Posted on 12/23/2011 12:33:44 PM PST by rzman21
Mormonism developed within the context of American Christian revivals and the prevalent desire to recover earlier forms of Christianity. Its development included the moral renewal more widely experienced in the newly formed United States.
As the 18th century came to a close, the prospects for American Christianity were less than encouraging. Memories of the Protestant revivals known as the First Great Awakening had long receded into memory, and the turmoil of the Revolutionary War era had taken a toll on religious life. Less than 10 percent of the population belonged to a church. This apparent state of decline, however, did not last long. The early decades of the new century brought a concentration of religious activity scarcely matched in any comparable period of world history. Now known as the Second Great Awakening, this period provides the general backdrop for the emergence of Mormonism.
Many different forces and circumstances coalesced to create an intense religious environment. Americans experienced social upheaval that affected every area of life. Disintegration of traditional structures and forms of authority fed into a spirit of opportunity, creativity, and competition. Established churches lost their privileged status and became like any other church or sect.
The sense of a new dawn, a new beginning, extended from the political to the religious sphere. It brought optimism and energy. Old hierarchies were replaced with populist, egalitarian visions of social life. Amid the turbulence of a society undergoing rapid, wrenching transformation, religion emerged as a potent force that both reflected and helped shape the wider social and intellectual currents.
One of the lasting developments during this period was the flourishing of an evangelical Protestantism that formed a united front. Competition coexisted with cooperation among the branches of Protestantism until the 1830s, when denominationalism asserted itself.
Central to the changing landscape of American Protestantism in the early 1800s was the voluntary association, a form of elective affiliation created for a certain purpose and, unlike earlier eras, not directed by the state or ecclesiastical authorities. Reform movements sprang up, addressing all sorts of social ills. Foreign and home missions, Sunday School, temperance, Sabbath-keeping, and prison reform are some of the causes taken up within the "benevolent empire" of Protestants. The cause of moral renewal merged the interests of churches with the needs of the new nation.
Theologically, too, the early decades of the 19th century were an unusually active, creative period. Notions of time and society were deeply impacted by a number of widespread theological currents. Many longed for a return to a primordial, distant past, and sought to implement this primitivism by recreating New Testament Christianity. Primitivism was often associated not only with the past, but the future as well, in the form of millennial expectations focusing on the imminent return of Christ.
Some religious groups reacted to the social disintegration by creating new forms of communal living. Others declared themselves independent seekers, dissatisfied with all existing claims to religious authority and truth. It was a time of visionaries and of self-declared prophets; many longed for a more powerful religious experience than was provided in the existing churches.
Many new religious groups sprang up in response to this spiritual longing. The spirit of revivalism stimulated a personal, emotional engagement with God. Although new groups often shared theological concepts with more mainstream churches, innovation could lead well beyond the acceptable boundaries of Christian orthodoxy.
Included among the many new groups to emerge under these circumstances were the Mormons. Early Mormonism clearly reflects the social and religious milieu of western New York during the Second Great Awakening, an area known as the "burned-over district" for the intensity of religious activity. Joseph Smith's theology brought together a large number of ideas already in circulation. This was part of its appeal to converts near and far. Yet it was also a distinctly new creation.
Despite an abundance of contemporary records, the task of tracing the sources of Mormon theology is a difficult one. There are several reasons for this. Among Mormonism's core beliefs are its claim to embody a "restored" Christian gospel, and its claim to continuing revelation. Both of these beliefs tend to obscure lines of demonstrable intellectual influence. Smith dictated revelations without explaining the underlying thought processes, if there were any. Nor did he ever write a carefully argued theological treatise. Moreover, Smith's lack of formal education or theological training makes it difficult to trace the impact of particular authors and writings he may have encountered.
It must also be borne in mind that Mormonism in 1830, the year of its official organization, resembled evangelical religion much more closely than did the Mormonism of 1844, the year of Smith's death. In 1830 Smith's theology was still in many ways compatible with the restorationist and millennialist streams of contemporary Protestantism. To that foundation was added, however, a second layer of restorationism, a distinctly Hebraic understanding of ritual authority and communal identity. A third layer was added in the final years of Smith's life, expanding the idea of restorationism into a more esoteric realm concerned with matters of afterlife and salvation.
