Reading the Church Fathers discussion
Doctrine Matters
>
Sola Scriptura
Nemo wrote: "Here is a simple and direct question: Are Protestant demonimations part of the "Catholic family"?No. They purposefully separated from the Church and thereby severed their link to apostolic succession. The history is what it is. However, they are still our Sisters and Brothers in Christ. I, as a former Lutheran live it. No Catholic would ever say Protestants aren't Christians. We are all made in the image of God. This is where true Christian charity comes in.
Nemo wrote: "As for whether the "Catholic Church" defined by the Roman Catholics is the same "catholic church" that existed 2000 years ago, quite frankly, the burden of proof is on the Roman Catholics, not me, nor anybody from other traditions."I disagree. The challenge to the status quo came from Protestants in the 16th century.
You have repeatedly challenged that the Church of today is not the same as 2000 years ago. What brings you to this conclusion?
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "Here is a simple and direct question: Are Protestant demonimations part of the "Catholic family"?No. They purposefully separated from the Church and thereby severed their link to apo..."
Protestant Christians are not considered part of the Catholic family. How is it different from being excluded?
How can they still be your "Brothers and Sisters in Christ", if they are not part of the family?
It is not an act of exclusion but of love.Christ shared with his Church the most precious thing he has, Himself in the Eucharist. And if the Eucharist truly is Christ Himself, than nothing is more holy.
We cannot force anybody to hold dear what we hold dear. And in this case we have to say with all the love in our hearts, you are not ready.
And when someone does, we will cry tears of joy with you.
Nemo wrote: "Ruth wrote: "...So here you see that he points to (1) canonical scripture, and (2) the truth who teaches interiorly, as basis for truth.Having read more by Augustine, I think he means the Holy Spi..."
I agree, the Scripture would always be in harmony with the teaching of the Holy Spirit...but how do you explain the thousands of different interpretations of what people are saying the Holy Spirit is telling them? How does one know who has the Truth?
I think you attempted to answer that in msg 48, but I am not sure it really answers the question, as much as maybe rationalizes why we have thousands of different interpretations...Luke's new discussion group seems to relate to this. If there is one Truth, unity seems key....
Nemo wrote: "Nemo wrote: "If the Catholics' definition of the Church is true, then people from other traditions are not part of God's family. I know that neither you nor Kerstin mean that, but that's the logica..."I would say no. I thought they purposefully broke off from the Catholic Church as Luther et al. felt they knew/discerned better...that does not mean they are not still in the Christian family as they have a valid Baptism I thought; all part of God's family. They have just chosen not to have the fullness of the faith, to be Catholic Christians. I am interested if others can explain it differently to me.
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "As for whether the "Catholic Church" defined by the Roman Catholics is the same "catholic church" that existed 2000 years ago, quite frankly, the burden of proof is on the Roman Cathol..."I agree. I see confirmation of the Eucharist, the Mass, the hierarchy of the Church in all these writings we are reading...I haven't come across anything that shows this was not the Catholic Church. You (or others that also think this is not the Catholic Church) must however see proof that it is not, so I would be interested in hearing the defense of your position.
1. If the Protestant Christians are part of God's family, but not the "Catholic family". God's family is obviously different from the "Catholic family". As I understand it, God's family is none other than the universal Church, the Body of Christ. Therefore, the Church is different from the Roman Catholic Church.2. I've already explained in a six-month long discussion why I think the Roman Catholics' doctrine of transubstantiation is inconsistent with the Scripture and the early Church. I have nothing to add on that topic at this point.
Again, I'd rather focus on sola scriptura in this thread.
Nemo wrote: "1. If the Protestant Christians are part of God's family, but not the "Catholic family". God's family is obviously different from the "Catholic family". As I understand it, God's family is none oth..."I don't want to endlessly belabor the point of what constitutes the universal Church either. It is the Body of Christ, even if the confessions define this differently, and I respect and understand your position. Truth, regardless of subject matter, reveals itself at its own pace. It cannot be forced or coerced. I, and this may come as a surprise after all these discussions, much prefer to focus on what we have in common instead of what divides us.
Let's move on.
Susan wrote: "I agree. I see confirmation of the Eucharist, the Mass, the hierarchy of the Church in all these writings we are reading...I haven't come across anything that shows this was not the Catholic Church. You (or others that also think this is not the Catholic Church) must however see proof that it is not, so I would be interested in hearing the defense of your position."Susan, that's spot on (as are your other two comments). I'd like to see proof as well.
