My Beefs With The Rcc

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='God Conquers' date='Jul 21 2004, 12:12 PM'] Also, the trinity CAN be proven in scripture. [/quote]
The problem is that almost anything can be proven from Scripture. Scripture must be read in the light of the Church's Tradition, or one will never have any certainty about what has been revealed. Arius proved his doctrine from Scripture, Nestorius proved his doctrine from Scripture, Apollinaris proved his doctrine from Scripture, Eutyches proved his doctrine from Scripture, etc.; every heretic that has come along has proved his doctrine from Scripture. The early Fathers of the Church (e.g., St. Irenaeus, St. Cyprian, St. Hippolytus, et al.) held that a man outside the Church, who lacked the Tradition coming from the Apostolic Churches could not properly read or understand the sacred texts. Thus, Scripture requires sacred Tradition, and as Catholics we must assert this at every turn. Because the whole idea that Scripture alone contains all that is necessary for salvation is a false doctrine, rejected long ago. [cf., Vatican 2, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Dei Verbum[/u], no. 9] In fact as an Eastern Catholic, I hold that Scripture is only one component part of Tradition, and that Tradition is the primary source for our knowledge about all that has been revealed, because it is the living expression of the faith as it is passed on from generation to generation in the power of the Holy Spirit, and under the guidance of the Sacred Magisterium. Finally, the fact that the canon of scripture itself cannot be known from scripture, proves that the idea that scripture contains all that is necessary for salvation is false. When discussing matters of theology with a Protestant, one must not approach him using his own false presuppositions; instead, one must first attack those presuppositions head on, in order to establish the falsity of the Protestant view of Scripture from the outset, and only then is it possible to overcome his error with the truth of Christ as it is known and lived out in the Church.

Edited July 21, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Luthien' date='Jul 20 2004, 02:21 PM']The Gospels were written by men were they not?[/quote]
Yes, the four Gospels were written by men, men who were inspired by God, and thus if follows that all that the sacred authors assert is asserted by the Holy Spirit. God used the natural talents and abilities of the human authors, and so they are true authors of the books that they wrote, but God is the primary author of Sacred Scripture.

[quote name='Luthien' date='Jul 20 2004, 02:21 PM']Who are you to say that the Church is any different from these MEN?[/quote]

Christ is the Church, because the Head and the Body are one Man. So, we must not confuse the individual members of the Church, who of course are not perfect, with the Church as a whole, which is perfect.

[quote name='Luthien' date='Jul 20 2004, 02:21 PM']The Church is not perfect, there are still unknowns. But who says the Apostles knew everything?[/quote]

As I indicated above the Church is perfect, because Christ is the Church. The Head and the Body form the Christus Totus, i.e., the Whole Christ.

Now the individual members of the Church are certainly not perfect, and each one is in need of constant repentance for the sins that he daily commits, but the Church as a whole is sinless, because her Head is sinless, and the Head and the Body are one Man. To ascribe sin or imperfection to the Church is to ascribe those things to Christ Himself, because the Church is the perpetual extension of the incarnation throughout time.

[quote name='Luthien' date='Jul 20 2004, 02:21 PM']I would also like you to find proof the Trinity in the Holy Scripture. [/quote]

The doctrine of the Trinity can be found in Sacred Scripture when the sacred texts are read in the light of Sacred Tradition, but in separation from the Church's Tradition, Scripture can be made to say or teach almost anything. Only in coordination with the living Tradition of the Church can Scripture be rightly understood.

Edited July 21, 2004 by Apotheoun

[Luthien]

Thanks for clarifying my statements, I did feel they weren't sufficient enough.

Still an apologist in training Im afraid.

[Kuya Lee]

[quote name='Luthien' date='Jul 21 2004, 06:51 PM']Still an apologist in training Im afraid.[/quote]
We all are

And you did a better job than I would ever have, Luthie


I learn so much from these Phatmass apologists

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Luthien' date='Jul 21 2004, 04:51 PM'] Thanks for clarifying my statements, I did feel they weren't sufficient enough.

Still an apologist in training Im afraid. [/quote]
You're doing quite well, so keep up the good work.