Freemasonry explicitly and openly states that it is neither a religion nor a substitute for one. "There is no separate Masonic God", nor a separate proper name for a deity in any branch of Freemasonry.[29][60]
Regular Freemasonry requires that its candidates believe in a Supreme Being, but the interpretation of this term is subject to the conscience of the candidate. Consequently, Freemasonry accepts men from a range of faiths, including (but not limited to) Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism, and Sikhism. As a result, Freemasonry uses Volume of the Sacred Law (VSL) as a generic term for a religious book. As UGLE-based Freemasonry also requires that a VSL be present on the Altar, many Lodges have multiple VSLs available, and a candidate can be obligated on his book of choice.
Since the early 19th century, in the irregular Continental European tradition (meaning irregular to those Grand Lodges in amity with the United Grand Lodge of England), a very broad interpretation has been given to a non-dogmatic Supreme Being; in the tradition of Baruch Spinoza and Johann Wolfgang von Goethe – or views of The Ultimate Cosmic Oneness – along with Western atheistic idealism and agnosticism.
The form of Freemasonry most common in Scandinavia, known as the Swedish Rite, accepts only Christians.[61]
“The point is that despite such assertions the veracity of this claim does not rest upon the weight of Scriptural evidence”
Scripture makes no such claim to supremacy over tradition. In fact, we see the contrary. Nor could it because tradition was there before scripture was put together.
The whole question as to what IS scripture, and what counts as scripture, relies upon tradition. Scripture could not exist without tradition and neither could tradition exist without scripture. They rely upon one another.
“assurance of veracity effectively rests upon Rome’s claim to formulaic infallibility.”
The argument rests upon the fact that tradition came first, not infalliability.
“And which distinguishes them from cults and traditions of mens which rest upon the premise of the church being superior to Scripture”
The fact that none of the councils assert anything contrary to what scripture teaches. Nor could they. But they do define things like the trinity, the divinity of Christ, etc, in greater depth and understanding then we find in Scripture.
The Church, again, does not teach that the Councils are superior to scripture, they teach that the Councils are in accordance to scripture.
This is why, despite the disagreements between Catholics and protestants over scripture, they still agree that the first four councils are valid.
“while the core truths that find common affirmation among those who hold to the supremacy of Scripture are defended because these doctrines are demanded by Scripture in the light of the evidence.”
Which is what the Church teaches about the councils. That they abide with scripture.
“Jesus is testified to be God, one in nature with the Father, even if mostly not explicitly”
Nowhere is it said that God the father is one in nature with God the son, not in scripture. That comes from the ecumenical councils, from Nicaea, which rejected Arianism. You cannot get away from the councils, without begging the question, and assuming what you are trying to prove. With the councils you can reject Arianism. Without, you cannot. This is why they are there. Scripture is silent on the divine nature and the precision is not there.
“and you cannot have three Gods, while God is referred to in the plural and “one” is revealed as a unity of one”
As defined by the Athanasian Creed, not scripture.
“Much of Scripture can be said to have first been oral tradition, but your Tradition is oral”
In the beginning, yes, but not at present. Tradition hasn’t been oral since the 4th and 5th centuries. We have most of what the church fathers wrote, and their writings have comprised the bulk of the tradition that we now possess. There are a few things that stuck out until Chalcedon, but very little afterwards. For the most part, the Church after Chalcedon has the same traditions that she has today.
“Roman Catholics believe it is not Tradition if it is written.”
Citation?
“But the argument is how writings became progressively established as being Divine”
That has been the argument from the start. Oral tradition predates scripture. Scripture was compiled from Oral tradition, from the memories of those who lived and worked with Christ, and wrote down their experiences with them.
In this, we hold that the tradition handed down was divine, and was free from error. This is essential to sola scripturists, in that they hold that the tradition was divine, and that scripture takes on it’s value from tradition, and not the other way around.
Where the disagreement arises, is simple. The protestants of today, do not believe they are obligated to follow the oral traditions that were present when Scripture was recorded. They have chosen to follow their own traditions that they believe are more suited to the modern world. Which is fine. But that doesn’t mean that they are no less bound to tradition that the Catholics who assert that the tradition of the apostles has been handed down and carried through.
