Posted on 04/29/2012 3:06:06 PM PDT by NYer
Once, when the Magisterium canonized the entire Bible declaring it inerrant and divinely inspired, wasn't enough?
The first thing we need to understand is that dogmas NEVER change, practices do. Doctrines may be revised is a very few specific ways:
1) Doctrines that are implicit in Tradition and Scripture become explicit or may be confirmed as dogma.
2) Doctrines that are explicit develop over time so as to be more fully understood. 3) Non-infallible doctrines can be corrected or changed; i.e.; Limbo was taught by many Bishops for time.
And the bulk of Scripture was established as such without a perpetual assuredly infallible magisterium, and souls could also have Scriptural assurance of truth.
As see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2877917/posts?page=20#20
No, it is not enough for Catholics, for whom Scripture is not the supreme or determinative authority, even after Rome finally provided an infallible, indisputable settled canon in the 16th century, and yet that was not the point.
For as you must know, affirming a source to be Divine, and declaring what it means are two different things, and which was the issue, and that the parameters of magisterial teaching leaves RCs with a great amount of liberty to interpret Scripture to support traditions of Rome as they understand them, (even if they do not rest upon the weight of Scriptural warrant).
You are missing the point. I affirmed that some of Scripture was first oral tradition before being written, that of it first being spoken before it was written (though not after centuries, and i reject the JEPD hypothesis), but i was addressing the often-used logic that since some of Scripture was first oral, then that makes other things which were passed down in the same medium to be equal to it, which is akin to saying that everything the human instruments of revelation wrote was also inspired.
Of course, it does not make it equal, and thus the key issue is that Rome decides which part of this nebulous oral tradition is equal to tradition (even if she disagrees in part with others such as the EOs, which also presume the same), and which effectively adds to the canon, as well as making Rome the supreme authority over both.
And in which she presumes that assurance of Truth and establishment of writings as Scripture necessitates her assuredly infallible magisterium, which she infallibly declares she is, but which is not Scriptural, as truth was known and preserved, and most of the Divine writings were established as such, without an assuredly infallible perpetual magisterium of men.
Nor was the authority of prophets or men of God or of Christ Himself, or the church, dependent upon the sanction of those who laid claim to historical decent and positional authority (though they should affirm such).
Rather, as with Scripture, their authority was established upon conflation with Scripture and the Heavenly qualities and the Divine attestation it provides for (and which the gospel sees in manifest regeneration).
Rome presumes the authority of a Moses, or an apostle, but lacks their attestive qualities in text and in power, and is more akin to the chief priests and elders who disallowed the authority of any who lacked their sanction, but the church began in dissent from those who presumed a level of assured veracity that Scripture did not given them, and such dissent, due to submission to Scripture in key aspects, is sometimes required for the church to prevail against the gates of Hell when it becomes too much as those gates.
This is an ongoing debate btwn RCs.
It is not "Rome", but the Holy Spirit that decides. And, like Scripture, communicates that through chosen persons.
It is hypocrisy to accept the actions of the Church and the Holy Spirit when it is found flattering and then to reject it when it challenges you authoritative comfort zone.
That was no formal canon of Scripture prior to Trent is an old Protestant canard. The canon was set in 381 and affirmed when St. Jerome was commissioned to produce a Latin Vulgate translation of it. It was re-affirmed at Trent in response to the Reformation's challenge to it and the removal of books previously canonized. The canard has been propagated to give cover and credibility to the Protestant canon.
Let's agree that we can have different theologies, interpretations and doctrines, but matters of documented history are not subject to convenient revision.
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
That is an absurd statement, the logic of which would once again nuke the church if consistently followed.
For what Scripture reveals is that being an instrument of the Holy Spirit does not equate to assured infallibility, which is what Rome claims she has, for if it did then everyone in the first century would have had to submit to the Jews and their magisterium, and men like Caiaphas.
The issue here is not whether Rome can speak infallible truth, which even a donkey might, but that of the assured formulaic infallibility of Rome, in which she has "infallibly" declared that she was, is and ever will be infallible whenever she has spoken or will speak in accordance with her infallibly defined scope and subject-based criteria. Which renders her declaration of infallibility to be infallible and whatever else she utters under that premise in maintaining her "authoritative comfort zone."
Furthermore, our historically commonly held affirmation of core truths such as the deity of Christ does not rest upon Rome, but on the weight of Scripture, it alone having assured veracity.
And, like true men of God, the Divine writings were progressively established as being of God based upon its Heavenly qualities and Divine attestation, and not by men presuming authority over them.
And thus the church began in dissent from those who could lay claim to historical authority, as the authority of the former and its Object of faith rested upon Scripture and the attestive qualities and power of God it affirms. (Ps. 19: 7-11; 119; Mt. 22:29-45; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:39,42; Lk. 24:27,44; Jn. 5:36,39; Acts 2:14-35; 4:33; 5:12; 15:6-21;17:2,11; 18:28; 28:23; Rm. 15:19; 2Cor. 6:1-10; 12:12; Heb. 1-5-2:4, etc.)
"For the kingdom of God is not in word [proclamation], but in power. " (1 Corinthians 4:20) And most principally the Biblical gospel of grace with its manifest transformative regeneration (which multitudes of paedobaptized souls later realized upon true conversion) is "the power of God unto salvation." (Rm. 1:16) Thanks be to God!
ABSOLUTELY INDEED.
As usual.
Blessings,
Were that true you would be able to demonstrate that exclusively from Scripture. Your argument is purely inductive which produces a deduction, not a truth or conclusion.
