Early Christian Writings

[Root of Jesse]

There is a difference, however. No one refers to the Westminster Confession as "inspired"-- you are correct about that. However, it is common for the Traditionist churches to refer to the Didache and anything written by any well-known Christian bishop, theologian, etc. from the first several centuries of Church History and use them to prove some doctrine. Taken as you suggest we do, however, they are indeed worth reading. They are witnesses to the state of the Church at that time, but that state could be correct or it might just as well be somewhat off the tracks.

Actually, no, it's not. It is common to use the Apostolic Fathers' writings to prove doctrine, but only from Scriptural basis. The Early Church Fathers, there's a distinction there, only so far as they do not contradict Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Fathers. And later writings usually refer to those.
We do not form doctrine from Apostolic writings. We gain context from them. Of course, people get it wrong. Historians today cannot even agree on what the Fathers of the Declaration and Constitution of the US meant by what they wrote. They even are very good at skewing the meaning of the commentary. This is why we rely on those who were inspired-the Apostles-t o explain what scripture means.

 

[Albion]

Actually, no, it's not. It is common to use the Apostolic Fathers' writings to prove doctrine, but only from Scriptural basis.

That's not true.

The Early Church Fathers, there's a distinction there, only so far as they do not contradict Scripture and the Sacred Tradition of the Apostolic Fathers.

"Do not contradict" is correct, but then again, what's so good about that?

Making up some doctrine like the Assumption of Mary out of thin air just because it seems devout and doesn't directly conflict with Scripture is hardly a good thing. After all Scripture doesn't say that Mary could fly, either, so it's eligible to become a dogma according to your theory.

 

[ranpleasant]

Making up some doctrine like the Assumption of Mary out of thin air just because it seems devout and doesn't directly conflict with Scripture is hardly a good thing. After all Scripture doesn't say that Mary could fly, either, so it's eligible to become a dogma according to your theory.

That is where the rest of the Word of God come into play, Holy Tradition. Holy Tradition is the Word of God the early Catholic Church was depended on before the New Testament was put together by Catholic Bishops. If you only have Holy Scripture you have only half the story of Jesus Christ. The Assumption of Mary has been part of Holy Tradition since the day of her assumption. If Mary had died her grave would have been one of the great holy sites of Christianity. St Peter's Basilica was built over the grave of Saint Peter. Can you imagine what would have been build over Mary's grave if she had one?

Ran

 

[Root of Jesse]

That's not true.

Yes, it is.

"Do not contradict" is correct, but then again, what's so good about that?

If it "does not contradict" scripture, this means that it agrees with scripture. For example, there is nothing in Scripture that says that Mary had other children. So we believe that she didn't.

Making up some doctrine like the Assumption of Mary out of thin air just because it seems devout and doesn't directly conflict with Scripture is hardly a good thing. After all Scripture doesn't say that Mary could fly, either, so it's eligible to become a dogma according to your theory.

The Assumption of Mary is not from 'thin air'. We know from scripture that bodily assumption is possible. Scripture doesn't say whether or not Mary died, whether or not she was buried, and there is some evidence, from Revelation, that she is bodily in heaven.

 

[Albion]

Yes, it is.
If it "does not contradict" scripture, this means that it agrees with scripture.

It certainly does not. All it means is that Scripture didn't address the matter. Therefore, to do what you advocate does not make it compatible with Scripture or in accord with Scripture. It makes it extra-Scriptural and without any Scriptural basis.

The Assumption of Mary is not from 'thin air'. We know from scripture that bodily assumption is possible.

It doesn't tell us that Mary was Assumed, however, which is all that matters. That's all.

 

[Root of Jesse]

It certainly does not. All it means is that Scripture didn't address the matter. Therefore, to do what you advocate does not make it compatible with Scripture or in accord with Scripture. It makes it extra-Scriptural and without any Scriptural basis.

Well that's where you limit yourself. But the Bible does not say that it alone is sufficient.

It doesn't tell us that Mary was Assumed, however, which is all that matters. That's all.