“by their manifest qualities and effects and supernatural attestation and conflation, or by a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium of men declaring them so, and the answer it the former. “
The only disagreement is that Catholics believe that the magesterium has always been infalliable as a whole, while Protestants believe that their offshoot was infalliable, lost it and then picked it up again somewhere along the way. They are not certain precisely when this occurred, but it must have happened.
If the magesterium of protestants is NOT infalliable, then neither is their bible.
“The perpetuated Petrine papacy is extrapolated out of the brethren type leadership of Peter”
Christ says that he will build his Church upon Peter, and that the gates of hell shall not prevail. He explicitly asserts that Peter shall have leadership over the church, in giving him the keys to the kingdom of heaven.
That’s what scripture says. It says nothing about ‘brethren leadership’. That’s eisegesis again. You are reading your traditions into scripture rather then letting scripture speak for itself.
“but is not the case Scripture”
Yes, it is the case, scripturally. That’s what scripture says.
“or historically”
Historically, Eusebius records the Pentarchy. Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, Constantinople. In that order are the ancient sees. Eusebius confirms Petrine primacy.
“and again assurance of this doctrine does not rests upon the weight of Scripture”
Yes, it does. It rests upon Christ’s words to Peter, in giving Peter the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven. Peter. That’s what the bible says. Go read it, you will see.
“but upon Rome’s say so.”
Nonsense. It’s in the bible. It’s right there. Deny it however you wish, but Petrine primacy is scriptural.
“The EOs themselves reject the claims of papal infallibility and papal claims to universal power based on tradition, and modern research by Catholic scholars support such.”
Citation, again. Yes, the Orthodox reject Petrine primacy. They do so because they believe that Constantinople should be accorded the same status as more ancient sees. Constantinople only took on authority after she was made to be the Capital of the Empire in the 4th century, and was elevated by the church councils.
Constantinople is not even the most ancient of the sees in the east. If anything, Antiochean, or Alexandrinian supremacy makes more sense.
Their disagreement is rooted in the fact that they do not want to submit to the Pope, or to scripture, but would rather retain their tradition, that they are the ones who are correct and Rome is wrong. But who wouldn’t? The problem for them, is that Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven to Peter, and Peter is the Bishop of Rome. Petrine primacy, is scriptural. The east is, in this matter, incorrect. I doubt most could tell you who even founded the Church in Constantinople.
“Most of the Divine writings we now hold to were established as Scripture by the time of Christ”
The Canon was not set until Damasus in 380 with the publication of the Vulgate, which included all of the New Testament that is used today.
Prior to this, there was disagreements as to what scripture ought to be constituted. Some books were accepted in one place, others in another place. Which is the situation that we have again today, and is most unfortunate.
But that is the way of man, to have each go their own way. But the NT as we know it today was formed by the time of Damasus, and not earlier.
“while it took Rome over 1400 years after the last book was written to finally supply her “infallible” canon.”
Wrong. The Canon was set by the time of Pope Damasus, and the publication of the Vulgate. If this were not so, why do we have manuscripts of the Vulgate that all have the exact same list of books, in the exact same order, some 1000 years before Luther?
“submit to the Jews as infallible”
Not the issue here. The New Testament in itself was not set as Canon until the time of Damasus. We can go talk to Origen, and he would not give us a set list of books, and so on and so forth.
If you can show me a biblical manuscript from before the 5th century with all the books of the NT, I would like to see it. The ones we do have are missing books.
:But as the Scriptures show this did not render them to be assuredly infallible, nor is a perpetual, assuredly infallible magisterium as that of Rome necessary to preserve truth and establish writing as Scripture.”
This is why the Church decides, and why the magesterium must be infalliable for sola scriptura to work. Otherwise, everyone can make up their own canon. There is no rationale for Luther to keep the books that he did, other than the fact, that the magesterium was correct. If Luther was wrong, then that means that Sola scriptura is wrong too. Rather then having a whole host of theologians, they rest on the opinions of one man. Does that sound to you like a sturdy place to rest?
“Scripture cannot provide certitude of doctrine”
Scripture as the product of an infalliable magisterium is certain to provide truth in doctrine. The Church affirms this. :) You’re trying to do an end around, but you can’t get there from here.
“thus you condescendingly appeal to Scripture as if it were the supreme authority, in attempting of persuade us to forsake that as supreme and render implicit assent of faith to Rome.”
