Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
Once again:
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039
Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.
It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.
In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."
He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.
But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.
...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?
You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.
As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.
And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.
Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.
He changed his mind:Quote:
The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.
Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.
The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.
Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.
But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.
"... to tell them what it meant."
He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.
Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.
Because it's apostolic.
"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."
Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."
Regarding all of the tradition handed down through the Church by the Apostles, according to Newman.BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
Once again:
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039
Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.
It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.
In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."
He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.
But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.
...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?
You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.
As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.
And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.
Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.
He changed his mind:Quote:
The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.
Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.
The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.
Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.
But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.
"... to tell them what it meant."
He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.
Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.
Because it's apostolic.
"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."
Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."
...regarding the meaning of Scripture.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
Once again:
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039
Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.
It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.
In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."
He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.
But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.
...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?
You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.
As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.
And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.
Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.
He changed his mind:Quote:
The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.
Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.
The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.
Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.
But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.
"... to tell them what it meant."
He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.
Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.
Because it's apostolic.
"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."
Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."
...regarding the meaning of Scripture.
Regarding all of the tradition handed down through the Church by the Apostles, according to Newman.
Oldbear83 said:
Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.
And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.
And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .
Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ? What a weird, uneducated take. You do realize what the Talmud is right? No wonder this is so challenging
Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.
And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .
Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ? What a weird, uneducated take. You do realize what the Talmud is right? No wonder this is so challenging
You were the one pretending the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Thought you would relate.
Fre3dombear said:
"Behold your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home"
To believe Mary had other children upon reading this inspired text is to wholly misunderstand all that is Jewish tradition laid out clearly in the Bible.
John's purpose wasn't to define Marian Dogmas.ShooterTX said:
John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.
Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.
ShooterTX said:
Jesus was the firstborn. In Jewish law it is the firstborn who is supposed to take care of the parents. Jesus gave this role to John, not because he had no siblings but because it was his authority to choose her care taker. He chose John because at the time of his death, no one was in closer relationship to Jesus than John. Its is believed that many of His siblings didn't believe he was the Messiah until after his resurrection. So John is a logical choice and it's a great honor for John to have been chosen for this role.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
Once again:
https://sicem365.com/forums/7/topics/157571/replies/4553039
Now point out where he changed his position on the early church fathers and their belief and practice of sola scriptura.
It's worth distinguishing between Newman's historical claims and his opinions.
In the letter you quoted, he wrote of the Church Fathers, "They never said 'It must be so and so, because St. Cyprian says this, St. Clement explains in his third book of the "Paedagogue," &c.' and with reason; for the Fathers are a witness only as one voice, not in individual instances, or, much less, isolated passages, but every word of Scripture is inspired and available."
He was exactly right. Scripture is unique in that sense, and Catholics believe the same thing.
But Newman eventually realized that Scripture's authority is inseparable from that of the Church. If he ever considered the Bible an "exclusive rule" in the sense that an authentic Christianity could be formed from Scripture without reference to Church authority, he expressly rejected that view in the quoted passages. And the Church Fathers absolutely would have agreed.
...which negates his clearly expressed view that the ancients exercised sola scriptura.... how?
You know, it's so much easier to just say "yeah, Newman seemed to have expressed that" like any honest, objective, rational person would. No one will think any less of you if you do, I promise.
As a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture.
And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.
Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.
He changed his mind:Quote:
The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.
Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.
The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.
Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.
But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.
"... to tell them what it meant."
He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.
Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.
Because it's apostolic.
"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."
Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."
...regarding the meaning of Scripture.
Regarding all of the tradition handed down through the Church by the Apostles, according to Newman.
... which was not argued with the same force as Scripture in councils, which was appealed to as the final authority, as Newman pointed out.
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.
And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .
Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ? What a weird, uneducated take. You do realize what the Talmud is right? No wonder this is so challenging
You were the one pretending the New Testament was written in Hebrew. Thought you would relate.
Not I. Try again.
Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:
John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.
Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.
John's purpose wasn't to define Marian Dogmas.
The siblings mentioned in the Gospels actually have other parents. James and Joseph are mentioned as "brothers" and believed by protestants to be Jesus' actual brothers. But we are told later that they are actually sons of Mary the wife of Clopas, most likely cousins.
