Biblical Case For Schism

[Pleural]

No, sola scriptura is not self-defeating. Self-defeating would mean that the position is not consistent and contains contradictions. That would mean that the Bible contradicts itself. It does not. Alternatively, it would mean that the Bible specifically says that sola scriptura is incorrect, which again, it does not.

If you were honest with yourself you would realize that Tradition cannot be proved by any evidence either. You accept it on faith.

[mortify]

If the bible were sufficient in explaining itself there would not be a multiplicity of sects.

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412168' date='Oct 31 2007, 07:47 PM']No, sola scriptura is not self-defeating. Self-defeating would mean that the position is not consistent and contains contradictions. That would mean that the Bible contradicts itself. It does not. Alternatively, it would mean that the Bible specifically says that sola scriptura is incorrect, which again, it does not.[/quote] It's self defeating in that there's is no biblical evidence for sola scriptura. Sola scriptura teaches that the bible has the final word on all matters of faith and morals, and that all of God's truth is contained within it.The bible never says that,so by sola scriptura's own teachings,it is'nt true.The position is in direct conflict with itself.

[quote]If you were honest with yourself you would realize that Tradition cannot be proved by any evidence either. You accept it on faith.[/quote]What do you mean by tradition? Sacred or ecclesial? And what do you mean by proved? I'm not trying to be a nitpick,but that's so vague.The bible gives credibility to using oral and written tradition as a means of transmitting God's truth, that's sacred tradition.We can know from various Pagan and non Christian writers the credibility of common traditional practices held by the church
,that's ecclesial tradition.I don't accept traditions,either sacred or ecclesial only because of faith,I accept them because they are historical facts.You're last statement could be taken as a personal attack,but I''m sure that that wasn't you're meaning.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1408988' date='Oct 25 2007, 12:21 AM']When Christ promised that His church would not be overcome by the gates of hell, he did not say that His church would be the same church which you and I know today as the Roman Catholic Church, nor did he even say that His church would be the same church that Eusebius or any of the so-called Church Fathers would know as their church.
By the same logic, there is no reason not to believe that same God can grant infallibility to me, when speaking on faith and morals, and no particular reason you should place your confidence in some man called Pope rather than in me. The same can be said for any other human being -- by your logic there is no reason to doubt any man's infallibility.
More importantly, there is no reason [b]to[/b] believe that God chose to grant infallibility to any pope. Catholics believe in Scripture and Tradition. True Scripture and true Tradition should support one another. The only way to support infallibility using Tradition alone would involve circular reasoning, because infallibility arises from Tradition, and thus the claim cannot be made without supporting Scripture. Sp it makes sense to consider Scripture on the issue. Scripture says nothing to suggest that God would grant infallibility to the popes. Scripture does not even say that Peter himself was granted infallibility. However, even if Peter and the other apostles were infallible, and even if Peter was the first or the chief of all of the apostles, there is no reason to believe that Christ intended this infallibility or primal leadership to pass from Peter to some other single man, by whatever means chosen.
If Christ meant Peter when he said "on this rock", then he meant Peter. There is no reason to change Christ's words to say "on this rock, and on the rock of the next bishop of Rome, and on the rock of the next bishop after him, and on the next, and the next, etc.". No, any rock which is suitable as a foundation is a single rock, unbreakable and indivisible. It is not a series of men throughout history. We also have no record of Christ indicating that Peter was to have a successor, nor any means of choosing his successor if he was to have one.

Simply put, the argument of whether Peter was the rock upon which the church was to be built is a moot point when considering whether we should now follow the men who are called popes or the church called the Roman Catholic Church. The fact that Christ said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against His church is also a moot point, because Christ never said that His church would be the one we know as the Roman Catholic Church. One must determine what His church is before deciding whether Christ's words apply.[/quote]
If you accept (as is indeed evident from honest reading of Scripture), that Peter was indeed the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, and upon which the gates of Hell would not prevail, then it makes no sense to imply that this Church would not last past the death of Peter, and thus be without a Rock and Foundation.

Why would Christ found a Church that would only last 30-odd years and then disappear, or remain unknown and rudderless, after that?

And given that the early Church Fathers all agree that the Bishop of Rome was indeed the successor to Peter, your case is not borne up by the historical evidence.

I find the whole "Early Deceivers" theory, in which Christ founds a Church which almost immediately is taken over and forced under by liars and decievers, to be a hypotheses built on thin sand indeed, rather than on a Rock. And it doesn't seem to square up too well against Christ's promise that "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

A rock implies a solid foundation which will last through the ages (the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it).

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412168' date='Oct 31 2007, 09:47 PM']No, sola scriptura is not self-defeating. Self-defeating would mean that the position is not consistent and contains contradictions. That would mean that the Bible contradicts itself. It does not. Alternatively, it would mean that the Bible specifically says that sola scriptura is incorrect, which again, it does not.[/quote]Can it be any clearer, when the Ethiopean Eunuch rejects the validity of Sola Scriptura in the Acts of the Apostles [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts8.htm#v31"](see Acts 8:31)[/url]? When he said that he couldn't understand Holy Scriptures, the "Sola Scriptura" position would not have allowed the authority to interpret Scriptures to be placed on another man.

I would suggest that the Catholic teaching views Phillip as an archetype for the Magesterium of the Church.