You are basing your entire faith on a book written by the Catholic church. By the same magisterium that you condemn. No, the problem is not on our end, but yours. That is the consequence of using the book that she put together, that you are basing your faith on them getting it right, so many centuries ago. For if they are wrong, so are you.
“And thus you affirm sola ecclesia, or more specifically, sola Roma.”
Nonsense. Sola Gratia, salvation by the Grace of God, through Faith in Christ. You see, we don’t base our faith on a book. We put our faith in God. The book is not the be-all and end-all.
“The premise that the New Testament church with its elders/bishops was the church who all looked to a supreme demigod bishop in Rome”
As I said, this is the crucial part. You are affirming an infalliable magisterium in the Apostles. This is a crucial part of your faith.
But you are stuck. This is the same thing that the Catholic church teaches. The problem - the Catholic church teaches Apostolic succession, that there is an unbroken chain from the Church today to the Apostles.
So the counter argument is simple. This apostolic succession is false, and at some point in time the Church lost her apostolicity and never regain it. She became the whore of Babylon, enslaved to Rome, but a remnant preserved her teachings, and later on were proclaimed by Joseph Smith in Utah.
Or is it Luther, who left his Order? I can never keep it straight. Same argument.
So when did this enslavement to Rome occur, when the Church of the Apostles was broken? When did the Great Apostasy occur?
“In addition, Scripture was not “created” as if it were an ecclesiastical project of the magisterium, which your statement seems to infer”
Yes, the Gospels was created by the Apostles, who recorded their words and wrote them down for posterity. Then Paul, and Peter, and Jude and James, all wrote letters to the Church. But who put them all together on one book? Who was the first one to sum up the essential teachings of Christ such that the Word might be spread throughout the world?
Can you tell me who that person was? I bet you can’t tell me.
“as Rome was not certain about all the writings for well over a millennium”
False. There are Vulgates that have the exact same books that date back to the 6th, 7th centuries, that we possess today. The canon was set after Pope Damasus responded to the Emperor Theodosius (do you even know who he is)? and his requisition for a bible in Latin that could be distributed throughout the Church.
“and by which evidence councils could affirm books as being Scripture.”
The origin of the list of the NT that we have today, derives not from a council, but from a Pope. Prior to this, there was disagreement in the church as to the canonicity of the NT. It did not spring from Heaven, fully formed.
“As regards scripture being the master of tradition, what is abundantly evidenced is that Scripture was the judge of truth claims, and standard for obedience.”
But Scripture did not come first. That is the problem. The Apostles came before Scripture was written. They were the ones who wrote scripture down, and the Church compiled their writings to form the bible as we know it today.
We have the evidence from the Church fathers who discuss this issue for centuries.
“Which is why i affirmed that the kind of faith that justifies is one the effects the “obedience of faith.”
Then the Catholic church is in obedience for this is what she teaches. You are mistaken that she teaches that works are sufficient to obtain salvation.
“requires man to abase himself as one that is not morally worthy of salvation or able to become so on the basis of being so, but instead must look for the mercy of God in Christ as one that is damned and destitute, and by God’s grace trust God to save Him on account of the blood and righteousness of His Divine Son. And who thus follows His Lord and Savior in response, and is rewarded for it, by God’s grace.”
This is what we believe also. I am telling you, there is no disagreement over what Catholics believe and Protestants believe. Both believe the exact same thing on salvation. Exactly the same. :)
“Both are subject to some interpretation, and formally the EOs were not excluded as Catholics”
They are in schism at present. But the Catholic church does not deny them access to the sacraments. An Orthodox believer may take communion in a Catholic parish, just as Catholics may.
“extra Ecclesiam nulla salus”
Extra ecclesium nulla salus, is not in accordance with what the Church teaches. The Church teaches that those who desire baptism, and are not in formal union with the church, will be saved, through the Grace of God. Again, this is in the catechism, and is in Lumen Gentium.
“Rome changed her “attitude” towards Protestant, while Traditional Roman Catholics thinks the liberal hijacked Vatican Two. But the fact is that Rome and the EOs are still in schism, even if the divisions from the Protestants is more deep.”
Yes, at present that is so. But Catholics do not bar anyone who is orthodox from participating in the sacraments. That is because we believe that the divisions, are not doctrinal divisions, but rather organizational and historical and cultural. There is considerable hurt over the actions of many years ago. It was and is a tragedy but the hope is that this disaster may eventually be overcome.