St. Jerome, who translated the bible into Latin, openly mocked Helvidius because he believed that Jesus had siblings born of Mary. His statement was,
"The axe of the Gospel must now be laid at the roots of the barren tree and the tree must be delivered to the flames with its unfruitful leaves, so that he who has never learned to speak might learn at length to hold his tongue."ShooterTX said:
Jesus was the firstborn. In Jewish law it is the firstborn who is supposed to take care of the parents. Jesus gave this role to John, not because he had no siblings but because it was his authority to choose her care taker. He chose John because at the time of his death, no one was in closer relationship to Jesus than John. Its is believed that many of His siblings didn't believe he was the Messiah until after his resurrection. So John is a logical choice and it's a great honor for John to have been chosen for this role.
This is completely inaccurate. No where in the Jewish culture does this right or responsibility exist. The firstborn was required to care for their aging parents. If they die, that role would belong to the other siblings. If they did NOT take care of an aging parents, that would be a grievous sin against the commandment to honor thy father and mother. Jesus would never have been complicit in allowing a "sibling" to commit such a sin.
John was entrusted because Jesus had no other siblings. Luther and Calvin both believed this as well. The notion that Mary had other children crept into Christianity long after the original "reformers."
ShooterTX said:Fre3dombear said:
"Behold your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home"
To believe Mary had other children upon reading this inspired text is to wholly misunderstand all that is Jewish tradition laid out clearly in the Bible.
John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.
Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.
Sam Lowry said:ShooterTX said:Fre3dombear said:
"Behold your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home"
To believe Mary had other children upon reading this inspired text is to wholly misunderstand all that is Jewish tradition laid out clearly in the Bible.
John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.
Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.
Sometimes it seems almost as if the authors of Scripture never anticipated the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Sam Lowry said:ShooterTX said:Fre3dombear said:
"Behold your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home"
To believe Mary had other children upon reading this inspired text is to wholly misunderstand all that is Jewish tradition laid out clearly in the Bible.
John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.
Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.
Sometimes it seems almost as if the authors of Scripture never anticipated the doctrine of sola scriptura.
Coke Bear said:John's purpose wasn't to define Marian Dogmas.ShooterTX said:
John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.
Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.
The siblings mentioned in the Gospels actually have other parents. James and Joseph are mentioned as "brothers" and believed by protestants to be Jesus' actual brothers. But we are told later that they are actually sons of Mary the wife of Clopas, most likely cousins.
St. Jerome, who translated the bible into Latin, openly mocked Helvidius because he believed that Jesus had siblings born of Mary. His statement was,
"The axe of the Gospel must now be laid at the roots of the barren tree and the tree must be delivered to the flames with its unfruitful leaves, so that he who has never learned to speak might learn at length to hold his tongue."ShooterTX said:
Jesus was the firstborn. In Jewish law it is the firstborn who is supposed to take care of the parents. Jesus gave this role to John, not because he had no siblings but because it was his authority to choose her care taker. He chose John because at the time of his death, no one was in closer relationship to Jesus than John. Its is believed that many of His siblings didn't believe he was the Messiah until after his resurrection. So John is a logical choice and it's a great honor for John to have been chosen for this role.
This is completely inaccurate. No where in the Jewish culture does this right or responsibility exist. The firstborn was required to care for their aging parents. If they die, that role would belong to the other siblings. If they did NOT take care of an aging parents, that would be a grievous sin against the commandment to honor thy father and mother. Jesus would never have been complicit in allowing a "sibling" to commit such a sin.
John was entrusted because Jesus had no other siblings. Luther and Calvin both believed this as well. The notion that Mary had other children crept into Christianity long after the original "reformers."
ShooterTX said:Sam Lowry said:ShooterTX said:Fre3dombear said:
"Behold your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home"
To believe Mary had other children upon reading this inspired text is to wholly misunderstand all that is Jewish tradition laid out clearly in the Bible.
John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.
Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.
Sometimes it seems almost as if the authors of Scripture never anticipated the doctrine of sola scriptura.