In contrast, the Sola Scriptura proponent measures the authority of their pastor based on popularity (though I doubt many would admit it). In effect, this democratic view of Truth means that a protestant pastor may be faithful to a particularly unpopular truth, only to see his church attendance dwindle; while another protestant pastor may shy away from truth in order to fill the seats. In a sense, the church attendence (and collection plate) become the final earthly authority that fills the place of Phillip in Acts.

Since different people want to hear different gospels, who could be surprised that Protestant churches disagree on just about every question related to Faith and Morals? In fact, St. Paul predicted this in [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/galatians/galatians1.htm#v6"]Gal 1:6[/url] and [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2timothy/2timothy4.htm#v3"]2 Tim 4:3-4[/url].

[Pleural]

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1412175' date='Oct 31 2007, 09:11 PM']What do you mean by tradition? Sacred or ecclesial? And what do you mean by proved? I'm not trying to be a nitpick,but that's so vague.The bible gives credibility to using oral and written tradition as a means of transmitting God's truth, that's sacred tradition.We can know from various Pagan and non Christian writers the credibility of common traditional practices held by the church
,that's ecclesial tradition.I don't accept traditions,either sacred or ecclesial only because of faith,I accept them because they are historical facts.You're last statement could be taken as a personal attack,but I''m sure that that wasn't you're meaning.[/quote]

As for the word "proved", recall that you used the same word in your previous post.

It's only a personal attack if you interpret it that way. It's a matter of fact that Catholics accept tradition on faith, and you consider that an insult then you ought to reconsider your Catholicism. The tradition I meant was probably what you call "sacred tradition", which includes the various proclamations of popes and ecumenical councils which are supposed by the Catholic church to be infallible.
I'm not sure why you seem to take "faith" as an attack, considering that the Bible says we must have faith to be saved. The question is where that faith is placed.
When you say that traditions are historical facts, that statement is redundant. By definition, traditions are things which are passed down through time (history). It is circular reasoning to say that you accept tradition because it is historical fact (i.e. because it is tradition).

[quote name='Socrates' post='1412180' date='Oct 31 2007, 09:27 PM']If you accept (as is indeed evident from honest reading of Scripture), that Peter was indeed the Rock upon which Christ built His Church, and upon which the gates of Hell would not prevail, then it makes no sense to imply that this Church would not last past the death of Peter, and thus be without a Rock and Foundation.

Why would Christ found a Church that would only last 30-odd years and then disappear, or remain unknown and rudderless, after that?[/quote]

Well, for one, Christ never said that the church needs a "rudder" (which I interpret as a single guiding entity on earth, which is probably what you meant) to survive, or to prevent "the gates of hell" from prevailing against it. As for "unknown", refer to Matthew 7:13-14.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1412180' date='Oct 31 2007, 09:27 PM']And given that the early Church Fathers all agree that the Bishop of Rome was indeed the successor to Peter, your case is not borne up by the historical evidence.[/quote]

No, they don't. And in order to make such a claim, you'll need to provide specific quotes and references.
In anticipation, I'll note that you use the word "early" in a rather vague manner. But I'll leave you to find quotes and references to support your claim.
Keep in mind Galatians 1:6 ("I marvel that ye are so soon removed ... unto another gospel").

[quote name='Socrates' post='1412180' date='Oct 31 2007, 09:27 PM']I find the whole "Early Deceivers" theory, in which Christ founds a Church which almost immediately is taken over and forced under by liars and decievers, to be a hypotheses built on thin sand indeed, rather than on a Rock. And it doesn't seem to square up too well against Christ's promise that "The gates of Hell shall not prevail against it."

A rock implies a solid foundation which will last through the ages (the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it).[/quote]

Perhaps you give the "theory" a name and word it in this way in order to avoid giving it serious consideration?
"forced under"? Well, Christ himself said that the true church would be persecuted and that there would be false teachers.

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1412183' date='Oct 31 2007, 09:39 PM']Can it be any clearer, when the Ethiopean Eunuch rejects the validity of Sola Scriptura in the Acts of the Apostles [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts8.htm#v31"](see Acts 8:31)[/url]? When he said that he couldn't understand Holy Scriptures, the "Sola Scriptura" position would not have allowed the authority to interpret Scriptures to be placed on another man.

I would suggest that the Catholic teaching views Phillip as an archetype for the Magesterium of the Church.[/quote]

Interesting twist on the story. However, you're not fully considering the situation if you believe it supports your view.
For one thing, the eunuch which Philip met was from Ethiopia. He was not raised as a Jew and probably had very little exposure to Jewish worship and the scriptures (at that time, only the Old Testament scriptures).
As far as we know, the eunuch had only the book of the prophet Isaiah. We have no evidence that he even knew anything else of God or His covenants. Apparently he hadn't done a thorough study of the entire Old Testament, but was focusing on a certain passage in Isaiah ("The place of the scripture which he read was this" -- Acts 8:32).
Further, the eunuch was not present in Judea when Jesus was teaching, nor did he have the New Testament. That fact alone renders this passage as unhelpful to your case. As evidence of this, the eunuch did not know that He who "was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth" was Jesus.

Compare the account of the Bereans in Acts 17, who, when Paul and Silas were teaching them, "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." These not only had an understanding of Scripture (the Old Testament), but received the gospel with ready minds. As we see here, part of what is involved in "readiness of mind" is a willingness to search the scriptures to determine whether what we are taught is in harmony with them.
Many of the Bereans believed precisely [b]because[/b] of the readiness of their minds and their willingness to search the scriptures. They proved that the scripture taught of the same things which Paul and Silas were teaching them -- the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Since you brought up the case of the eunuch, I'll mention it as an example of the correct practice of baptism, which always occurs after belief, not before, and always with the person who is baptized being willing and aware.