As Ran says, we know that Scripture alone isn't all there is. But Scripture does show Mary bodily in heaven. Right there in Revelation.

 

[Albion]

Well that's where you limit yourself.

You bet. I do not care to mix legends, folklore, and manmade doctrine in with God's word. That's right; I'll limit my doctrinal beliefs to God's word.

As Ran says, we know that Scripture alone isn't all there is. But Scripture does show Mary bodily in heaven. Right there in Revelation.

No, it doesn't. It shows us only that certain beings are in heaven, according to John's vision. Hosts of angels, for instance. Do you also fancy that they have human bodies, too.

 

[Root of Jesse]

You bet. I do not care to mix legends, folklore, and manmade doctrine in with God's word. That's right; I'll limit my doctrinal beliefs to God's word.

Well, that's what we do, too. But we know that before the Word was written, it was spoken.

No, it doesn't. It shows us only that certain beings are in heaven, according to John's vision. Hosts of angels, for instance. Do you also fancy that they have human bodies, too.

So you're saying the woman and child in Rev 12 are imaginary? Is the heavenly Jerusalem imaginary, as well? So should we say that it's all made up? Sounds like you're questioning the truth of that Scripture...

We already know, by definition, that angels don't have bodies. We also know that we all will be, eventually, bodily in heaven (or hell).

 

[WinBySurrender]

Hm ....

Funny, this thread is beginning to resemble the one that just got closed.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Hm ....

Funny, this thread is beginning to resemble the one that just got closed.

Yeah, until you folks stop mischaracterizing the Catholic Church, you'll keep catching flak from us.

You think you can have one place where you shove all the Catholics and we're just going to sit there and sing Kumbaya? And let you talk nonsense about what Catholics believe and how they worship? Not me.

 

[WinBySurrender]

Yeah, until you folks stop mischaracterizing the Catholic Church, you'll keep catching flak from us.

'Nuf said.

You think you can have one place where you shove all the Catholics and we're just going to sit there and sing Kumbaya? And let you talk nonsense about what Catholics believe and how they worship? Not me.

If that was all you talked about, we could have a great discussion, informative, edifying and blessed. Instead you want to characterize the Catholic Church as the only church and the rest of us as just "inclusions in your benevolent shelter." So now we're back to arrogance and hubris. I'll make a deal with you: You stop trying to act like "big brother" to all the "little churches" in the world without the name "Catholic" on the door, and we will stop nitpicking your doctrine. You stop pointing out our failures in living up to your doctrine and we will stop pointing out the flaws in your attitude. Then we can have some really good fellowship. Its about time we aimed for that instead of what we've been producing.

 

[Albion]

Yeah, until you folks stop mischaracterizing the Catholic Church, you'll keep catching flak from us.

You think you can have one place where you shove all the Catholics and we're just going to sit there and sing Kumbaya? And let you talk nonsense about what Catholics believe and how they worship? Not me.

Well, there are some Catholics who think it's a good idea to back up the more conciliatory language of Vatican II with action, rather than longing for the return of the Spanish Inquisition. So, no, the "we" is mainly you and a couple of others only.

On the other hand, when other threads were created recently in order to explore the differences, real or imagined, between the Sola Scriptura churches and the Tradition churches, and in an atmosphere of mutual respect, I noticed that you didn't show up. Not your style, I guess.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Well, there are some Catholics who think it's a good idea to back up the more conciliatory language of Vatican II with action, rather than longing for the return of the Spanish Inquisition. So, no, the "we" is mainly you and a couple of others only.

On the other hand, when other threads were created recently in order to explore the differences, real or imagined, between the Sola Scriptura churches and the Tradition churches, and in an atmosphere of mutual respect, I noticed that you didn't show up. Not your style, I guess.

Point them out, and I will check them out.

I don't think there's any difference between what you follow and what we follow. We've already proven that you don't go by the Bible alone. But the slogan needs to be fixed, or something, because it makes it seem like you feel superior, as in "We go strictly by Scripture alone." (As if you really do, or to the extent that you do, others do not.)

