayers in the Scriptures of any believer ever praying to anyone else in Heaven but the Lord (only pagans did so), or any insufficiency in Christ that warrants doing do. (Heb. 4:15-16; 10:19)
the Church is the people of God. That's what Catholics are taught.
That is misleading, as it teaches that "Church" refers to Catholicism, with Rome being the one true church to whom all must submit, and that evangelicals are not worthy to be properly called churches.
It doesn't mean they HAD TO have a wife. Paul himself repeatedly recommended remaining unmarried That is misleading, as he plainly did not teach pastors (which are never distinctively titled "priests") were to be celibate (save for convert priests). It is this negative you must prove, which is contrary to what Scripture teaches: ."blameless, the husband of one wife..For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?" (1Tim. 3:2,5)
Paul likely was married, being a Pharisee, and a pastor could be celibate, and which sacrificial life has its virtues and advantages, but Scripturally (which Rome is not really subject to) you simply cannot require clerical celibacy (even if it is "only" church law), and which wrongly presumes all have that gift.
Wonderful text, which solitary example (unlike Acts 12:1,2) is used to support Rome’s Perpetuated Petrine papacy, but can you provide even one papal election which followed this (OT) means of election, that of casting lots, and which would help prevent the great secrecy and political maneuvering and intrigue thru which so many popes were elected, with up to 3 years absence and “unbroken succession” and confusion over who was pope.
Num 26:55 Notwithstanding the land shall be divided by lot: according to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit.
Jarchi says, the names of the twelve tribes were written on twelve scrolls of parchment, and twelve borders or limits of land on twelve others, and they were mixed together in an urn, and the prince put his hand into it and took two scrolls; a scroll came up with the name of a tribe, and a scroll with a border or limit expressed on it; and the lot, he says, was by the Holy Ghost, for Eleazar, at the same time, was clothed with Urim and Thummim (s); so that the people were certain that the disposition and division of the land was of God;
(s) Maimon. & Bartenora in Misn. Biccurim, c. 1. sect. 5. - Dr. John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
“It’s fascinating watching those who claim that their pocket version of Christianity (varying as the days wax and wane) is superior to those to whom Christ entrusted His Church.”
If you mean my Bible, it is too big for my pocket. But, I’ll glorify God, who chose me while I was yet a sinner:
2Ti_1:9 Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
1Pe 2:9-10 But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, an holy nation, a peculiar people; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: (10) Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy.
Rev 1:5-6 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, (6) And hath made us kings and priests unto God and his Father; to him be glory and dominion for ever and ever. Amen.
“Where was your church begun?”
On a hill where Christ and two thieves were crucified.
“If you would, examine the Nicene Creed and the Apostle’s Creed. If you get brave, examine the Athenasian Creed,”
After a long hard look in the mirror, you should examine the scripture as we are commanded.
Comic book? I gave you a resource, and you dismissed it. And your insults and suggestion of hate in my language is a typical democrat tactic, when you have nothing to stand on when history and facts argues against you. If you can't describe Catholic hermaneutics, and the differences when compared to that which I describe, you bring nothing but noise.
Torch of the Testimony, by J. Kennedy. That is our understanding of Christian history and hermaneutics combined. If you can't have an academic discussion, then perhaps it best not to say anything.
St Paul only had hope; who are you to have such certainty?
Where was your church begun?
On a hill where Christ and two thieves were crucified.
Negative. It does not resemble the Church that Christ Created. The Catholic Church began there, true.
If you would, examine the Nicene Creed and the Apostles Creed. If you get brave, examine the Athenasian Creed,
After a long hard look in the mirror, you should examine the scripture as we are commanded.
The purpose of the Creeds to ensure that individuals did not create their own version of Christianity. I see that their effect is only worthy on the true believers.
All practices in the Book of Acts, God inspired to be recorded in His Holy Word. Of course, I would disagree with the interpretation of the subtitles that are not inspired.
“For instance, just because the words “Incarnation” and “Trinity” don’t appear until a couple of centuries later, doesn’t mean that nobody believed in the Incarnation or the Trinity until, say, 325 AD.”
Both can be learned exactly as is from the Holy Scriptures today. The particular circumstances of heresy opposing the Church from within led to the issue being spelled out in 325ad.
“St Paul only had hope; who are you to have such certainty?”
Saint Paul had assurance; who are you to go against the word of God?
Joh_6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
Rom 8:28-31 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose. (29) For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren. (30) Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified. (31) What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us?