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1412183' date='Oct 31 2007, 09:39 PM']In contrast, the Sola Scriptura proponent measures the authority of their pastor based on popularity (though I doubt many would admit it). In effect, this democratic view of Truth means that a protestant pastor may be faithful to a particularly unpopular truth, only to see his church attendance dwindle; while another protestant pastor may shy away from truth in order to fill the seats. In a sense, the church attendence (and collection plate) become the final earthly authority that fills the place of Phillip in Acts.[/quote]

No doubt that what you describe is a very important factor in the "church growth" movement, "megachurches", etc., but it does not follow that the same is representative of non-Catholic churches in general.
Also, when there are doctrinal changes over time, what does it matter whether they are caused by a bow to popularity or enforced by an oligarchy/monarchy (as in Roman Catholic church hierarchy)? The end result is the same: divergence from the truth of the gospel of Jesus which the apostles taught.
As the lesson of the Bereans teaches us, a "readiness of mind" and willingness to search the scriptures will protect us from errors such as you describe.

What does "readiness of mind" mean to us? For one, we must be humble. We must be willing to accept that what we have been brought up to believe may not be correct. We must be able to rightly divide the truth from that which is false (see 2 Timothy 2:15), rejecting doctrinal errors which may have crept up into our congregation.

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1412183' date='Oct 31 2007, 09:39 PM']Since different people want to hear different gospels, who could be surprised that Protestant churches disagree on just about every question related to Faith and Morals? In fact, St. Paul predicted this in [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/galatians/galatians1.htm#v6"]Gal 1:6[/url] and [url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/2timothy/2timothy4.htm#v3"]2 Tim 4:3-4[/url].[/quote]

What's your point? The Catholic church is part of that disagreement, since it disagrees with all the others.

[Deo Iuvente]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 07:37 PM']As for the word "proved", recall that you used the same word in your previous post.

It's only a personal attack if you interpret it that way. It's a matter of fact that Catholics accept tradition on faith, and you consider that an insult then you ought to reconsider your Catholicism. The tradition I meant was probably what you call "sacred tradition", which includes the various proclamations of popes and ecumenical councils which are supposed by the Catholic church to be infallible.
I'm not sure why you seem to take "faith" as an attack, considering that the Bible says we must have faith to be saved. The question is where that faith is placed.[/quote] It isn't that which I take as an insult,it's you saying that I'm being dishonest, that's an insult.I'm sure if I said that believed what you believe because you were dishonest, you'd take it as an insult also.
[quote]When you say that traditions are historical facts, that statement is redundant. By definition, traditions are things which are passed down through time (history). It is circular reasoning to say that you accept tradition because it is historical fact (i.e. because it is tradition).[/quote] You don't understand.Is it a historical fact that the early church practiced infant baptism and prayers for the dead? Yes it is, it is also a tradition of the church because of that.I don't see how it's circular reasoning,Because I don't accept tradition because it's tradition.As I tried to explain, I accept it because it can be proved by other outside sources other than the church fathers.I do and believe what the early fathers believe. How do we know what they believe?We read their writings, compare them to one another, and also to historical fact.By your logic, no one could really prove any historical events occured, since all we have to substantiate them are the writings of eyewitnesses,outside reports and the general consensus of historians, all of which you seem to count as circular reasoning.
What does the bible say about tradition?Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 ,2 Thess. 2:15,2Thess.3:6-7,1 Tim. 6:20,1Cor.11:2.One could bring up the fact that the majority of references to preaching the gospel,or the word of God mention not the scriptures, but just that-preaching,word of mouth teaching which is to be passed down.('ie:'tradition') And you yourself would accept many traditions.Who wrote the books of the bible? how do we know that the people mentioned in them actually wrote them? Tradition.where did the biblical canon come from? that's not in the bible? Tradition.who is the beloved disciple, why do we worship on sunday,tradition.tradition. In a sense, the bible itself can be considered tradition.Christ didn't dictate his words to scribes, we got them first,second, or third hand, and accept them as his words,but there's no real external evidence other than the consensus of the early church about the bible,and that's tradition.


[quote]Since you brought up the case of the eunuch, I'll mention it as an example of the correct practice of baptism, which always occurs after belief, not before, and always with the person who is baptized being willing and aware.[/quote] Always?Where does the bible say that?You are aware that many of the early church fathers practiced infant baptism,right?

[quote]Also, when there are doctrinal changes over time, what does it matter whether they are caused by a bow to popularity or enforced by an oligarchy/monarchy (as in Roman Catholic church hierarchy)? The end result is the same: divergence from the truth of the gospel of Jesus which the apostles taught.[/quote] 1)Proof that there was some doctrinal apostasy?
2) Proof that leadership=inevitable heresy?
That's at best an assumption.It's based on the idea that what protestants teach is right, but that some where between the early church and whenever your particular church was founded, there was some sort of doctrinal corruption.(Producing Catholicism) Again, if the bible says that the church would be preserved without spot,blemish,wrinkle or corruption,how can you decide that it was actually inevitable that the church would become spotted,wrinkled, and corrupted through false teaching for thousands of years?The bible says thta there will be false teachers, there always have been, and there will be until Our Lord comes again in glory, but to say that they actually totally corrupted Christianity beyond recognition, and that catholicism is the product is too great of a stretch,given that the bible is never specific about that.You can only assume.
[quote]As the lesson of the Bereans teaches us, a "readiness of mind" and willingness to search the scriptures will protect us from errors such as you describe.[/quote] Private judgment?Please tell me, what if me and my brother do exactly that, and we come to differing opinions:Whose it right?If he says that the sacraments are symbolic, and I say that they aren't, and we both have scripture to back us up, how do we decide whose right? Who has the higher authority on the word pf God?How do we decide which one of us is in error?Who decides what is true and false?On what authority do I accept your interpretation over mine, his,or some random person?