The author is the scripture is the Holy Spirit.
I guess you are one of those who believe the Holy Spirit forgot to mention those important details? Strange that the Holy Spirit gave all kinds of specific details throughout all the centuries of scriptures including prophesies hundreds of years before specific events occurred... but then He just made a huge oopsie about Mary?
Sam LowryAs a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture. said:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.
Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.
He changed his mind:Quote:
The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.
Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.
The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.
Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.
But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.
"... to tell them what it meant."
He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.
Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.
Because it's apostolic.
"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."
Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."
...regarding the meaning of Scripture.
Regarding all of the tradition handed down through the Church by the Apostles, according to Newman.
... which was not argued with the same force as Scripture in councils, which was appealed to as the final authority, as Newman pointed out.
It's important to understand Newman's distinction between traditions that are part of the magisterium and traditions that simply exist out in the world. Unlike Scripture, the latter sort of tradition comes with no inherent claim of authority. Only when it is sanctioned by the Church can it make such a claim. Part of that process involves testing it against Scripture. But Newman recognized, at least in his mature work, that the Church's sanction is authoritative. Thus he wrote of the Council of Nicaea, "It is the first ecumenical council, and recognized at the time its own authority as the voice of the infallible Church. It is so received by the orbis terrarum at this day." So he no longer believed, if he ever did, that Scripture was an exclusive rule of faith in the sense that the magisterium could be ignored. He did take a very high view of Scripture and often expressed the idea that it implicitly contains all things necessary for salvation. By no means, however, could all doctrines and dogmas be derived from it without the ministry of the Church.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryAs a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture. said:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.
Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.
He changed his mind:Quote:
The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.
Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.
The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.
Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.
But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.
"... to tell them what it meant."
He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.
Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.
Because it's apostolic.
"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."
Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."
...regarding the meaning of Scripture.
Regarding all of the tradition handed down through the Church by the Apostles, according to Newman.
... which was not argued with the same force as Scripture in councils, which was appealed to as the final authority, as Newman pointed out.
It's important to understand Newman's distinction between traditions that are part of the magisterium and traditions that simply exist out in the world. Unlike Scripture, the latter sort of tradition comes with no inherent claim of authority. Only when it is sanctioned by the Church can it make such a claim. Part of that process involves testing it against Scripture. But Newman recognized, at least in his mature work, that the Church's sanction is authoritative. Thus he wrote of the Council of Nicaea, "It is the first ecumenical council, and recognized at the time its own authority as the voice of the infallible Church. It is so received by the orbis terrarum at this day." So he no longer believed, if he ever did, that Scripture was an exclusive rule of faith in the sense that the magisterium could be ignored. He did take a very high view of Scripture and often expressed the idea that it implicitly contains all things necessary for salvation. By no means, however, could all doctrines and dogmas be derived from it without the ministry of the Church.
You got lost again. You're talking about Newman's own beliefs. Maybe you should just concede so we don't have to keep going in circles.
ShooterTX said:Sam Lowry said:ShooterTX said:Fre3dombear said:
"Behold your mother. And from that hour the disciple took her to his own home"
To believe Mary had other children upon reading this inspired text is to wholly misunderstand all that is Jewish tradition laid out clearly in the Bible.
John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.
Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.
Sometimes it seems almost as if the authors of Scripture never anticipated the doctrine of sola scriptura.
The author is the scripture is the Holy Spirit.
I guess you are one of those who believe the Holy Spirit forgot to mention those important details? Strange that the Holy Spirit gave all kinds of specific details throughout all the centuries of scriptures including prophesies hundreds of years before specific events occurred... but then He just made a huge oopsie about Mary?
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryAs a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture. said:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.
Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.
He changed his mind:Quote:
The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.
Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.
The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.
Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.
But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.
"... to tell them what it meant."
He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.
Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.
Because it's apostolic.
"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."
Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."
...regarding the meaning of Scripture.
Regarding all of the tradition handed down through the Church by the Apostles, according to Newman.
... which was not argued with the same force as Scripture in councils, which was appealed to as the final authority, as Newman pointed out.