Reading the Church Fathers is a very different journey for Catholics than non-Catholics. For the latter it is a journey of discovery. For Catholics it is a journey of re-discovery, like rummaging in grandma's attic. From the beginning of this group we went: this is the Eucharist, this is the hierarchy, this is the Mass, etc., and it didn't take long before we annoyed others around us. I stopped pointing these things out because we had enough intense discussions.
Susan wrote: "I think you attempted to answer that in msg 48, but I am not sure it really answers the question, as much as maybe rationalizes why we have thousands of different interpretations.."What's difference between "rationalize" and "explain"? I gave two possible reasons in msg. 48 why there may be many different interpretations of the Scripture (I don't know which "thousands" you're referring to). If that doesn't answer your question, could you clarify what type of answer might, so that I don't attempt in vain again?
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "I think you attempted to answer that in msg 48, but I am not sure it really answers the question, as much as maybe rationalizes why we have thousands of different interpretations.."..."
No answer is ever in vain, as it always move the discussion forward in some way... although I agree, each of us individually can mature and improve our thinking and understanding with age/wisdom/study/prayer...I was asking more about the 'Church' Jesus initiated...how can there be just one Church if we have many churches that espouse opposing doctrine...I don't see one Church. This just seems to contrast significantly with the history and point of everything we are reading....there was one Church. They all seemed to have worked very hard, I guess to the point of death at times, to maintain fidelity to one set of doctrines....so much of what we are reading is their valiant effort to curtail any contrary/heretical views, which would confuse their sheep....now it seems like the view is, meh, no biggie, to each his own, we just need to somehow study more and somehow the Holy Spirit will get us all in line with fidelity to how it was in the beginning ... it just seems like that doesn't really make sense to me.... so you have explained possible reasons why individuals have different views... but not how Jesus set up one Church and now we are at tens of thousands of varying denominations and it is somehow the same... I guess that was more my question if I didn't word it clearly.
There seem to be two issues here.1. The unity of the Church
2. The existence of heretical doctrines.
I'll focus on 2 in this thread and discuss 1 in Luke's thread.
Do you think any of the doctrines of the Protestant or Orthodox Churches is heretical?
Nemo wrote: "There seem to be two issues here.1. The unity of the Church
2. The existence of heretical doctrines.
I'll focus on 2 in this thread and discuss 1 in Luke's thread.
Do you think any of the doctr..."
You seem to ask this as a general question (not in response to anyone) and I actually think a general answer best applies...
if there is one Church that Jesus instituted, and there was doctrinal fidelity that the early biggies in the Church were striving to keep to, in light of the diversity of doctrine in the current age, and if one views heresy as merely doctrine contrary to the original doctrine/teachings, it seems there is heresy somewhere just logically. So this gets us exactly to the crux of the problem. If Jesus left the Bible only - how does one know what is to be taught/believed. If you go by the Eucharist alone, it says right there, to "eat my flesh", but then others say, "He didn't mean 'eat my flesh'" and around and around and around. I personally do not believe Jesus would leave no firm touchstone for our aid. I understand the Holy Spirit is here and able to be called upon by each individual to help; it still seems like a very shoddy, irresponsible, ineffective way to run a Church. It seems like it would put an awful lot of people at risk of losing their souls, and I could very well be wrong...but I can't see a mediocre business man setting things up this way, much less Jesus...so the Catholic teaching with the magisterium and the Deposit of Faith and the infallibility on matters of faith etc., just always seemed to make more sense to me.
Reading Susan's comment, I would change one detail. Jesus didn't leave us the Bible. All his teachings, miracles, etc. were orally transmitted, which in the end highlights why we have a Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.The Apostles took Jesus literally when he said he would come again. They expected that to be in their lifetimes. When this didn't happen, only then was stuff written down for the next generation(s).
Now we don't live in an oral society, so we are not really familiar with how much people accurately remembered. We don't rely on our brains to recall details, that's written down somewhere. Deals were made with a handshake, and you invested your honor.
After the Gospels were written down, they could be meticulously copied (by hand) and distributed. And with the Apostles' guidance, for they had spent every day for three years with Jesus and were present at Pentecost, they had the requisite knowledge and wisdom what he meant. This is the birth of the Magisterium, the teaching authority of the Church.