[Mateo el Feo]

Hello Pleural,

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Let me see if I can respond to your post.

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']Interesting twist on the story. However, you're not fully considering the situation if you believe it supports your view.[/quote]I would simply disagree with you on your judgment: I did not "twist" anything to arrive at my conclusion.

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']For one thing, the eunuch which Philip met was from Ethiopia. He was not raised as a Jew and probably had very little exposure to Jewish worship and the scriptures (at that time, only the Old Testament scriptures).[/quote]If "Sola Scriptura" were in effect at the time of the events of Acts, there's a bit of a problem: as you admit the Church had not yet canonized the New Testament. So, when mere mortals authored the books of the New Testament (we believe that the authors were inspired by the Holy Spirit), what could convince a "Sola Scriptura" person at that time of Acts to accept the New Testament as a final authority? Wouldn't one have to first make the assumption that the Church (including the men who wrote and canonized the NT) would have some kind of authority to proclaim what is and is not the Word of God?

Not surprisingly, there were controversies as the New Testament was being assembled by the Church which related to how authentic Christianity should interpret the Old Testament Scriptures. And there were heresies which included:
1) the rejection of parts or all of the New Testament as divinely inspired;
2) the rejection of parts or all of the Old Testament as divinely inspired; and,
3) the rejection of what we now consider the fundamentals of Christianity (e.g. divinity of Christ, the Trinity, etc)

Unfortunately, the "Sola Scriptura" mentality, if applied to the first three centuries AD, would have no way to resolve any of these issues. Can we agree upon that?

I think the non-Catholic Christians may view this as a chicken and egg issue between the Church and Holy Scriptures. Informed by history, we actually know the truth: that the New Testament was borne from the Church, not the other way around. I think that's one of the biggest challenges to the Protestant position.

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']As far as we know, the eunuch had only the book of the prophet Isaiah. We have no evidence that he even knew anything else of God or His covenants. Apparently he hadn't done a thorough study of the entire Old Testament, but was focusing on a certain passage in Isaiah ("The place of the scripture which he read was this" -- Acts 8:32).
Further, the eunuch was not present in Judea when Jesus was teaching, nor did he have the New Testament. That fact alone renders this passage as unhelpful to your case. As evidence of this, the eunuch did not know that He who "was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth" was Jesus.

Compare the account of the Bereans in Acts 17, who, when Paul and Silas were teaching them, "received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." These not only had an understanding of Scripture (the Old Testament), but received the gospel with ready minds. As we see here, part of what is involved in "readiness of mind" is a willingness to search the scriptures to determine whether what we are taught is in harmony with them.[/quote]Well, I suppose I should say that I wasn't trying to establish the account of the Ethiopian Eunuch as the sole Scriptural basis for the Magesterium. I just thought it was a nice metaphor.

I think that the real proof of Church authority (besides the obvious Gospel references) could be found in the Epistles...especially St. Paul. What I mean is: St. Paul is basically laying out instructions for Christian communities all around the ancient world. And while he uses Holy Scripture as a basis for his commands, his instructions don't sound like "optional interpretations" that the local churches could choose to accept or reject. The idea of rejecting his authority becomes a moot point when his epistles end up making up almost half of the New Testament.

The Catholic Church looks at the examples of the Apostles (and St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles) and sees in them the first bishops, guiding these new communities. When the Apostles died, we don't believe that all earthly authority died with them. We know who their disciples were, and can trace back the lineage of bishops all the way back to the Apostles and their successors.

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']Many of the Bereans believed precisely [b]because[/b] of the readiness of their minds and their willingness to search the scriptures. They proved that the scripture taught of the same things which Paul and Silas were teaching them -- the gospel of Jesus Christ.[/quote]In theory, this is a great idea: we can search and find Truth in Holy Scriptures. Unfortunately, a plague since the beginning of the Church (this isn't something that protestants invented) has been the endless contradictory interpretations of Holy Scriptures. Clearly, these contradictions prove that at least some people are [u]not[/u] qualified to search Scripture and speak authoritatively on what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, I hope that we can agree on this.

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']Since you brought up the case of the eunuch, I'll mention it as an example of the correct practice of baptism, which always occurs after belief, not before, and always with the person who is baptized being willing and aware.[/quote]This is a bit of a side note; but I'll provide you a quick response. When Lydia believed ([url="http://www.usccb.org/nab/bible/acts/acts16.htm#v14"]see Acts 16:14[/url]), her whole household was baptised. In this case, Holy Scripture could have easily stated that each individual had made a personal confession of Jesus Christ as Savior...but it doesn't.