I’ll rest easy, knowing that my faith is counted for righteousness; that faith itself is the gift of God, revealed by His Spirit according to His grace and purpose determined before the foundation of the world.
“The Catholic Church began there, true.”
Indeed, too bad the Roman church isn’t the Catholic church. It just has Romanists in it, who don’t even hold the same beliefs as “Popes” like Gregory, or Bishops like Augustine, and many others, whom they claim as forebears.
...I’m getting the popcorn ready...This is promising to become THE Saturday night rumble. If you put up the “clapping audience” picture, I’m the one in the third row, center. I have my Bible ready, and the whole armour of God on. Now, let’s get ready to RUMBLE..:)
Hey friend! Great to see you again. I miss not seeing your posts. Sometimes FR is a bigger place than we realize.
We do disagree at times, but I consider you a friend and a brother.
Here’s an example of one of those areas, where I think the position is not a good argument ...
“It’s fascinating watching those who claim that their pocket version of Christianity (varying as the days wax and wane) is superior to those to whom Christ entrusted His Church. The Church was begun by Christ. Where was your church begun? After a long and significant look in the mirror?”
God has no grandchildren. Only children. Every true believer is related directly to Him. Baptized by the Spirit into His Body, included as part of His Bride, included in the universal communion of the saints, immediately.
The believer who comes to Christ in a jungle or desert, who comes to entrust himself to Christ for salvation today, is part of His Church, though he is the first generation. Every true believer is the first generation. Where two or more are gathered for prayer and worship, His Body, His Bride, His Church is there. As such it ALL begins with HIM. It ALL ends with HIM. It’s ALL for His glory. EVERY church that is comprised of true believers was begins at the same time in history - directly attached to HIM.
Having said all that, it is great to see you :-)
Do enjoy that Michael Voris link I sent.
Now, some more of your particulars:
"I find annulment for so many reasons after exchanging vows to be identical in practical terms to divorce/remarriage."
I see you don't have much experience with Marriage Tribunals. I go through it every year with each new batch our RCIA students (adult converts) who have got busted-up marriages in their pre-Catholic backgrounds, and have to get it all squared away before they can receive the Sacraments. It is HARD to go through with a Petition for Annulment. And it doesn't always work out. Often the Tribunal finds "for the Bond" --- meaning, they find that the first marriage WAS validly made, and therefore the civil divorce and the remarriage were NOT valid. And that is a painful situation: people are told they are objectively living in adultery, because their first marriage which they contracted before their conversion, really was a valid marriage.
A valid marriage vow is binding until the death of one of the spouses. 'Nuff said on that.
"Say what you will about what the Church believes, I dont find it in the lives of the majority of the membership."
Here's a list of some of the stuff Paul found in the churches he planted: "discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder... they are conceited and understand nothing. They have an unhealthy interest in controversies and quarrels about words that result in envy, strife, malicious talk, evil suspicions and constant friction between people of corrupt mind, who have been robbed of the truth and who think that godliness is a means to financial gain."
And on and on. Paul sure could rant on his churchpeople's shortcomings!
The point being: the Church always had problems, major problems, with people not holding onto and living the truth.
Yet we are called and empowered to do better, all of us. As just one example the Catechism says this about homosexuals:
#2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.That applies to any sin. Including yours and mine.
"Evangelicals that are true to His Word do not [accept the prevailing cultural rot on sex.]
Of course not, Neither do Catholics who are true to His word.
"Admittedly, you can probably find some members of every church that accept the cultural norms."
Find me another Church with clear-cut doctrines against human embryo experimentation and manipulation; against alternative reproductive technologies; against euthanasia and the intentional programming of death. "Sure. BUT, show me a membership that actually lives out that teaching."
Read the Lives of the Saints. Or come to my parish!!!
"Now, please realize I am not JUST saying this about the Roman Church. I would say the identical things about ANY Church, if they are true but you are asking specifically about the Roman Church."
OK, back to the raised beds! In with the onions! Peas be with you!
Then do you agree that these practices happened after the Resurrection and more after the Ascension and even more after the Descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles — all of which took place in the century of Christ?
Resurrection to Pentecost — 50 days — that’s hardly the year 300.
I don’t believe I quoted any subtitles. ??Why do you even mention it?
I too have (smaller these days) raised beds. It makes gardening so much easier. I haven’t begun working on them yet this Spring.
“A valid marriage vow is binding until the death of one of the spouses. “
Except God and Christ, said, except for illicit sex, which allows divorce. By the way, there are actually Christians who believe you get ONE marriage. Even death doesn’t set you free. You can never remarry.