It's important to understand Newman's distinction between traditions that are part of the magisterium and traditions that simply exist out in the world. Unlike Scripture, the latter sort of tradition comes with no inherent claim of authority. Only when it is sanctioned by the Church can it make such a claim. Part of that process involves testing it against Scripture. But Newman recognized, at least in his mature work, that the Church's sanction is authoritative. Thus he wrote of the Council of Nicaea, "It is the first ecumenical council, and recognized at the time its own authority as the voice of the infallible Church. It is so received by the orbis terrarum at this day." So he no longer believed, if he ever did, that Scripture was an exclusive rule of faith in the sense that the magisterium could be ignored. He did take a very high view of Scripture and often expressed the idea that it implicitly contains all things necessary for salvation. By no means, however, could all doctrines and dogmas be derived from it without the ministry of the Church.
You got lost again. You're talking about Newman's own beliefs. Maybe you should just concede so we don't have to keep going in circles.
I'm talking about Newman's understanding of what the councils believed.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam LowryAs a Catholic, Newman believed that authoritative teaching was always handed down through tradition, not exclusively through Scripture. said:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
And Newman acknowledged that the ancient church fathers ultimately appealed to Scripture alone as the final authority, not to tradition.
Seriously, it's better to just concede that, and at least have people believe you are capable of being honest, objective, and rational.
He changed his mind:Quote:
The recognition of this rule is the basis of St. Athanasius's method of arguing against Arianism. It is not his aim ordinarily to prove doctrine by Scripture, nor does he appeal to the private judgment of the individual Christian in order to determine what Scripture means; but he assumes that there is a tradition, substantive, independent, and authoritative, such as to supply for us the true sense of Scripture in doctrinal matters, a tradition carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church. He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive. What he was instructed in at school and in church, the voice of the Christian people, the analogy of faith, the ecclesiastical phronema, the writings of saints; these are enough for him. He is in no sense an inquirer, nor a mere disputant; he has received, and he transmits.
Newman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing.
The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.
Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.
But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.
"... to tell them what it meant."
He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.
Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.
Because it's apostolic.
"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."
Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."
...regarding the meaning of Scripture.
Regarding all of the tradition handed down through the Church by the Apostles, according to Newman.
... which was not argued with the same force as Scripture in councils, which was appealed to as the final authority, as Newman pointed out.
It's important to understand Newman's distinction between traditions that are part of the magisterium and traditions that simply exist out in the world. Unlike Scripture, the latter sort of tradition comes with no inherent claim of authority. Only when it is sanctioned by the Church can it make such a claim. Part of that process involves testing it against Scripture. But Newman recognized, at least in his mature work, that the Church's sanction is authoritative. Thus he wrote of the Council of Nicaea, "It is the first ecumenical council, and recognized at the time its own authority as the voice of the infallible Church. It is so received by the orbis terrarum at this day." So he no longer believed, if he ever did, that Scripture was an exclusive rule of faith in the sense that the magisterium could be ignored. He did take a very high view of Scripture and often expressed the idea that it implicitly contains all things necessary for salvation. By no means, however, could all doctrines and dogmas be derived from it without the ministry of the Church.
You got lost again. You're talking about Newman's own beliefs. Maybe you should just concede so we don't have to keep going in circles.
I'm talking about Newman's understanding of what the councils believed.
"Newman's distinctions between.... "
"But Newman recognized, at least in his mature work, that... "
"Thus he wrote of the Councl of Nicaea...."
"So he no longer believed, if he ever did, that....."
Sam LowryNewman is not saying that Athanasius didn't appeal to Scripture alone as the final authority here. He's talking about Athanasius' view on how Scripture should be intepreted; that is, by the traditional, orthodox understanding of it rather than by private interpretation, as he said the Arians were doing. said:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:Quote:
The question of how one interprets Scripture is independent of the principle of sola scriptura. For instance, we disagree with your view on Mary's role in salvation as per your interpretation of the Anunciation story. You will argue that your interpretation has been the orthodox, traditional understanding since the beginning. Of course we will disagree with that analysis and say that you're simply coming to the wrong conclusion and interpreting that part of Scripture incorrectly - which you will say is our private intepretation. But what we don't say, is that you're violating sola scriptura, because you are still exegeting from Scripture, however incorrect your interpretation might be.