As a side note to the side note: some of the big "Sola Scriptura" Protestant denominations disagree with you and agree with the Catholic Church on this subject. The father of Sola Scriptura, Martin Luther, holds the Catholic view. Here's a link to his writing on the subject:

[url="http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/LutherMartinCatechismInfantBaptism.htm"]http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/Luthe...fantBaptism.htm[/url]

Note that he begins with this sentence: "Here a question occurs by which the devil through his sects, confuses the world..." So, does confusing the issue (i.e. disagreeing with Luther) make one a member of one of the devil's sects?

Again, this is a bit off topic and the topic is address quite thoroughly by apologetic sources such as Catholic.com.
[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']No doubt that what you describe is a very important factor in the "church growth" movement, "megachurches", etc., but it does not follow that the same is representative of non-Catholic churches in general.[/quote]I think that these divisions happen at all sizes. They may be more pronounced or obvious with a larger church, but it's not exclusively a problem of the megachurch.

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']Also, when there are doctrinal changes over time, what does it matter whether they are caused by a bow to popularity or enforced by an oligarchy/monarchy (as in Roman Catholic church hierarchy)? The end result is the same: divergence from the truth of the gospel of Jesus which the apostles taught.[/quote]If you would like, we could make a new thread and talk about your theory of doctrinal changes. I've read quite a bit of the Early Church Fathers, and I haven't found any "doctrinal changes" between the early Church and the current Catholic Church. I guess I'm just disagreeing with your premise.

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']As the lesson of the Bereans teaches us, a "readiness of mind" and willingness to search the scriptures will protect us from errors such as you describe.[/quote]Great advice in theory...until we look at the product of Sola Scriptura, which is basically anarchy on fundamental doctrines of Faith and Morals among non-Catholic Christians.

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']What does "readiness of mind" mean to us? For one, we must be humble. We must be willing to accept that what we have been brought up to believe may not be correct. We must be able to rightly divide the truth from that which is false (see 2 Timothy 2:15), rejecting doctrinal errors which may have crept up into our congregation.[/quote]There is nothing humble about rejecting all earthly authority and interpretation of Holy Scripture in deference to our own current opinions. It is quite humbling to accept the authority of a two thousand year old Church which has proclaimed the Gospel to the ends of the earth as a great Treasure for humanity.

Your position that we should avoid congregations with "doctrinal errors" ignores the problem that sincere individuals (both leaders and laymen) in these congregations don't see themselves in error. So who in the world is going to speak with authority when two Christian communities disagree upon a fundamental issue of Faith or Morals. I suspect that each side would argue that error crept into the beliefs of the other.

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:37 PM']What's your point? The Catholic church is part of that disagreement, since it disagrees with all the others[/quote]Yet, the Catholic Church never split from any other Church. That's a pretty big difference.

Maybe that doesn't seem too obvious an answer, but let me give you a parallel. Let's say that I decide that I don't like the United States Federal Government, so I put a fence around my yard and establish my property as the authentic US Government, and demand that everyone recognize me as speaking authoritatively for the government. Would this make the government in Washington, DC just one other option that disagrees with me? This is how we should view the Protestant Reformers, who (to be accurate) disagreed with eachother almost as much as they disagreed with the Catholic Church.

BTW, to answer your question, "What's your point?", my point is that St. Paul anticipated that people would accept many contradictory teachings which pretended to be the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ. One reason (though certainly not the only one) is that people would rather hear an easier gospel than the True Gospel.

Sorry for the wordiness and any grammar mistakes...I kinda rushed through this.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 1 2007, 07:37 PM']Well, for one, Christ never said that the church needs a "rudder" (which I interpret as a single guiding entity on earth, which is probably what you meant) to survive, or to prevent "the gates of hell" from prevailing against it. As for "unknown", refer to Matthew 7:13-14.[/quote]
Christ did say a "Rock," which means a firm and lasting foundation upon which His Church was built. For a building to remain standing, the foundational rock must remain. Take away the rock, and the whole structure collapses. It makes no sense that Christ would build His Church on a Rock, only to have the Rock removed shortly thereafter, and thus leave His Church for centuries without a Rock and Foundation.
A house without a foundational rock is indeed more unstable than a rudderless ship.

As for Matthew 17:13-14, that says absolutely nothing about Christ's Church being completely unknown. The gate is indeed narrow (the way of truly following Christ), but that does not mean that it is completely unknown or unable to be found. Christ is saying that the way to follow Him is not easy: not that it is something enigmatic or virtually unknowable (that interpretation becomes more like gnosticism than true Christianity).

[quote]No, they don't. And in order to make such a claim, you'll need to provide specific quotes and references.
In anticipation, I'll note that you use the word "early" in a rather vague manner. But I'll leave you to find quotes and references to support your claim. Keep in mind Galatians 1:6 ("I marvel that ye are so soon removed ... unto another gospel").[/quote]
Okay, here's some links to lists of quotations from the Early Church Fathers relevent to this and related points:
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_1.asp"]The Authority of the Pope: Part I[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Authority_of_the_Pope_Part_2.asp"]The Authority of the Pope: Part II[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Origins_of_Peter_as_Pope.asp"]Origins of Peter as Pope[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Apostolic_Succession.asp"]Apostolic Succession[/url]
[url="http://www.catholic.com/library/Peter_Successors.asp"]Peter's Successors[/url]

Read up, enjoy!