I agree there will always be problems in churches (I was in the ministry), but the church as a whole should be growing as disciples, meaning adhering to the teaching and growing in grace. When it isn’t - in large numbers - I asked what value the teaching was having. None apparently, or little.
The Catholic Church began with Christ breathing on the Apostles and giving them the Holy Spirit and the ability to forgive sins. They were the first Bishops.......please read your Bible.
“Then do you agree that these practices happened after the Resurrection and more after the Ascension and even more after the Descent of the Holy Spirit upon the Apostles all of which took place in the century of Christ?
Resurrection to Pentecost 50 days thats hardly the year 300.”
The Holy Scriptures say they did. Why ask?
Earlier, I addressed the so-called traditions that didn’t show up for 200,300,500 or more years, and are then claimed to be equivalent to Holy Scripture. The passages you quote ARE Holy Scripture.
“Acts: 1:15-26 — tradition of Peter as the leader and the tradition of apostolic succession “
THIS is a subtitle. It isn’t in the text. Someone wrote it and added it. It is an opinion. That is an example of the subtitles you included that I said I could not agree with.
Never heard of it. Catholic writer?
Here are some academic facts for you since you haven't answered my querry about which church you attend.
What is the History of Your Church?
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Who is Zuck?
Never heard of him.....is he a Catolic writer?
Did Peter know this? Because on the day of Pentecost, he was preaching to “Ye men of JUDEA”, “all ye that dwell at Jerusalem”, “Ye men of Israel” (Acts 2:14,22). The Jews. The Messianic Church of believers. Jews. The little flock. Of Israel. If you believe that the Catholic Church began with Christ breathing on the Apostles, etc. then you must believe that the Catholic Church is Israel. The Jews. But alas, the Jews, the nation of Israel, is blinded and set aside in Acts 28. Which leaves you blinded and set aside.
Again, a silly argument.
Every Christian is connected to HIM immediately. God has no grandchildren, only children. If your security is that your church is older, you miss the point.
Every group of believers that assembles is directly connected to him. All who trust HIM are immediately placed into the Body of Christ, immediately are included in the Bride of Christ.
To make your argument that a church was founded in one year or the other is silly. Christ stands outside of time. We come to Him and His Gospel of Grace for salvation.
“The Catholic Church began with Christ breathing on the Apostles and giving them the Holy Spirit and the ability to forgive sins.”
I like Jerome’s response to this:
The bishops and priests not understanding that passage, assume to themselves somewhat of the arrogance of the Pharisees, so far as to imagine that they may condemn the innocent or absolve the guilty, whereas with God, it is not the sentence of the priests, but the life of the guilty that is looked into. We read in Leviticus concerning the lepers, where they were commanded to show themselves to the priests, in order that if they had a leprosy, they might be made unclean by the priests : not that the priests made them lepers and unclean, but be cause they knew who were lepers and who were not, and could discover who were clean and who were unclean. In the same manner therefore as the priest there made a man clean or unclean, so here the bishop or priest either binds or loosens, not those who are innocent or guilty, but officially, when he has heard the nature of their sins, he knows who is to be bound and who is to be loosened. On the 16th chap, of Mat. vol. 6.
I’ll ask God for forgiveness, and I’ll be in good company:
Dan 9:17-21 Now therefore, O our God, hear the prayer of thy servant, and his supplications, and cause thy face to shine upon thy sanctuary that is desolate, for the Lord’s sake. (18) O my God, incline thine ear, and hear; open thine eyes, and behold our desolations, and the city which is called by thy name: for we do not present our supplications before thee for our righteousnesses, but for thy great mercies. (19) O Lord, hear; O Lord, forgive; O Lord, hearken and do; defer not, for thine own sake, O my God: for thy city and thy people are called by thy name. (20) And whiles I was speaking, and praying, and confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel, and presenting my supplication before the LORD my God for the holy mountain of my God; (21) Yea, whiles I was speaking in prayer, even the man Gabriel, whom I had seen in the vision at the beginning, being caused to fly swiftly, touched me about the time of the evening oblation.
If Daniel can do it, I can too!
“......please read your Bible.”
I did. I found no Romanism in it.
"The manner is which you exegete a text if far different from orthodox Christianity. "
Actually, the way I exegete the text is exactly the same as Orthodox Christianity. They are HUGE disciples of the Fathers of the Church from whom we have the first, second, third, fourth, and fifth-century Christian homilies, exegetical essays, polemical writings, liturgical norms, poetry, hymnody and so forth, which together with the decress of synods and councils, are "the" sources of "big-T Tradition".