We have mentors and teachers in every discipline, to transmit the requisite knowledge of this discipline accurately. Sola scriptura, the concept that the Bible alone suffices with the help of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture accurately, seems to do away with the need for human teachers. Yet Jesus himself didn't do that. He could have taken 12 random men, given each of them a hat to look into like Joseph Smith to produce a Book of Scriptures, and be done with it. The Holy Spirit will do the rest. Why spend 3 years in ministry, teach his successors, and die a horrific death? Clearly he saw the need for his teachings to be passed down accurately through human teachers.
Kerstin wrote: "Reading Susan's comment, I would change one detail. Jesus didn't leave us the Bible. All his teachings, miracles, etc. were orally transmitted, which in the end highlights why we have a Magisterium..."I don't write very clearly. I didn't mean Jesus literally gave us the Bible, I meant Jesus/God/Holy Spirit gave us the Divinely inspired Word of God to have with us... I agree with what you said. Thank you for clarifying my poorly expressed post!
Kerstin said: "Please give me dates, the common name associated with this event, the major personalities involved. "Although the process happened over centuries a convenient event to represent the end of the Universal Church (as people here were calling it) is the Great Schism, 1054.
We Orthodox say that the West left the Universal Church; the Roman Catholics say that we Orthodox left it. We claim to be the continuation of the Universal Church; those acknowledging the Pope as Christ's vicar on earth claim to be the continuation of the Universal Church.
My language above is neutral and flat. I'm not making an attack. I'm stating what are to the best of my knowledge simple facts about who believes/claims what.
Almost by definition, according to the Orthodox Church (as defined over in resources, etc., etc., etc.) everyone else is un-Orthodox, i.e., heterodox, i.e., heretical.I don't mean that as an attack. It's almost a dictionary definition of the Orthodox stance.
Now, where were we? Oh, yes, Church Fathers. They're around here someplace, let me see. ... Ah, here they are, over in that other topic over there. Off I go. :-)
Clark wrote: "Kerstin said: "Please give me dates, the common name associated with this event, the major personalities involved. "Although the process happened over centuries a convenient event to represent th..."
Thank you. No offense taken. Trying to grasp all these deep concepts, we need all the views/information anyone can offer. Same with message #69. I assume if one believes in a creed other than mine, that I would seem to be heretical to them...
Re: #70, I find it hard personally (obviously!) to isolate a lot of these things out...they really do almost inherently relate to all the others, or at least to make sense of one, one has to take into consideration an awful lot of the other issues...at least to me, it all fits together, like a tapestry....
Susan said, "Trying to grasp all these deep concepts, we need all the views/information anyone can offer."I differ, but I hope cheerfully and generously. In any event I myself am not going to read, say, Calvin at all.
Susan said, "it all fits together, like a tapestry...."This is quite true, and is quite important. But we can choose where on the tapestry to select and follow some threads. In our current context we can select and follow Church Father threads, or other threads.
Clark wrote: "Kerstin said: "Please give me dates, the common name associated with this event, the major personalities involved. "Although the process happened over centuries a convenient event to represent th..."
The Great Schism is one of the great tragedies in the history of the Church. We are not even in full communion with our Brothers and Sisters! I am so encouraged that today we are closer to a reconciliation than ever before.
It all started with the "filoque" debacle of the Nicene Creed. And I have always thought that the Orthodox Churches have a real claim here.
The way I look at it, is to put politics aside. They get us in trouble every time. I look at the core of what we believe. I look at how Jesus set up His Church, and what of this is still preserved today. Reading the Church Fathers I have yet to encounter something different from what is still being taught. This is the Universal Church and how she lives on in both East and West. I believe Orthodox Christians and Roman Catholics have far more in common than what divides us.
Kerstin wrote: "In the Old Testament the center of the Jewish religious life was the Temple...."Yes, and both the structure of the Temple and the ceremonials performed by the priests in the Temple had been prescribed in the Laws of Moses. So the authority of the liturgy is derived from the Scripture, not the other way around.
The early Church Fathers like Tertullian argue that the destruction of the Temple -- it still hasn't been rebuilt till this day -- is proof that the form of worship practised by Judaism, with its priesthood and sacrifices, has been made obsolete by the advent of Christ, as also prophesied in the Old Testament
Kerstin wrote: "Clark wrote: "Kerstin said: "Please give me dates, the common name associated with this event, the major personalities involved. "Although the process happened over centuries a convenient event t..."