And if there was any truth in your 'stinging' criticism that we want to go back to the Spanish Inquisition (as if that were a bad thing, LOL-your modern court system COMES from the Spanish Inquisition...), it might have some effect. But alas, it is a hollow criticism.

And of course, we know how easily your feelings get hurt, so we'll try to avoid doing the same thing you do to us.

By the way, you're the one who's been criticizing Vatican II, we think that, rightly understood, Vatican II was a beautiful way to bring the Church into the modern era. Of course, taking into considerations the encyclicals that followed from those popes of happy memory, Paul VI, JPI and JPII, as well as our current Holy Father.

 

[Albion]

Point them out, and I will check them out.

There's nothing special about "checking out" anything. It's having an open mind and a willingness to give them an honest reconsideration that matters.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There's nothing special about "checking out" anything. It's having an open mind and a willingness to give them an honest reconsideration that matters.

If you think I have a closed mind, then it's you with the closed mind. I examined many faiths prior to becoming Catholic, and found them all the same-wanting. After seeing my family, the entire extended family, church-shopping, being pushed out of one, joining a church based on a recommendation, only to find out that it was the wrong branch of said church, and so on, after having searched with varying degrees of concentration for a faith that had some meat, and which would not waver when the chips were down (like those Protestant churches that have succumbed to ordaining women and conducting homosexual marriages, condoning abortion and contraception, condoning euthanasia, human cloning), I can see that the message of the faith of Catholicism is the one true one.
Be careful of pointing fingers, Albion.

 

[Root of Jesse]

There's nothing special about "checking out" anything. It's having an open mind and a willingness to give them an honest reconsideration that matters.

I honestly don't see where Protestants and Catholics are much different on their adherence to Scripture alone. I've shown you that, while the pieces of the Trinity are scriptural, the doctrine of the Trinity is not, and while the pieces of the idea of papal authority and the Eucharist are there in scripture, the doctrines are not.

So then it becomes a matter of which ones do you, as a church, want to believe? The Catholic Church says "All of them are true". Protestant churches snip a little off here, a little off there, and make a church that's comfortable for them. That's why I can say that Protestant doctrine is true, AND Catholic doctrine is true. They're not mutually exclusive. Protestantism is a subset of Catholicism.

 

[Albion]

I honestly don't see where Protestants and Catholics are much different on their adherence to Scripture alone.

In addition to scripture, Catholics accept a second, supposedly divine revelation that ts uses to establish some of its doctrines. Among them are ones that are required of the faithful. Protestants believe the word of God given in scripture to be the only authority when it comes to essential doctrine.

 

[Root of Jesse]

In addition to scripture, Catholics accept a second, supposedly divine revelation that ts uses to establish some of its doctrines. Among them are ones that are required of the faithful. Protestants believe the word of God given in scripture to be the only authority when it comes to essential doctrine.

So do you. The doctrine of the Trinity is just one example. The elements of the doctrine are scriptural, but the doctrine of the Trinity is not.

What was the Christian faith based on before there was "Scripture"? Keep in mind that it was 20 years before anything was written down.

 

[ranpleasant]

Protestants believe the word of God given in scripture to be the only authority when it comes to essential doctrine.

And yet the Bible itself says the Church is the authority rather than Holy Scripture. Believe the Bible!

The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth
1 Timothy 3:15


By the way, the book Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible by R.C. Sproul, et al, states that Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the highest authority but not the only authority.

Ran Pleasant

 

[Albion]

And yet the Bible itself says the Church is the authority rather than Holy Scripture. Believe the Bible!

The Church is the Pillar and Ground of Truth
1 Timothy 3:15

I know you are just giving back the standard Catholic reply, but what the Bible actually says in that passage (if we do not cut it in half as you did) is that the HOUSEHOLD (i.e. people) of GOD are the supporters of the Truth, not some association.

By the way, the book Sola Scriptura: The Protestant Position on the Bible by R.C. Sproul, et al, states that Sola Scriptura means that the Bible is the highest authority but not the only authority.

Well, if you can so easily find only what you want to find in 1 Timothy, it's not surprising that you might misunderstand this book, too.