So if you add the Catholics and the Orthodox together, you have roughly 60% of the Christians in today's world. Go back, say, 600 years ago, we were more like 98% of the Christians in the world. (And the other 2% weren't non-denoms, either, they were mostly the the non-Calcedonian Orthodox.)
Now that's the "Old-Time Religion."
(Guitar chords G Maj, C Maj, D Maj) "It was good enough for Athanasius,
and it's good enough for me!"
“”It was good enough for Athanasius,
and it’s good enough for me!””
Athanasius on the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith:
“If then ye are the disciples of the Gospel, speak not unrighteousness against God, but walk in the things that are written. But if you will speak any-thing besides that which is written, why do you contend with us, who are determined neither to hear nor to speak any thing but that which is written? The Lord himself says, If ye continue in my word, ye are truly free.” Concerning the Incarnation of Christ.
“For the holy and divinely inspired Scriptures are of themselves sufficient for the discovery of divine truth.” -Speech against the Gentiles.
Athanasius on the canon of the scriptures:
“All the Scriptures of us Christians are inspired. And there are riot innumerable books, but on the contrary the books are defined and included in a canon, and these are the books of the Old Testament. Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judge*, Ruth, the first and second of Kings, the third and fourth of Kings, the first and second of Chronicles, the first and second of Ezra, the Psalter of David, the Proverbs of Solomon, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Twelve Prophets, Amos, Micaiah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habukkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zachariah, Malachi. These twelve are in one book. Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel. There are other books of the Old Testament be sides these, which are not canonical... The Wisdom of Solomon, the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach, Esther, Judith, Tobias. These are not canonical.” Synopsis of the Holy Scriptures.
“I saw an example of this in the Gospel of John, where treating concerning the eating of his body, and seeing many offended there by, he said, “Does this offend you, what if ye shall see the Son of man ascend where he was before? It is the spirit that quickeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing. The words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life.” He spake both of the spirit and the flesh, and made a distinction between his spirit and flesh, that not only believing in what was visible to their eyes, but also in his invisible nature, they might learn that the things which he said were not carnal, but spiritual: for, for how many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world? For this reason, therefore, he mentions the Son of man’s ascension into heaven that he might draw them from the corporeal sense, and that they might understand, that the flesh he spoke of was heavenly nourishment and spiritual food given to them from above. For the words which I speak unto you, they are spirit and life. As if he had said, This my body which is shown to you and is given for the world, shall be given as food, so as to be imparted spiritually within each, and to become to each a safe guard against the resurrection of eternal life.” Upon that passage of the Gospel, “ Whosoever shall say.”
If it’s good enough for Athanasius, it’s good enough for me!!
Oh, this is excellent, and illustrates exactly why Athanasius is such a champion of the Tradition.
He participated in the Council of Nicaea and vigorously defended the validity and authority of its doctrines: thus he was a defender of Sacred Tradition.
He was the author of the Athanasian Creed (Link), a basic statement of the Catholic faith (as he says in its first line)(tip'o'the hat to the Orthodox as well); he defended the Incarnation and the Trinity; thus he was a contributor to the Sacred Tradition.
And as Bishop of Alexandria, he had received his ordained ministry as a hierarchical successor to the Apostles by the Sacrament of Holy Orders; he officiated at the Sacred Liturgies of the Church; he ministered the Sacraments to his flock; he was in communion with the other Orthodox Patriarchs and protected by the Popes. In all these ways-- hierarchical, liturgical, sacramental, and ecclesiastical (including being in union with the the Bishop of Rome) he was a living link of the Sacred Tradition.
That somebody would say he was a proponent of "Sola Scriptura"--- in the Protestant sense--- shows a basic exegetical error in interpreting his writings.
Athanasius, as a teacher of the Catholic Faith, would accept no doctrine which was contrary to Scripture. To that, we all agree: that's his point. He is not saying there can be no Councils, no Creeds, no Popes, no developments of doctrine and worship which further extend and apply the truths of Scripture.
If that were the case, it would make nonsense of his entire life's work. As I illustrated above, Athanasius received, developed, defended, and lived this very same Tradition of which we speak: a Tradition which is at every point one with the truths of Scripture.
Thus, Athanasius' whole life tells us that Sola Traditio is inseparable from Sola Scriptura: in the Orthodox and Catholic sense that it there is no part of Tradition which is not derived from, or which is contradicted by, Scripture.