[Hananiah]

[quote name='Apotheoun' date='Jul 21 2004, 03:08 PM'] a Catholic must reject in an absolute and unequivocal manner the human doctrine of [i]sola scriptura[/i]. [/quote]
Agreed. The issue is how you word it. One should not say, "the Bible is unclear and ambiguous, such and such doctrines that we both believe cannot be proved from Scripture, etc." One should say, "the Bible is perfectly clear but you don't understand it because you lack the light of understanding offered by the Tradition of the Church."

[quote]If the Protestant takes this rejection as an attack on scripture itself, so be it, because true conversion will only come by grace, and not by an equivocal spirit intent on not offending pious Protestant ears.[/quote]
I've never been one to avoid calling a spade a spade, especially where souls are involved.

Edited July 22, 2004 by Hananiah

[Apotheoun]

[quote name='Hananiah' date='Jul 21 2004, 08:34 PM']One should say, "the Bible is perfectly clear but you don't understand it because you lack the light of understanding offered by the Tradition of the Church."[/quote]
The sentence quoted above contains inherently contradictory assertions, the first assertion is that Scripture is clear, which is then modified by the second part of the sentence which says that the "light" of Tradition is necessary in order to properly understand Scripture. This is nonsensical, because if Scripture is clear by itself, then it follows that the second part of the sentence is unnecessary and one does not need Tradition or the Church in order to understand it, but if the second part of the sentence is correct and one needs Tradition in order to properly understand Scripture, then it follows that Scripture is not by itself clear. The sentence as it is presently structured makes no sense.

I hold, in line with the common Catholic viewpoint, that Scripture is not perspicuous, because if it were, there would not be thousands of different Protestant denominations. Protestants erroneously hold that Scripture is clear on all things, but the Church has never held that to be the case. Scripture requires Tradition, and both of them require the Church, just as the Church needs both Scripture and Tradition. Scripture, Tradition and the Church form a single reality, in other words, they are the revelation of God in Christ, and any other position is a form of theological nominalism.

In fact as I indicated in my previous post, Scripture in separation from Tradition and the Church can be twisted to say almost anything, and this is so because it is not clear by itself, nor was Scripture ever meant to be held as sufficient in isolation from Tradition. As the Fathers of the Second Vatican Council stated, ". . . it is not from Sacred Scripture alone that the Church draws her certainty about everything which has been revealed. Therefore both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture are to be accepted and venerated with the same sense of loyalty and reverence. [Vatican 2, Dogmatic Constitution [u]Dei Verbum[/u], no. 9] As I said before, Arius proved his doctrine from Scripture, Nestorius proved his doctrine from Scripture, Apollinaris proved his doctrine from Scripture, Eutyches proved his doctrine from Scripture, the various Iconoclastic heretics proved their doctrine from Scripture, John Hus proved his doctrine from Scripture, Martin Luther proved his doctrine from Scripture, John Calvin proved his doctrine from Scripture; yes, all of these heretics proved their doctrine from Scripture, but all of them read Scripture in isolation, in other words, they separated it from Tradition and the Church. Scripture without Tradition and the Church's Magisterium is unclear, and was never meant to be clear in separation from the Apostolic Tradition and the Church's teaching authority. Therefore, in trying to explain the truth to a Protestant, a Catholic should not pretend that Scripture is perspicuous when it clearly is not. Scripture was never meant to be read in isolation from Sacred Tradition and the Church; because Christianity, as St. Bernard said, is not a religion of a book, and thus it was not meant to be "a written and mute word, but one living and incarnate, that is to say, not a word scratched by dumb signs on dead skins, but one in human form, truly graven, lively, . . . [and] not by the tracings of a dead pen, but by the workings of the Holy Spirit." [St. Bernard of Clairvaux, [u]Homilies in Praise of the Blessed Virgin Mary[/u], Homily 4:11]

Edited July 22, 2004 by Apotheoun

[CatholicAndFanatical]

whered you come from Apotheon?? Havent seen you before.

Welcome fellow Militant.

Your descriptions are fantastic..keep up the great work.


God Bless

[CatholicAndFanatical]

dang I talk and people scatter..thats disturbing

[littleflower+JMJ]

LOL dont be silly! i love it when you post!