I haven't found anything that is different that what I was taught/learned either, but somehow people that believe differently read the same words and their beliefs are confirmed to them also...?
Kerstin wrote: "Clark wrote: "Kerstin said: "Please give me dates, the common name associated with this event, the major personalities involved. "Although the process happened over centuries a convenient event t..."
And if I question differences, it is only because I like to know where others are coming from, what they believe, how what we believe differs and why, all in the spirit of learning....I'm a ponderer....
Here is an excerpt from Augustine's letter 147 that Ruth quoted from earlier:2. Receive, then, the words of understanding in accord with the interior self. For that self is renewed from day to day, even while this exterior self is destroyed by the rigors of abstinence or by some ill health or by any other happening or at least by the approach of old age, which is inevitable even for those who have a long life in a healthy body. Lift up, then, the spirit of your mind, which is renewed in the knowledge of God according to the image of him who created it, where Christ dwells in you through faith, where there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor freeman, neither male nor female, where you will not die when you begin to be released from the body, because you did not lose strength there, though you are weighed down with years. Once you are raised up in your interior self, pay attention and see what I am saying. I do not want you to follow my authority so that you think that it is necessary for you to believe something because I said it. Rather either believe the canonical scriptures if there is something that you do not yet see is true, or believe the truth who teaches interiorly in order that you may see this clearly.
https://books.google.ca/books?redir_e...
In this passage, Augustine quotes 2 Cor. 4:16, Col. 3:10, Eph. 3:17 and Gal. 3:28, and teaches, as if by example, how the person can understand the truth from the canonical Scriptures, and through the teaching of the indwelling Spirit.
I also notice that Augustine acknowledges that what we think is true might be different from what the Scripture teaches, in which case, he says we should believe in the Scripture, until our inner man, the spirit of our mind, has been renewed, so that the inner teaching becomes consistent with the Scripture.
Nemo wrote: "Here is an excerpt from Augustine's letter 147 that Ruth quoted from earlier:2. Receive, then, the words of understanding in accord with the interior self. For that self is renewed from day to da..."
I don't think I disagree with what you said, but I don't know if that is the whole answer as it leaves us with a problem....who is correct? Are you wise enough that you have read and discerned what the Bible is saying correctly? Is Ruth? Clark? How does one know who to follow or trust or have confidence in, that they are listening to the Holy Spirit correctly? We just fly on our own and make up our own minds? But that doesn't sound like 'one Church' to me....
Susan wrote: "I understand the Holy Spirit is here and able to be called upon by each individual to help; it still seems like a very shoddy, irresponsible, ineffective way to run a Church....so the Catholic teaching with the magisterium and the Deposit of Faith and the infallibility on matters of faith etc., just always seemed to make more sense to me. "When I read this comment, I was reminded of a poignant passage in Old Testament where the Israelites rejected the Lord as their King and demanded a king from among themselves.
If you're suggesting that a group of men can run a Church better than the Holy Spirit. I don't know what to say really.
Kerstin wrote: " Sola scriptura, the concept that the Bible alone suffices with the help of the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture accurately, seems to do away with the need for human teachers...."No, sola scriptura doesn't do away with human teachers, for we need human teachers to learn language, logic, hermeneutics in order to read the Scriptures properly.
A student can excel his human teacher, if he sets his heart on the Scriptures.
You, through Your commandments, make me wiser than my enemies;
For they are ever with me.
I have more understanding than all my teachers,
For Your testimonies are my meditation.
I understand more than the ancients,
Because I keep Your precepts.
Psalm 119:98-100
Nemo wrote: "No, sola scriptura doesn't do away with human teachers."We may have to find an official definition of sola scriptura. For now I'm going with wikipedia:
"Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scripture alone) is a Christian theological doctrine which holds that the Christian Scriptures are the sole infallible rule of faith and practice.
The Scriptures' meaning is mediated through many kinds of secondary authority, such as the ordinary teaching offices of the Church, the ecumenical creeds, the councils of the Christian Church, and so on. However, sola scriptura rejects any original infallible authority other than the Bible. In this view, all secondary authority is derived from the authority of the Scriptures and is therefore subject to reform when compared to the teaching of the Bible. Church councils, preachers, Bible commentators, private revelation, or even a message allegedly from an angel or an apostle are not an original authority alongside the Bible in the sola scriptura approach." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sola_sc...