A "carnal" or "corporeal" body means a body that weighs, say, 150-220 pounds, that is composed of cells, tissues, organs, and systems, that maintains an internal temperature of 98-99o F., that carries out continuous cardiovascular, respiratory and metabolic functions, etc.
Obviously the consecrated Elements of the Eucharist are not physiologically the same as a carnal body: Christ's, or anybody else's. (That's why Athanasius comments, "How many would his body have sufficed for meat that it should become the nourishment of the whole world?" In other words, if this were just a matter of chowing down on Christ's mortal remains, it might have been food for maybe a couple dozen cannibals, but not for the millons who in fact receive Him.)
The Eucharistic Body of the Lord has none of the visible, tangible, or measurable characteristic of a physiological body. It is, nevertheless, Christ's true Body, as Athanasius says:
Thank you so much for giving me the pleasure of sharing this Sacred Tradition defended and lived so profoundly by the great Athanasius.
"You shall see the Levites bringing loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers of supplication and entreaties have not been made, there is only bread and wine. But after the great and wonderful prayers have been completed, then the bread is become the Body, and the wine the Blood, of our Lord Jesus Christ."
"Let us approach the celebration of the mysteries. This bread and this wine, so long as the prayers and supplications have not taken place, remain simply what they are. But after the great prayers and holy supplications have been sent forth, the Word comes down into the bread and wine - and thus His Body is confected."
Athanasius of Alexandria -
"Sermon to the Newly Baptized" 373 A.D.
“as Athanasius says:”
Do you have any other quotes to support this one? The citation is properly read “Sermon to the Newly Baptized, in Eutyches”. The actual sermon itself is lost, and what we have of it, or don’t have of it, is taken from Eutyches at nearly 600AD.
At around that time, a LOT was going on! You say that Athanasius was in communion with the Pope. Can you tell me, which one?
The Pope at Alexandria, the Pope at Antioch, or the Pope at Rome? All three, according to Gregory the First, possessed the throne of Peter:
Whereas there were many apostles, yet for the principality itself, one only see of the apostles prevailed, in authority, which is of one, but in three places. For he elevated the see in which he condescended to rest, and to finish his present life. He decorated the see, to which he sent his disciple the evangelist, and he established the see, in which, although he intended to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since there fore the see is of one and is one, over which three bishops preside by divine authority, whatsoever good I hear of you, I ascribe to myself. And if you hear any good of me, number it among your merits, be- cause we are all one in him who says, that all should be one, as thou, O Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they may be one in us. In the Eulogy to the Bishop of Alexandria
Theodoret references the same belief when he places the throne of Peter under the Bishop of Antioch:
Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles. Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
Ie, the Documentary Hypothesis.
wern't the Salem witch trials held by protestants in this country ??
Athanasius himself had the title of Pope, as the chief hierarch of Alexandria. There are a number of ancient Sees associated with that title, including Antioch, where Peter was once Bishop. He, Paul and others traveled around quite a bit. The head of the Coptic Church has that title to this day. Are you a Copt? Who's your Bishop?
I'll pick this up tomorrow. I've got to go to bed now. Goodnight, and God bless.
And yet you have substantial differences in interpretation of Tradition, Scripture and history, even on papal power and infallibility, among many other things. Nor do all of Rome's teachings have unanimous consent of the "fathers," despite claims for it. But RC assurance rests upon the premise of Rome's assured infallibility, under which only her interpretation has real authority.
Nor is NT authority based upon formal descent.
When the RCC is able to create a human spirit independent from God, then they might make a case that they alone can be the arbiters of His Word once He has provided it.
Until then, He already has a system in place by which we can have fellowship with Him and it is through faith in Christ, not through faith in Peter first.
“Hi, Greetings, I had in mind particularly Pope Julius I,”
So not either of the two other Popes, in Antioch or Alexandria. I’m less concerned with the Coptic claims or Eastern Orthodox claims than I am with the evolution of Romanist “Tradition” over the centuries. The Primacy of Peter of Gregory is not the same primacy of Peter of Rome today. It is a very different worldview.
Review all the writings of Ignatius, Polycarp or Clement, all writing before the end of the first century or early into the second. You will not find one quote referencing the Papacy or the supremacy of the Bishop of Rome. In fact, Ignatius, writing to Polycarp, called Polycarps head God. According to the Catechism, the Pope is the head of all the bishops and the church. None of these writers mention any higher position in the church than the Bishop, and the highest and, actually, the true authority is God. And whenever Peter is mentioned, he is mentioned alongside the other Apostles, with no hint or suggestion of his supremacy.