It it historical fact that the doctrine of purgatory wasn't established until 593AD.
Purgatory has its roots in history. You will find this is true for all doctrines of the Catholic Church. If you're wondering why a "formal proclamation" of a doctrine doesn't show up until many centuries after the doctrine supposedly existed, then read on and it will be explained in my response about the Immaculate Conception.
It is historical fact that saints weren't canonized until 995AD.
The canonization process was developed over time. Saintly veneration, however, was widespread by the 4th century, and there is significant evidence pointing towards even earlier dates (perhaps the 2nd century). Look up Sub tuum praesidium, a very early hymn to Mary.
It is historical fact that the rosary wasn't invented until 1090AD.
So? It's a prayer. Not doctrinal.
It is historical fact that the Apocrypha wasn't added to the Bible until 1546AD.
The correct term is deuterocanon, and this statement is factually incorrect. I suspect that whatever site you pulled this bit of information from said something along the lines of "the Catholic Church formally added the Apocrypha to their canon at the Council of Trent." What they most likely left out was that Trent actually officially
closed the canon in the Catholic Church in response to the Reformers questioning the validity of books in the Bible (including certain NT works; Luther tried to remove a few).
This is how the Bible was formed:
- The works that would become the NT were completed by the end of the first century.
- The contents of the canon were disagreed upon by the ECFs. You will find different canon lists by different people between the 2nd and 5th centuries. They disagreed upon the contents of the OT (mostly the Deuterocanon, but some other works as well), and the contents of the NT. And as I said earlier, none of these canons are the 66 book Protestant canon.
- Two different regional Councils held around the year 400, headed by Augustine, promulgated a 73 book canon. This canon included the 27 books of the NT, the OT canon that you know, and the deuterocanon as part of the OT.
- Regional Councils are not binding on the entire Church. Nevertheless, this canon slowly spread throughout most of Christendom and became the de facto standard.
- During the Reformation, the Catholic Church closed the canon, and included all but one of the deuterocanonical books. This made the Catholic canon 72 books. The original Protestant bibles also had the deuterocanon, although generally as a separate section between the OT and NT.
- Later on, most Protestant bibles completely threw out the detuerocanon, creating the 66 book canon that exists in Protestant Bibles today.
- The Orthodox maintain a 73 book canon that might not even be closed. Then there's the Ethiopian Orthodox (which are of the Oriental Orthodox persuasion) which have a huge canon. I think their book total is in the 90s or so.
It is historical fact that the Immaculate Conception wasn't proclaimed by pope Pius IX until until 1854AD.
This is a misunderstanding of how the conciliar nature of the Church works. What is handed down is what is handed down. When people start questioning it and debating it, a Council is convened to reinforce doctrine. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception has its roots in history. Just go ask the Orthodox. They also believe Mary was without sin her entire life. Although their interpretation of the idea differs in certain fundamental aspects, there is a clear common "wellspring" from which the idea comes in these two most ancient of Churches.
Sorry about the double negative. What I was stating was if the Church recognized the Scriptures as being inspired and compiled them as a "measuring rod" or "canon" as to what TRUTH is and what TRUTH is not, and if the Church acted infallibally in that decision, then why are you, Dark Lite, not trusting that "canon" as a sufficient source for authority?
Does that make more sense?
Your phrasing makes sense now, yes. However, your argument does not. You are leaping from the idea that "the Church proclaimed the canon" to Sola Scriptura. Proclaiming a canon doesn't mean they proclaimed Sola Scriptura. It means that they proclaimed a canon, nothing more. The role that Scripture plays in the apostolic Churches is one of cementing the foundation. It is not
the foundation.
Ok, I get what you're saying. I actually wasn't aware there were that many. But, if these "23 different Churches" weren't afraid of being anathematized for disagreeing with Rome, I wonder how many would still be under the rule of Rome...? I know, it's a question that is not able to be answered.
Well, many of the eastern Churches came back into the Catholic Church at the Council of Florence in the 1400s, so apparently quite a few of them. A few (e.g. Marionites) never left communion with the Pope. Each of these 23 different particular Churches are headed up by a specific patriarch. All of them are in communion with the Pope. The Latin Church, which composes probably 90% of Catholicism, is headed by the Pope. The rest are headed by various people. The Pope technically has supreme authority over the other 22 churches as well, but in practice, they are mostly left to govern themselves autonomously.
Christ is the only way, truth and life. Protestant churches are in agreement here (NOT cults that claim they are Protestant, such as Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, etc...).
Do you agree with the "separated brethren" statement?