The time is coming, as I firmly believe it, that we will need to stand together, behind Christ.
“The language of Lumen Gentium”
Then you should follow what the Pope has written. I am only paraphrasing his words here. :)
“The reality is that the decree of Trent was the first infallibly defined definition of the Roman Catholic canon”]
The Canon was set from the time of Pope Damasus in the late 4th century, exactly the same as the infalliably defined definition in Trent.
If you don’t believe me, I can dig up some of the really old Vulgates that we have and they all have the same books as Trent. If the canon were not set, you would expect that some would have different books in different orders, but they all have the same books in the same order, all the way up to Trent.
Yes, Trent was an ‘infalliable declaration’, but like all the other ones, it was confirming that which had already been held to be true for over a millenium before.
The real pity is that Luther did not attend at Trent. Had he done so, this whole mess could have been averted. It has always been the case for the Church, if the Church could argue with Arius, if Arius could be invited to an ecumenical counsil, and defend the principle, that Christ was not fully God, or equal to him, then so could Luther argue that his Canon was the correct one. There is no difference. Had the magisterium been convinced, then Luther would have been held up as the model of the faith.
But he did not, and so, the path has drawn out that we see today. He was invited. It would not have been a hostile meeting. It would have been a council like all the others, where the opponents were given full chance to speak their case before God. For better or for worse, it would have been decided.
“and may not be exactly the same as that of Hippo and Carthage (debated)”
We have pretty good evidence that Origen, from what he wrote when asked this question, uses a different list. Then you have books like the Shepherd of Hermas, and the Didache, the did not quite make it.
“and is not the same as the canon of your Tradition-based counterpart.”
Indeed. That is what I have been saying. That prior to Damasus in the late 4th century, the Canon was not set. After Damasus, it was set, and the list was exactly the same as Trent. The Vulgate was published by the Church for over 1000 years with the same books in Latin as she had in the beginning.
Vulgates after Trent are known as Clementine Vulgates, for the new edition. These are probably the ones you have encountered and are far more common. Pre and post Clementine Vulgates differ, but they have the same books in the same order.
“And rather than the 66 books of the Protestant canon being invented, it had strong support from the past”
It was invented. The precise list put forth by Luther was a novelty with no basis in tradition.
None of the other Church fathers put forth Luther’s list. The closest one is Damasus and the Vulgate published in the late 4th century.
“In addition, while the Protestant canon of Scripture (their supreme authority) was overall settled early on”
The New Testament Canon was not set until the time of Pope Damasus. Prior to that, there were disagreement as to which books should be contained in the NT. After that, there was agreement as to what did constitute the NT, with the publication of the Latin Vulgate.
“Old Testament writings were established by the time of Christ”
Yes, they were, in the Septuagint. The problem is that the Vulgate uses the same books as the Septuagint, whereas Luther uses a completely different list.
“Roman Catholics have no canon for their supreme authority”
Yes, we do. It’s called the Vulgate. Look it up, and look at the list of books. Published first in 400 AD. It’s the same as Trent, even though it is more than a millennium before.
“disagreement continue as to how many there are.”
No, there is no disagreement. You are misinformed. The Canon is set and is indentical today, as to the very first Vulgate published back in 400 AD.
“Both based upon Tradition and sola ecclesia (the church is effectively the supreme authority).”
Petrine authority is scriptural. Christ hands the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven to Peter. Presumably those who believe in sola scriptura would also believe in Petrine succession.
Oh, and the Orthodox roundly reject Sola scriptura too. Why? Because it’s contrary to the tradition of the Church.
“You can argue with EOs about Petrine Authority”
Klaus Schatz is in error. Eusebius argues in favor of Petrine authority, writing in the early 4th century.
“It is interesting that the most serious of these is the claim of the bishops of Rome to descend from Peter, the one member of the Twelve who was almost a missionary apostle in the Pauline sense”
There are no lists of bishops of Rome that do not include Peter as the first. There is some disagreement as to their number, but no disagreement that the first was Peter.