Paul in Galations is referring to the preaching of a false gnostic "gospel." As Catholics follow the Gospel of Christ, as recording by the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, your point is mute. You've yet to prove that Catholics follow a "false gospel," though this claim is often made by anti-Catholics.

[quote]Perhaps you give the "theory" a name and word it in this way in order to avoid giving it serious consideration?
"forced under"? Well, Christ himself said that the true church would be persecuted and that there would be false teachers.[/quote]
I didn't come up with that name. I got it from a certain vehemently anti-Catholic "Independant Fundamental Baptist" who used to frequently post on here. She would always dismiss any and all of the writings of the Early Church Fathers as being from "Early Deceivers."

It seems that it is the anti-Catholics who are not giving this matter serious consideration, by simply dismissing early Church writings as being entirely the work of liars, without producing any contrary historical evidence.

In fact, for the anti-Catholic fundamentalist, the record of "true Christians" simply stops with the end of the Bible, and does not continue until centuries later (sometime between the time of Luther and the 19th century, depending on who you follow.)
I hardly find that convincing.

The Church has indeed seen much persecution and false teachings, as even a brief history of the Catholic Church will show. The martyrs of the early Church are well recorded.

This is not the same as saying the true Church would remain absolutely and totally unknown for 1500-1800 years!

There is much historical evidence for the Catholic position, none for the protestant.

Edited November 2, 2007 by Socrates

[Pleural]

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1413011' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:24 PM']It isn't that which I take as an insult,it's you saying that I'm being dishonest, that's an insult.I'm sure if I said that believed what you believe because you were dishonest, you'd take it as an insult also.
You don't understand.Is it a historical fact that the early church practiced infant baptism and prayers for the dead? Yes it is, it is also a tradition of the church because of that.I don't see how it's circular reasoning,Because I don't accept tradition because it's tradition.As I tried to explain, I accept it because it can be proved by other outside sources other than the church fathers.I do and believe what the early fathers believe. How do we know what they believe?We read their writings, compare them to one another, and also to historical fact.By your logic, no one could really prove any historical events occured, since all we have to substantiate them are the writings of eyewitnesses,outside reports and the general consensus of historians, all of which you seem to count as circular reasoning.
What does the bible say about tradition?Gal. 1:14; Col. 2:22 ,2 Thess. 2:15,2Thess.3:6-7,1 Tim. 6:20,1Cor.11:2.One could bring up the fact that the majority of references to preaching the gospel,or the word of God mention not the scriptures, but just that-preaching,word of mouth teaching which is to be passed down.('ie:'tradition') And you yourself would accept many traditions.Who wrote the books of the bible? how do we know that the people mentioned in them actually wrote them? Tradition.where did the biblical canon come from? that's not in the bible? Tradition.who is the beloved disciple, why do we worship on sunday,tradition.tradition. In a sense, the bible itself can be considered tradition.Christ didn't dictate his words to scribes, we got them first,second, or third hand, and accept them as his words,but there's no real external evidence other than the consensus of the early church about the bible,and that's tradition.
Always?Where does the bible say that?You are aware that many of the early church fathers practiced infant baptism,right?[/quote]

1) Catholics often use "early church" to refer to a very wide period of time, up to and including 400 AD, by which
point very many changes had occured in many of the churches. Since you don't give any citations for your "historical
fact", I'll have to assume that's what you're doing.
2)
Keep in mind -- sin is a very old historical fact. It entered the world with Adam.
It does not matter how early the practices you refer to were practiced. Age does not mean right.
Many religions claim to be older than Christianity, for example.
Many heresies were documented in the early and later church -- these are historical facts. That means nothing for
true doctrine.

You claim tradition can be proved by "other outside sources other than the church fathers". Where is this proof?
In addition to proving that everything in Catholic tradition was done, prove that they are [b]right[/b].
You have not done so.

As for canon, I think I and others have made this point before. All of the books of the New Testament were used and accepted as scripture [b]before[/b] the councils which are now used to claim a relatively late date of canonization occured. Such a council can only [b]recognize[/b], not define what is scripture.

As for "Why do we worship on Sunday?" For a true Christian the answer is "because we worship every day".
If your question is "why do Christians gather together on Sunday in specific meetings?", then I can answer a) not all do and b) that it is not a matter of doctrine, and thus there is no conflict.

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1413011' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:24 PM']1)Proof that there was some doctrinal apostasy?
2) Proof that leadership=inevitable heresy?[/quote]

Err, why? Remember, in the words you quoted from me, I was merely pointing out a fallacious attack against
non-Catholic churches on your part... I guess I refuted that particular point if you can only respond by redirecting
my response...

[quote name='Deo Iuvente' post='1413011' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:24 PM']Private judgment?Please tell me, what if me and my brother do exactly that, and we come to differing opinions:Whose it right?If he says that the sacraments are symbolic, and I say that they aren't, and we both have scripture to back us up, how do we decide whose right? Who has the higher authority on the word pf God?How do we decide which one of us is in error?Who decides what is true and false?On what authority do I accept your interpretation over mine, his,or some random person?[/quote]

The truth is independant of who knows it. You and your brother might both be wrong. Noone has authority higher than the word of God. You're just avoiding the point by saying "it's difficult".
See John 6:60, Isaiah 55:8, Proverbs 14:12.