Yes. If I believe Catholicism has the fullness of the truth, then I must necessarily believe everyone else is wrong to some degree. But this isn't something unique to Catholicism. The Orthodox take an even harder stance on it and say that everyone else is "heterodox" and that they don't know at all the effectiveness of Christ outside his Church.
Confessional Lutherans take a stance similar to Catholicism in that they believe they are right and everyone else is wrong to some degree. Calvinists also take a similar stance on soteriology. They believe they are absolutely 100% correct that "the Gospel" is summarized by TULIP. But people that don't believe in Calvinism can also be saved (thanks to the way Calvinism works).
So what are you Dark Lite? Catholic or Roman Catholic.
If you want to get fully technical, I am a Catholic of the Latin Church who worships according to the Roman Rite. I prefer the Extraordinary Form when it is sung or chanted, otherwise I prefer the Ordinary Form as expressed by Vatican II.
If you want be less formal, then I'm just Catholic. All Catholics are Catholic. Any further descriptor should point to particular church or rite of worship.
Knee-jerk reaction? Luther took awhile before officially deciding NOT to recant. It definately wasn't a "knee-jerk reaction". And did you just admit there were "abuses in the Catholic Church"? The Church cannot err...
...In matters of faith and morals. Certain people within the Catholic Church have used its authority in influence to abuse power or participate in sin. The Anything that is run by humans is prone to sinfulness. The Church will not err when it proclaims doctrine and dogma through a Council or the Pope speaking ex cathedra. Beyond that, the potential for sinfulness exists.
I will use your statement: "Just because something [Dark Lite] cannot contradict something else [the Bible], does not mean that something else [the Bible] is a supreme authority." What does it mean then, if you are not allowed to contradict it?
It means what it says. The Bible is a set of information that cannot be contradicted. Nothing more, nothing less. I've noticed a lot (all) of Sola Scriptura theology involves jumping to conclusions based on eisegesis. Many Protestants cite verses in the Bible that don't mention Scripture, or have nothing to do with Scripture, in support of Sola Scriptura. I've always found that odd.
Such is the case here. You are jumping from "the Bible is a set of information that cannot be contradicted" to "the Bible is the only supreme authority, and all other sources of information are subservient to it." It fails to consider the possibility of there being another source of information that can also not be contradicted, which would be on an equal "level" with the Bible.
When the decision was made as to what books were going to be part of the canon, the church used the Latin term, recipemus, which means "we receive". They received the fact that the books were the measuring rod of truth, that they were apostolic in authority and origin, and that the church would submit to their authority.
How can one dispute the authority of something that has authority over them?
No one is disputing the authority of Scripture. People are disputing the idea that there is no need of an external interpretive authority, or that the Bible is the only source of infallible information.
Kinda like what the Roman Catholic Church did with the "traditions" that could not be backed up with Scripture. They just claimed that the Bible was silent on that particular point, threw out historical belief (except for certain pagan beliefs), and replaced Scripture with Tradition.
I believe I have made a sufficient case with the historical evidence that shows this is not the case. The development of the canon alone is a major argument against this.
What is contained in the Bible, is sufficient. Do you think God would have left out MAJOR doctrinal issues for this long?
The premise is Sola Scriptura. The conclusion is that because a major doctrine is not in the Bible, it must be wrong, or a pious opinion. If the premise falls apart, so does the conclusion.
Then what is your external interpretive authority? For Catholics, Orthodox, and the whole of Christianity before the Reformation, it is Tradition. For Protestants, it's: themselves, their pastor, their denomination.
So, we are really off the subject of this thread. Can I/should I pray to Mary and the saints? No, Christ specifically teaches us and gives us an outline for prayer. Nowhere in that prayer (or any other prayer included in the Bible) does it tell me to pray to saints or Mary as intercessors. I will pray as Christ taught because Christ and His word is my authority.
As I said, the divide always comes down to Sola Scriptura. It is the dividing line between Catholic and Protestant theology. You
must look at Catholic theology through the eyes of Scripture + Tradition in order to understand the theology of the Saints. If you look at it through the eyes of Sola Scriptura, it will make no sense.
I've already told you twice that much of the theology behind the communion of Saints is explicated outside the boundaries of the Bible, and that you must turn to the writings of the ECFs and the Church in order to get a full understanding.
The only thing left to talk about is Sola Scriptura as the dividing line. If you are unwilling to discuss that, then there isn't really anything left to discuss.
So far, I've found that the praying to Mary, saints, angels(?) thing didn't start until around 600AD. So, imitate Christ or imitate something that came almost 570 years after Christ..?
Sub tuum praesidium. Second century at the earliest. Paintings of various Christian figures found in Roman catacombs where the Christians used to meet. Also very early. Saintly veneration and prayer was around long before the year 600.
I'm not joking.