“By the third century, lists of bishops, each of whom had consecrated his successor, and which went back to the original founding of the see by one or the other of the apostles, had been collected or manufactured by most of the great cities of the empire and were reproduced by Eusebius”
Unfortunately for you, there is no evidence that Eusebius did anything of the sort. Denying historical evidence in favor of ‘new’ claims is pretty much standard. Rather then assert that what Eusebius wrote is reliable, we are expected to believe just the opposite.
Eusebius was in the fourth century. Unless we uncover earlier lists that say something contrary to what he wrote, then what Eusebius wrote must be considered to be the truth. Historical revisionism notwithstanding.
“You can only wish, as you ignore key distinctions, and substantial EOs see it as more than terminology.”
Arguing that waiting in Hades is not purgatory makes no sense to me. Both affirm that the waiting period is mandatory, and that the waiting period is temporary, and that only those who are saved endure this waiting period.
What is different is the terminology, but the crucial doctrines which Protestants deny are exactly the same. So to say that the Orthodox deny purgatory is incorrect.
“The Rome concept of “purgatory”, with its suffering after death as being expiatory, is definitely not Orthodox, is distinctly western and is outside the “consensus patrum,”
Instead they postulate a waiting period where souls train up for heaven. Sounds pretty similar to me and very different from what protestants believe.
“the inter-mediate state after death”
Yet, they postulate the existence of hades which is not purgatory... Seems to me they do say that there is an intermediate state, they disagree as to what it is like to be there.
“Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment.”
Well, given that they believe that the ‘training up in Hades/Purgatory’ is not ‘punishment’, then there is no need for indulgences, because every soul should endure their “training that is not suffereing” with forbearance.
“Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories”
Yes, that tends to be how things work with the Catholic church. Everything is interconnected. Catholic teachings on Purgatory support Catholic teachings on indulgences.
“unwitnessed in the Bible”
Not so. Corinthians refers to purgatory, saying that those who are righteous that their works will be tested by fire, and that those who survive, will escape, but only as one passing through the flames.”
Sounds an awful lot like Purgatory to me.
“evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church.”
There is nothing in Catholic doctrines mandating indulgences, nor that indulgences should be monetary compensation. You’re thinking of Simony. Yes, Simony was an evil, but Simony is not the same thing as indulgences. Prayers for those who are in purgatory qualify as indulgences, and they are undertaken out of the desire of the pentitent.
“If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner”
Again, the Catholic church teaches that only those who are saved endure purgatory. Their direction does not change, only the time in which they spend in Purgatory.
“Only in the sense described, that men “should repent and turn to God, and do works meet for repentance,” (Act 26:20) and without such a contrite repentant heart (Ps. 34:18) then there is no forgiveness. (Prv. 28:13)”
Again, there is no disagreement here.
“That is your fallible opinion, while in this i agree with the learned Coptic pope, that purgatory and indulgences are inter-correlated theories.”
Uh, that’s what I just said. There aren’t two issues, just one.
“What Scripture most clearly teaches whenever it speaks on the postmortem condition of Christians is that they will be with the Lord, either at death (2Cor. 5:8; Phil. 1:23,24) or if the Lord returns, (1Thes. 4:17) the latter being when one is fully confirmed to Christ and which they look, and toward a postmortem place of suffering for cleansing.”
Again, our works will be tested by fire.
“And as most of what Roman Catholics believe and practice”
We are very free in what is not doctrinal to pray as we wish and to devote ourselves to God as we wish. Provided we are in alignment with what the Church teaches, there is nothing wrong with this freedom. Paul himself exhorts his freedom in Christ.
“Catholics disagreement is quite wide and substantial”
Again, Catholics may disagree on a great deal of things without encountering doctrinal disagreement.
Daniel, I am going to have to parse out what you have here and tackle the rest tomorrow.
The argument vis a vis latriea/dulia/hyperdulia, deserves more time then to be appended at the end of this discussion.
“In addition to poor formatting.”
I spent an hour going through your post and replying to it.
Fat lot of good that did me.
“And logic. But here is your link to tradition only being oral. You can argue with him and others of your own i referenced. “
I’m arguing with you because of the point that you brought up. It would be nice to see you actually defend the points you make rather then running away when called out.
From your source, which unsuprisingly does not say what you claim it says.