Your failure here is that you attribute to "Rome" that which belongs to the Holy Spirit. On those occasions when the Church speaks infallibly it is doing so not as another voluntary denominational organization but as the mystical body of the Church as established by Jesus and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
To be a Christian we have to believe that Jesus is God and that His words are not merely descriptive but carried with them the same power of creation as when God said; "Let there be light". They were transformative. When Jesus said; "“Tabitha, get up.” She opened her eyes, and seeing Peter she sat up. "When He said; “Lazarus, come out!” it was so. When He said; "Your sins are forgiven." they were. And when He said; And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church" it too was so.
For what Scripture reveals is that being an instrument of the Holy Spirit does not equate to assured infallibility, which is what Rome claims she has..."
Were that true you would be able to demonstrate that exclusively from Scripture. Your argument is purely inductive which produces a deduction, not a truth or conclusion.
What kind of truth or conclusion are you asserting ? Do you really believe that Scripture itself does not conclusively show that being an instrument of the Holy Spirit, which the Jews surely were as the instruments and steward of Divine revelation, (Rm. 3:2; 9:4) does not equate to assured infallibility? Or do you think they were assuredly infallible whenever they spoke on faith and morals to their flock? Only God is, and His assured word is Scripture.
On those occasions when the Church speaks infallibly it is..as the mystical body of the Church as established by Jesus and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.........
And so forth as she and her children must preach a church, but we are not impressed by such arguments by assertion for this object of devotion.
That was no formal canon of Scripture prior to Trent is an old Protestant canard.
Rather, that Rome had an "infallible,” indisputable settled canon before 1546 (the year Luther died) is an oft-repeated Catholic canard. And one that i have often corrected here (and here here, here and here etc.) on FR.
See here, for the facts are that there was dispute over book s right into Trent (which some argue appears to differs as regards 1 + 2 Esdras with its confusing nomenclature), which finally definitively settled the matter of the Old Testament Canon, and affirmed the Vulgate (but which required a thorough revision, as there was not a single authoritative edition at that time, of there there were many variant editions, with the oldest extant manuscript containing the “Epistle to the Laodiceans. More below.*) Some Roman Catholics even held that the Vulgate was superior to the Greek in the places where they disagreed!
*The affirmation of Trent necessitated an official version which resulted in the Sistine Vulgate , undertaken by the over zealous Pope Sixtus V, with at least two assistants, and for which Vulgate he wrote the Bull Aeternus Ille (1 March 1590), which was attached to the Lateran basilica, which declared it to be the “the authorized Vulgate of the Tridentine Council,” and excommunicated those who deviated from it. But it is understood that this Vulgate was not to be reprinted for 10 years outside the Vatican (though it was found in many countries, and the pope sent one to the king of Spain), and it is contended that the Bull was not properly formally promulgated. Bellarmine warned of the danger of this Vulgate and Bull to the claims of the church, and after the sudden death of Sixtus (who had placed one of Bellarmine's books on the list of forbidden books), further sale of the Sistine Vulgate was forbade, and Bellarmine recommend buying up all the copies (over 40), which the succeeding pope Clement 8 executed, repurchases being mostly from Germany, Belgium and Holland.
Correction of its many errors resulted in the first edition of the Clementine Vulgate (official version till 1979), presented as a Sixtine edition, with a preface in which Bellarmine charitably attributed the problem of the previous version to being that of copyist errors, rather than being the fault of Sixtus. And which removed 3 and 4 Esdras and the Prayer of Manasses (commonly found in medieval MSS of the Vulgate, immediately after 2Chronicles) from the Old Testament and placed them as Apocrypha into an appendix following the New Testament. and the Vetus Latina (not really a single version) the current Nova Vulgata which is said to follow the Hebrew and Greek textual variations more often than the Latin ones.
Other sources: The American ecclesiastical review;: a monthly publication for the ...: Volume 51 - Page 492-94, and Vol. 46, pp. 387-390Catholic University of America
The Catholic faith; or, Doctrines of the Church of Rome contrary to ... By John Harvey Treat, p. 542
Bruce M. Metzger, The Early Versions of the New Testament, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1977, pp. 348-349
With all due respect, I am not swayed by the number of times you "correct" the issue or the length and number of dubious sources you cite in the process. The Canon of Scripture was established in the 4th century by the Catholic Church, deriving it from the Apostolic traditions and using the Nicean Creed as a litmus.
The first authorization was at by Pope Damasus I's Council of Rome in 382 and provided the listing of books for St. Jerome's Vulgate translation. The Synod of Hippo in 393 reaffirmed it and the Councils of Carthage in 397 and 419, under the direction of St. Augustine again affirmed it.
The Council of Trent, as stated earlier, reaffirmed the original Canon in response to its radical revision by Luther and the Reformation.
We can certainly debate or disagree on doctrine, and even the significance or consequences of historical events, but you cannot misstate history and maintain any credibility. To attempt to do so is yet another Protestant canard.
So .... specifically, what parts of Scripture are fallible?
And the authority which the RC's claim gives the RCC their claim to infallibile Sacred Tradition, is what again?
Isn't it the Scripture they claim to have written and appeal to for their authority?
Or are we to accept their claim of infallibility and Sacred Tradition on their say so?
Circular reasoning much?
Who just happen to be in Rome.
How convenient.
Any self-declared and self-authorized group which claims to be the mouthpiece of God in the earth that all others are bound to follow on pain of eternal damnation, is immediately suspect.
It doesn't matter one iota who they claim to be, what their pedigree is, or how long they've been around, claims like that smack of serious control and manipulation issues.
That is a question that ignores the nature of Scripture and violates proper English grammar. It is an errant question and the one who posed it is therefore fallible.
Scripture by definition is inerrant, a state of being completely without error. Fallibility or infallibility describes actions relative to the ability to err. To refer to Scripture as fallible or infallible assigns to the ability to act, which it does not have.
No, the Bible is inerrant.
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.