[Pleural]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1413059' date='Nov 1 2007, 10:52 PM']Christ did say a "Rock," which means a firm and lasting foundation upon which His Church was built. For a building to remain standing, the foundational rock must remain. Take away the rock, and the whole structure collapses. It makes no sense that Christ would build His Church on a Rock, only to have the Rock removed shortly thereafter, and thus leave His Church for centuries without a Rock and Foundation.
A house without a foundational rock is indeed more unstable than a rudderless ship.

As for Matthew 17:13-14, that says absolutely nothing about Christ's Church being completely unknown. The gate is indeed narrow (the way of truly following Christ), but that does not mean that it is completely unknown or unable to be found. Christ is saying that the way to follow Him is not easy: not that it is something enigmatic or virtually unknowable (that interpretation becomes more like gnosticism than true Christianity).
Okay, here's some links to lists of quotations from the Early Church Fathers relevent to this and related points:
The Authority of the Pope: Part I
The Authority of the Pope: Part II
Origins of Peter as Pope
Apostolic Succession
Peter's Successors

Read up, enjoy![/quote]

The quote by Clement does not provide any evidence for the early establishment of the papacy.
Clement said "If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger". This does not confirm the papacy as you seem to think it does. That was merely a statement that things which are spoked by God through men are to be obeyed. Clement and the church of Rome did not say that "we", Rome, are inherently more inspired by God than others, or anything that leads to the notion of papal supremacy.

[quote]"Therefore shall you [Hermas] write two little books and send one to Clement [Bishop of Rome] and one to Grapte. Clement shall then send it to the cities abroad, because that is his duty" (The Shepherd 2:4:3 [A.D. 80]).[/quote]

If that's the case, it only shows that Clement had certain duties, as did other bishops in the churches, not that Clement was superior in any way to the other bishops. In this case, it's Hermas who is to to prepare the books, not Clement.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1413059' date='Nov 1 2007, 10:52 PM']Paul in Galations is referring to the preaching of a false gnostic "gospel." As Catholics follow the Gospel of Christ, as recording by the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, your point is mute. You've yet to prove that Catholics follow a "false gospel," though this claim is often made by anti-Catholics.
I didn't come up with that name. I got it from a certain vehemently anti-Catholic "Independant Fundamental Baptist" who used to frequently post on here. She would always dismiss any and all of the writings of the Early Church Fathers as being from "Early Deceivers."[/quote]

No, Paul was referring to the preaching of any false gospel, not merely the gnostic one.
You can't claim that the words of God as written by Paul in Galatians do not apply to present situations.
Saying "Catholics follow the true gospel, therefore that does not apply", is an application of circular reasoning.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1413059' date='Nov 1 2007, 10:52 PM']It seems that it is the anti-Catholics who are not giving this matter serious consideration, by simply dismissing early Church writings as being entirely the work of liars, without producing any contrary historical evidence.

In fact, for the anti-Catholic fundamentalist, the record of "true Christians" simply stops with the end of the Bible, and does not continue until centuries later (sometime between the time of Luther and the 19th century, depending on who you follow.)
I hardly find that convincing.

The Church has indeed seen much persecution and false teachings, as even a brief history of the Catholic Church will show. The martyrs of the early Church are well recorded.

This is not the same as saying the true Church would remain absolutely and totally unknown for 1500-1800 years!

There is much historical evidence for the Catholic position, none for the protestant.[/quote]

History bears witness that the fruits of the Catholic church are not of God.

[quote name='Matthew 7:16']Ye shall know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?[/quote]

[Pleural]

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1413031' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:48 PM']The Catholic Church looks at the examples of the Apostles (and St. Paul, Apostle to the Gentiles) and sees in them the first bishops, guiding these new communities. When the Apostles died, we don't believe that all earthly authority died with them. We know who their disciples were, and can trace back the lineage of bishops all the way back to the Apostles and their successors.[/quote]

This Catholic interpretation doesn't negate the fact that we are warned time and time again that there will be false teachers "among you".

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1413031' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:48 PM']In theory, this is a great idea: we can search and find Truth in Holy Scriptures. Unfortunately, a plague since the beginning of the Church (this isn't something that protestants invented) has been the endless contradictory interpretations of Holy Scriptures. Clearly, these contradictions prove that at least some people are not qualified to search Scripture and speak authoritatively on what is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Again, I hope that we can agree on this.[/quote]

Again, this doesn't mean that we should disregard clear and direct scripture which tells us to search the scriptures and to check our teachers against the true gospel, even though it may be difficult.

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1413031' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:48 PM']If you would like, we could make a new thread and talk about your theory of doctrinal changes. I've read quite a bit of the Early Church Fathers, and I haven't found any "doctrinal changes" between the early Church and the current Catholic Church. I guess I'm just disagreeing with your premise.[/quote]

Sure. Let me know if you do so, as I don't always have time every day to browse through the list looking for new threads.

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1413031' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:48 PM']Great advice in theory...until we look at the product of Sola Scriptura, which is basically anarchy on fundamental doctrines of Faith and Morals among non-Catholic Christians.[/quote]

Not really.

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1413031' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:48 PM']There is nothing humble about rejecting all earthly authority and interpretation of Holy Scripture in deference to our own current opinions. It is quite humbling to accept the authority of a two thousand year old Church which has proclaimed the Gospel to the ends of the earth as a great Treasure for humanity.[/quote]

We should humble ourselves before God by accepting his truth. That is not accomplished by bowing before false teachers and accepting their words. You hold that they are not false teachers, but I hold that they are. It's really a moot point whether or not it's "humbling" to accept them.