“Many Christians mistakenly believe that Divine Revelation is found only in Sacred Scripture. They have rejected the idea of Sacred Tradition because they do not understand its meaning. These same Christians believe in the Deeds wrought by God in the history of salvation, and in so believing they are implicitly accepting Sacred Tradition. They explicitly reject Tradition, because they do not understand it. Yet, at the same time, they implicitly accept Tradition by faithfully believing that God wrought many wondrous deeds in the history of salvation. Some of these Christians are among those who defend the historical truths of Scripture against misguided scholars. In doing so, they are defending Tradition, for Tradition is nothing other than the Deeds of God in salvation history. If God had not acted within the history of the human race, there would be no Promised Messiah, no Crucifixion and Resurrection, no salvation, and no Scripture. If only they understood the true meaning of Sacred Tradition, perhaps they would accept it explicitly, as inseparable from Sacred Scripture. “
ping
I reject your premise, which is that one can reconstruct the living culture of the early church just from reading the 26 books of the New Testament. These writings are very often occasional, contain many allusions to people and events about which we know almost nothing, and even in Acts, the only church history we get, we get a spotty and incomplete record of went on over a thirty year period. I choose to reject the nation that most of it was written after 70 AD. I take Acts to be a record of the things that “Luke” knew, and if you count the days reported, they are very few. I submit,therefore, that you have to read a lot into the text to come to the conclusions you do. The Didache, with which you may be familiar, might come closer to proving your point, but 1) it is extrascriptural and 2) more a commentary than a scaramentary. Justin Martyr gives is a description of Christian worship about the year 150, and it sounds very much in outline like a mass/episcopal service/Lutheran service.
You object to a set liturgy because it leads to staleness, but “set” is relative. The liturgy is simply the form of public worship, and that has changed continually through the ages. This comes about because human cultures change, tastes, change. Even enthusiastic sects adopted to the preferences of their members. A Quaker meeting is different from one held in the 17th century. A Catholic mass in a 12th century Cistercian monastery was as simple an affair as a Sunday service in Plymouth in 1650. Even today, a service held in one of the big nondenominational churches is as elaborate as the ordinary mass at a nearby Catholic cathedral.
That only confirms my judgment.
I spent far ore than two hours in my reply, and there is no running away, as it is you were called out for your comments, but blithely denying things such as that Trent was the first infallible decree on the canon, which Catholic sources affirm, and thus debate continued before the and dismissing other evidence, shows you are not can only assert the party line and are worthy of further extensive time at this time.
As a Greek Catholic, I’m inclined to disregard Ultramontane efforts to elevate the papacy into something that even the current Roman pontiff rejects.
Only the decrees on the Immaculate Conception and Assumption are formally regarded as Ex Cathedra.
As Catholics say,”There’s no us use in being more Catholic than the Pope.”
Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff. (http://www.orthodoxanswers.org/media/documents/papalinfallibility.pdf)
Historical context is important here because Boniface VIII was anathematizing the French king for refusing the Pope’s temporal power, so there are other ways of reading this document.
I disagree with the author’s premise about Unum Sanctum based on my historical reading.
In any case, even Pius IX, who hardly was a liberal, taught in line with Vatican II with regard to the salvation of the “invincibly ignorant”.
she is as one denomination seeking to have dominion over the faith of all.
>>You don’t seem to have a grasp of ecclesiology. The Catholic Church is not a denomination like the Baptists or Lutherans or Presbyterians.
The difference between Protestantism and Orthodoxy is that the former is a heretical movement and the latter is in schism. The Orthodox have retained the priesthood and the sacraments. Some Orthodox theologians like Metropolitan Jonah of the OCA have conceded the idea of the Roman primacy up to a certain degree.
I’m a Greek Catholic and not a Greek Orthodox because papal primacy and jurisdiction, although not in the medieval form, was universally recognized in the early centuries, as the acts of the ecumenical councils, and Church Fathers attest.
As I am not an Ultramontane, I believe in the rights of the Eastern patriarchates to govern themselves with minimal papal interference save to appeals to his jurisdiction.
But conciliarism is just as errant as Ultramontanism, which John Paul II condemned as heretical.
I’d stop reading polemics written by Ultramontanes who think every papal utterance is infallible if I were you because it does not reflect the contemporary magisterium.
“I spent far ore than two hours in my reply”
Then you should be thankful that I took the time to go through your post in my reply.