If I understand the above statement correctly then the apostles themselves are subject to fallibility concerning faith and practise, even though Jesus witnessed and taught them personally and they were present at Pentecost. Under sola scriptura they are a secondary authority. The primary authority is the Bible.
I see multiple problems here.
Kerstin wrote: "Nemo wrote: "No, sola scriptura doesn't do away with human teachers."We may have to find an official definition of sola scriptura. For now I'm going with wikipedia: "Sola scriptura (Latin: by Scr..."
The teachings of the Apostles are part of the Scripture which sola scriptura upholds. Obviously, what Paul taught before his conversion is not considered Apostolic teaching.
Nemo wrote: "Yes, and both the structure of the Temple and the ceremonials performed by the priests in the Temple had been prescribed in the Laws of Moses. So the authority of the liturgy is derived from the Scripture, not the other way around."From what I know, the Books of the Old Testament were written down around the Babylonian Exiles (722 BC - 540 BC). Moses and the Desert Wanderings were around 1280 BC - 1240 BC, so much earlier. This tell me before the Babylonian exiles you would have had an oral tradition and liturgical practices would have been handed down by the priestly families with apprenticeships.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "I understand the Holy Spirit is here and able to be called upon by each individual to help; it still seems like a very shoddy, irresponsible, ineffective way to run a Church....so the..."No, that is not what I am saying. A couple things still don't seem to be being addressed.
1) If we are all just left to personal interpretation, it seems only logical that we would have the dis-union that we have...and that doesn't seem to be what Jesus intended.
2) Jesus seems to me to have set up His Church in a very specific hierarchical way if you read the Bible and the Fathers. A hierarchical way with men....He set it up that way. He obviously wasn't rejecting Himself as King when He set this up.
3) Where the Deposit of Faith comes in and the infallibility regarding the Faith etc. it is involving that very Holy Spirit, protecting that which Jesus gave us. It is the Holy Spirit in charge, through the Church that Jesus set up.
Calvin expounds and defends sola scriptura in Institutes of the Christian Religion Bk. 1. Ch.7-9.http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/insti...
(I don't completely agree with Calvin, but just to show that I'm not making it up all by myself. :) )
Kerstin wrote: "From what I know, the Books of the Old Testament were written down around the Babylonian Exiles (722 BC - 540 BC). Moses and the Desert Wanderings were around 1280 BC - 1240 BC, so much earlier"The priestly services and the structure of the Temple were described, or rather prescribed, in the Books of Moses, long before the Babylonian exile.
Susan wrote: "A couple things still don't seem to be being addressed. .."I prefer to deal with one question at a time. :)
You seem to be conflating hierarchy and infallibility. These are two completely different things. If any person or group of people is infallible, it is only because he is in uniformity with the Holy Spirit, not because he is part of any hierarchy.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "A couple things still don't seem to be being addressed. .."I prefer to deal with one question at a time. :)
You seem to be conflating hierarchy and infallibility. These are two com..."
Yes, I can jumble my questions, sorry. No, I meant them as two separate things.
I've just read through this whole thread. It's been a very interesting, if jumbled, discussion!One quick question though: are there no other Protestants in this group? Am I the odd one here? :P
To be on topic though: Sola Scriptura is something I've struggled to accept in its full, "official" definition. I can see the principles and essence of it in the Church Fathers etc, and in the Scriptures, but at the same time, I don't think even the Scriptures can allow for the doctrine in its full sense.
I wrote a blog a while ago looking into this more, and after posting it online in a few places, I found that I was soon "accused" of something I hadn't heard before: Prima scriptura (though, most people seem to confuse me for Orthodox after seeing my blog).
Prima scriptura suggests that ways of knowing or understanding God and his will that do not originate from canonized scripture are perhaps helpful in interpreting that scripture, but testable by the canon and correctable by it, if they seem to contradict the scriptures.
Source: Wikipedia
I have to admit, that after looking that up, it feels a better fit for what I think and believe now after studying the ECFs for the last 3 or 4 years. Tradition obviously plays and important role with the Fathers and how they read and view Scripture (especially, as others have pointed out, that the full canon of Scripture wasn't around for a good few centuries).