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1413031' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:48 PM']Yet, the Catholic Church never split from any other Church. That's a pretty big difference.[/quote]

Splits are by definition mutual. At best, one side is right and one side is wrong (in the case of doctrinal differences, anyway). At worst, both are wrong.

[quote name='Mateo el Feo' post='1413031' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:48 PM']Maybe that doesn't seem too obvious an answer, but let me give you a parallel. Let's say that I decide that I don't like the United States Federal Government, so I put a fence around my yard and establish my property as the authentic US Government, and demand that everyone recognize me as speaking authoritatively for the government. Would this make the government in Washington, DC just one other option that disagrees with me? This is how we should view the Protestant Reformers, who (to be accurate) disagreed with eachother almost as much as they disagreed with the Catholic Church.[/quote]

At best, that's a bad analogy. However, the reality is that the Catholic church through history has acted as if it believes it has the authority to behave as a government and exercise dominion over men.

[quote]25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them.
26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister;[/quote]

[quote post='1413031' date='Nov 1 2007, 09:48 PM']BTW, to answer your question, "What's your point?", my point is that St. Paul anticipated that people would accept many contradictory teachings which pretended to be the authentic Gospel of Jesus Christ. One reason (though certainly not the only one) is that people would rather hear an easier gospel than the True Gospel.[/quote]

That's true, and that's my point as well. Maybe Catholicism is that easier gospel? "Accept this institution which claims to have all the answers, without questioning it on the basis of Scripture, history, logic, or its evident evil fruits."? Much better to accept the gospel of Christ which Paul himself and the other apostles preached. It is not "easy" in the sense of according with fleshly lusts and fallen human nature, and it doesn't appeal to "itching ears".

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1412901' date='Nov 2 2007, 01:37 AM']When you say that traditions are historical facts, that statement is redundant. By definition, traditions are things which are passed down through time (history). It is circular reasoning to say that you accept tradition because it is historical fact (i.e. because it is tradition).[/quote]

Quite true. Something 2,000 years old wasn't always 2,000 years old. 500 years ago it was 1,500 years old,.....

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1416031' date='Nov 8 2007, 12:55 AM']The quote by Clement does not provide any evidence for the early establishment of the papacy.
Clement said "If anyone disobey the things which have been said by him [God] through us [i.e., that you must reinstate your leaders], let them know that they will involve themselves in transgression and in no small danger". This does not confirm the papacy as you seem to think it does. That was merely a statement that things which are spoked by God through men are to be obeyed. Clement and the church of Rome did not say that "we", Rome, are inherently more inspired by God than others, or anything that leads to the notion of papal supremacy.
If that's the case, it only shows that Clement had certain duties, as did other bishops in the churches, not that Clement was superior in any way to the other bishops. In this case, it's Hermas who is to to prepare the books, not Clement.[/quote]
Note that the first letter from Clement, bishop of Rome, is to the Corinthians. This shows that the authority of the Roman Pontiff extended over those in other parts of the Church. If Clement was just another bishop, his words would have no authority over Corinth.

And Clement is speaking with pretty strong authority here. He was writing concerning the governence of the Church in Corinth, and said that disobeying his words would be "no small trangression."
If Clement had no special authority, how the Church in Corinth governed itself would really be none of Clement's concern, and outside his jurisidiction.

And if, as you assert, Clement was only saying that "words spoke by God through men are to be obeyed," this begs the question of what authority Clement had to claim to speak for God. Why should Clement's words be accepted as coming from God rather than someone else's? Obviously, Clement was recognized as having authority over the rest of the Church.

And this is just one of the Church Fathers quotes provided in that tract. Taken together, you have a basically aritight case that Roman authority was accepted and recognized in the Early Church as being handed down from St. Peter.

[quote]No, Paul was referring to the preaching of any false gospel, not merely the gnostic one.
You can't claim that the words of God as written by Paul in Galatians do not apply to present situations.
Saying "Catholics follow the true gospel, therefore that does not apply", is an application of circular reasoning.[/quote]
You have still yet to prove that Catholics follow a false gospel.

[quote]History bears witness that the fruits of the Catholic church are not of God.[/quote]
What? Such as converting almost half the world to Christ?
You've provided no history nor witness - just more unfounded assertions and accusations.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Pleural' post='1416035' date='Nov 8 2007, 01:06 AM']That's true, and that's my point as well. Maybe Catholicism is that easier gospel? "Accept this institution which claims to have all the answers, without questioning it on the basis of Scripture, history, logic, or its evident evil fruits."? Much better to accept the gospel of Christ which Paul himself and the other apostles preached. It is not "easy" in the sense of according with fleshly lusts and fallen human nature, and it doesn't appeal to "itching ears".[/quote]
Oh indeed?

This must be why the Catholic Church gives such easy teachings which appeal so much to our fleshly lusts, and are so easily accepted by world.
You know, like how premarital sex, extramarital sex, and masturbation are always wrong and sinful?
Or how abortion is always wrong in all cases?
Or how contraception is wrong?
Or how divorce and remarriage is wrong?
Or how homosexuality is always wrong?
Or that popular, easy-to-follow displine of priestly celibacy?

The Catholic Church just preaches the easy path that appeals to everybody's sinful "itching ears."
Just tells everybody what they want to hear!

Unlike the hard gospel of new-age liberal Christianity, or the rigors of Once-saved-always-saved-so-sin-all-you-like Christianity.