“and there is no running away”
Heh. Rather then simply wait for me to finish my reply, tomorrow, you’ve turned tail.
Seen it all before. When the going gets tough...
“but blithely denying things such as that Trent was the first infallible decree on the canon”
You have a reading comprehension problem. I never said this. I did say that Trent reaffirmed what had been the policy of the Catholic church since the first Vulgate published back in 400 AD.
But why bother reading when you can simply give up.
In “Why Do We Reject Purgatory?”, Coptic Pope Shenouda III presents many theological and biblical arguments against Purgatory:
“The Rome concept of “purgatory”, with its suffering after death as being expiatory, is definitely not Orthodox, is distinctly western and is outside the “consensus patrum,” [Tradition] though the idea that there is a sort of purification is a theological theory which has been postulated...
The Orthodox Church does not believe in purgatory (a place of purging), that is, the inter-mediate state after death in which the souls of the saved (those who have not received temporal punishment for their sins) are purified of all taint preparatory to entering into Heaven, where every soul is perfect and fit to see God.
Also, the Orthodox Church does not believe in indulgences as remissions from purgatoral punishment. Both purgatory and indulgences are inter-corrolated theories, unwitnessed in the Bible or in the Ancient Church, and when they were enforced and applied they brought about evil practices at the expense of the prevailing Truths of the Church. If Almighty God in His merciful loving-kindness changes the dreadful situation of the sinner, it is unknown to the Church of Christ. The Church lived for fifteen hundred years without such a theory. — http://www.goarch.org/ourfaith/ourfaith7076
>>Sophistry. The Orthodox teaching amounts to the same thing. Not to mention, Greek Catholics aren’t required to teach the classical Latin definition of purgatory.
Too often those in rebellion setup straw men that don’t reflect the reality.
Evangelical Protestants would find the Orthodox teaching equally unacceptable to the Roman Catholic teaching.
And besides, the Pope Shenouda’s works are Protestant-influenced in some places. The Coptic Church’s prayers for the departed are similar to those used by the Roman Catholics.
Newsflash. Eastern Catholics don’t teach about indulgences. They are a theological opinion of the Western Church.
But the Greeks at one point practiced what amounted to indulgences.
http://www.pravoslavie.ru/english/041125153738.htm
Every one of your neatly boxed groups start with snippets of scriptural truth then add to it, subtract from it, or in some way pervert the pure words of scripture.
>>Like yourself. :)
2 Timothy 3: 16-17 “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 complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work”
>>This doesn’t teach Sola Scriptura. It simply says that scripture is useful for assisting the believer along the path toward salvation.
You are adding words to the scriptures by claiming this verse teaches Sola Scriptura.
Evangelical Neo-Christianity begins with anti-Catholicism then progresses to reading the Bible.
Being anti-Catholic is more important than following Christ.
You can quote scripture all you like, but all you have is your private interpretation of scripture without the benefit of the Holy Spirit.
The issue of images is another one that lacks “unanimous consent of the fathers.” the required “unanimous consent of the fathers”
“Scripture teaches on the immediate object of prayer to Heaven and access, and sufficiency of Christ”
>>Protestant Scholasticism is a poor imitation of Roman Catholic scholasticism because it takes texts out of context to prove a point. Scholasticism is bad comedy.
The Biblical canon is a tradition of men. Show me where in scripture the books of the Bible are explicitly laid out?
What verse? What text?
Why don’t you read Thomas, Peter, Judas, etc. instead of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John as scripture? Where in scripture does it say the library of books you call the Bible is scripture?
I’d say you can’t prove the canon based on Sola Scriptura. You can appeal to the Holy Spirit all you like, but there isn’t anything extrinsic in any of the scriptural texts apart from Tradition to say they are divinely inspired.
Then it is you who have a problem expressing yourself, as in response to my assertion you write, Yes, Trent was an ‘infalliable declaration’, but like all the other ones, it was confirming that which had already been held to be true for over a millenium before And if the canon was "set" then it would have precluded further debate, but while some professional Catholic apologist have different dates than you as to when the canon was set, and debate the issue as to whether the canon of Trent was exactly the same as that of Hippo and Carthage, (its still there in the linked page), and RC scholars disagree with you on establishment of Petrine Authority, we are just supposed to believe that your opinion is what matters.
I will get back tommorow
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.