I think the biggest irony of it all being that the list of Scripture/canonised books is in itself based on Church tradition! Something my Protestant/evangelical friends don't always seem to recognise or admit.
Though I once had it explained to me that the Scriptures are canonised not because the Church councils said/decided so, but because they recognised the inspiration within them. In other words, certain texts aren't "scripture" because they are in the Canon, but rather they are in the Canon because they ARE Scripture, and were recognised as such.
I find this logic somewhat backwards, and like its pushing a later doctrine (sola scriptura) on an earlier event to explain something that maybe doesn't fit the official stance.
When you have multiple cases of Paul mentioning that the churches follow the traditions he passed on to them, it has to make you stop and reconsider the things we are taught (if you're not from a background that affirms tradition).
2 Thessalonians 2:15
So then, brothers and sisters, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught by us, either by word of mouth or by our letter.
To me it just seems obvious that other things that weren't written down were passed on. They wrote things which were important to be sent to places where the Apostles couldn't get to in person, or to preserve something important (ie. the Gospels), but clearly they didn't just stop teaching or preaching after they wrote a handful of letters to a few churches, or only ever repeated those same things for the rest of their lives!
As mentioned in some other comments, I have begun the discussion on the Unity of the Church by Cyprian in the Topical Interests folder.
Also, if you're interested to read my blog on Tradition I mentioned, you can see it here: Man-Made Tradition vs Apostolic Tradition.
Luke wrote: "I've just read through this whole thread. It's been a very interesting, if jumbled, discussion!One quick question though: are there no other Protestants in this group? Am I the odd one here? :P
..."
Thanks for that. If you don't mind saying, are you a specific denomination? I am rather ignorant of Protestantism and trying to understand the differences from Catholicism and from the other denominations. No need to answer if you don't want too! :)
I was in the Anglican church until I was about 15, then we moved up a Pentecostal one for a few years, and then I went to do my degree in Theology at an evangelical Bible college, and since then (graduated 2008), I've been in non-denominational evangelical churches, which I am still today. I'm also in the UK, so the meaning and practice of "evangelical" can differ to how it seems to appear in America, for example. But I also like to stay at our local Catholic monastery as regularly as I'm able, and hang out with with the monks, and frequent Eastern Orthodox Facebook groups.
So I'm a mixed bag really!
Luke wrote: "I was in the Anglican church until I was about 15, then we moved up a Pentecostal one for a few years, and then I went to do my degree in Theology at an evangelical Bible college, and since then (g..."Haha. Thank you. Congrats on your graduation. I just read your blog on tradition. Towards the top it says, "....much farther back than the Catholic Church...", when do non-Catholics say the Catholic Church started? I really like the blog, and look forward to reading some of the links you offered.
Thanks Susan :) As for "when", I suppose we'd have to narrow down when the RCC became a "thing" in its own right and the pope declared himself prime bishop over every one? Rather than being one amongst many
Susan said, "when do non-Catholics say the Catholic Church started?"Orthodox and Protestants are very likely to answer the question quite differently. For instance, one Protestant timeline I have says that the Orthodox Church began in 325, i.e., with Constantine. Poof! Shazzaam! Constantine creates the Orthodox Church! Film at 11!
Anyhow, I myself would say that Orthodoxy and Catholicism both go back to the very beginning, but that over the centuries the West introduced innovations that eventually made it a distinct communion. To pick a particular date, Orthodox would likely try to identify when communion was broken more than temporarily.
Nemo wrote: "Susan wrote: "I understand the Holy Spirit is here and able to be called upon by each individual to help; it still seems like a very shoddy, irresponsible, ineffective way to run a Church....so the..."My point here also was, if we truly are judged at the point of death, and there are no re-dos, than it seems there should be an urgency, a 'dead seriousness' about all of this...as the loss of souls for eternity is at stake.... With such a dire resulting possibility, it just seems odd to me to leave things so vague, or "maybe they will come to the accurate interpretation on their own" mentality... that doesn't seem to align with the situation, the way Jesus spoke, or the way the early Church Fathers/Saints spoke and lived... that is what I meant by that. Now if one leans more to universalism or "pretty much everyone is saved", than I guess it is not so much of a big deal, whatever path we take to the end.
Luke wrote: "Thanks Susan :) As for "when", I suppose we'd have to narrow down when the RCC became a "thing" in its own right and the pope declared himself prime bishop over every one? Rather than being one a..."
You seem kind of vague on that answer.
Clark wrote: "Susan said, "when do non-Catholics say the Catholic Church started?"Orthodox and Protestants are very likely to answer the question quite differently. For instance, one Protestant timeline I have..."
Thank you, yes, I definitely need to read more about the Schism. I pay for membership to the New St. Thomas Institute and I think they probably have very good info about that...I probably have already listened to it and have forgotten, knowing my memory....
Susan said to Luke, "You seem kind of vague on that answer."Luke seems sort of to be talking about one half of what I said (his post was first!), focusing on when the Roman Catholic church was distinctively Roman Catholic. It does seem he's not talking about earlier years.
The distinctiveness happened over centuries, and didn't progress in a straight line.
So, for instance, the filioque began to appear in (I think) the 6th century but didn't become authoritative and general until centuries later.
The claims of the Bishop of Rome being more than "first among equals" developed over the years in particular events and didn't progress in some straight line with a qualitative change happening suddenly in the year X.
So to me Luke seems correct to be vague about the distinctiveness date, but perhaps he could clarify his idea of the relationship of Roman Catholicism with the earlier undivided church.
Sorry for the vagueness, I was between making dinner and a crying baby so had to type fast and one handed on my phone! I want to point to the Great Schism as potentially a point in time where the RCC became more distinct due to the split from the EO. But I'm not entirely sure if that would be as historically accurate as I have it in my mind.
Conversely, similar arguments could be made for Eastern Orthodox as they make the similar claim of being there since 30AD.
So I suppose I end up at my vague point again of: whenever the two Church branches became uniquely district.
Reading the Church Fathers
Books mentioned in this topic
Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated (other topics)Catechism of the Catholic Church: Complete and Updated (other topics)
In Search of the Trojan War (other topics)
Institutes of the Christian Religion, 2 Vols (other topics)
The World of Jesus: Making Sense Of The People And Places Of Jesus' Day (other topics)
More...
Authors mentioned in this topic
Michael Wood (other topics)Patrick Madrid (other topics)
The question that I am asking here is, how did the early Church use scripture? This question needs to be answered first before one can make an assessment what he meant by "authority."
In the Old Testament the center of the Jewish religious life was the Temple. When they were deported into Babylonian exile they no longer had access to the Temple. To keep their identity and propagate the faith they started to share/preach the word in their homes. The very same thing the early Christians did in their house churches.
After the return from exile they continued this practice of preaching the word, but no longer in their own homes but in specific buildings for this purpose, synagogues. They also resumed Temple worship after they rebuilt the temple.
There is an interesting book on the inter-testamentary period, the 400 years between the return from exile and the birth of Christ that explains all of this in more detail : The World of Jesus: Making Sense Of The People And Places Of Jesus' Day
When in the early Church the first Jewish-Christians worshiped, they would go to synagogue to hear the Word, and then go home to celebrate the Eucharist which had taken the place of the Temple sacrifice, just like Baptism replaced circumcision (thank you St. Paul!). If you read some of the accounts of Pricilla and Aquila in Acts you will encounter this. The names used in the Bible for the Eucharist are, Eucharist (Greek for 'Thanksgiving"), the Lord's Supper, the Breaking of the Bread, and the Memorial.
This arrangement didn't last very long, and the Jewish-Christians were expelled from the synagogues. Now they were on their own and worshiped both the proclamation of the Word and the sacrifice of the Eucharist in their house churches. And this is the Mass to this day. Since the Word is proclaimed and explained with Sermons in Mass, the liturgy itself is a teaching authority.
At first of course, there was only the Old Testament. Then as the texts of the New Testament were written these were included in Mass. However, there was initially no consistency which texts were deemed scripture and I imagine the individual churches only had a few, but not all, of these texts. With the establishment of the New Testament canon you had consistency of the texts proclaimed and taught in all churches. This to me is the primary reason why we have the Bible.
We also have to take into consideration that the majority of people were illiterate. It was an oral society. So the Word proclaimed in Mass was the only contact they had with scripture. So they heard and absorbed the Scriptures by heart.
Now coming back to what did St. Augustine mean by "authority"? He didn't claim authority for himself, that his interpretation of Scripture in an authority by itself. To me this says Scripture is encountered at Mass and cannot be taken out of this context. Yes, Scripture is the divinely inspired Word of God, but the primary encounter with God is at Mass.