Therefore, Newman's view on the ancient fathers always appealing to Scripture as the final authority and sole rule of faith is not at all at odds with what he's saying here.
But according to Newman, the Church Fathers weren't simply exegeting Scripture. They were relying on a "substantive, independent, and authoritative" tradition to tell them what it meant. There's no way to square that with sola scriptura.
"... to tell them what it meant."
He's saying they were exegeting Scripture, based on the traditional, orthodox understanding of its meaning, i.e. in the "Catholic sense" as he says.
Not just traditional and orthodox, but authoritative.
Because it's apostolic.
"He does not care to contend that no other meaning of certain passages of Scripture besides this traditional Catholic sense is possible or is plausible, whether true or not, but simply that any sense inconsistent with the Catholic is untrue, untrue because the traditional sense is apostolic and decisive."
Yep, and it is "carried on from generation to generation by the practice of catechising, and by the other ministrations of Holy Church."
...regarding the meaning of Scripture.
Regarding all of the tradition handed down through the Church by the Apostles, according to Newman.
... which was not argued with the same force as Scripture in councils, which was appealed to as the final authority, as Newman pointed out.
It's important to understand Newman's distinction between traditions that are part of the magisterium and traditions that simply exist out in the world. Unlike Scripture, the latter sort of tradition comes with no inherent claim of authority. Only when it is sanctioned by the Church can it make such a claim. Part of that process involves testing it against Scripture. But Newman recognized, at least in his mature work, that the Church's sanction is authoritative. Thus he wrote of the Council of Nicaea, "It is the first ecumenical council, and recognized at the time its own authority as the voice of the infallible Church. It is so received by the orbis terrarum at this day." So he no longer believed, if he ever did, that Scripture was an exclusive rule of faith in the sense that the magisterium could be ignored. He did take a very high view of Scripture and often expressed the idea that it implicitly contains all things necessary for salvation. By no means, however, could all doctrines and dogmas be derived from it without the ministry of the Church.
You got lost again. You're talking about Newman's own beliefs. Maybe you should just concede so we don't have to keep going in circles.
I'm talking about Newman's understanding of what the councils believed.
"Newman's distinctions between.... "
"But Newman recognized, at least in his mature work, that... "
"Thus he wrote of the Councl of Nicaea...."
"So he no longer believed, if he ever did, that....."
Keep your eye on the ball. This is all a direct line of argument from the issue that you raised, i.e. what Newman believed about the councils. Agree with him or not, he ultimately did not conclude that they were exclusively beholden to the Scriptures.
Maybe the assumed that the eventual readers would understand the evidence presented in -ShooterTX said:Coke Bear said:ShooterTX said:
John wrote his gospel after he took Mary as his mother... and yet he never wrote a single line that would establish the Roman Catholic marian dogmas.
Not a single line about her being born without sin. Nothing about her living a sinless life. Nothing about her never having children. In fact John mentions the siblings of Jesus on multiple occasions. Nothing about her bodily assumption into heaven. He never mentions Mary's role as mediatrix or co-Redemer or the one who dispenses salvific grace or the one who hears our prayers... none of the disciples were as close to Mary as John, but he mentions Judas more than he does Mary in his writings.
John's purpose wasn't to define Marian Dogmas.
The siblings mentioned in the Gospels actually have other parents. James and Joseph are mentioned as "brothers" and believed by protestants to be Jesus' actual brothers. But we are told later that they are actually sons of Mary the wife of Clopas, most likely cousins.
St. Jerome, who translated the bible into Latin, openly mocked Helvidius because he believed that Jesus had siblings born of Mary. His statement was,
"The axe of the Gospel must now be laid at the roots of the barren tree and the tree must be delivered to the flames with its unfruitful leaves, so that he who has never learned to speak might learn at length to hold his tongue."ShooterTX said:
Jesus was the firstborn. In Jewish law it is the firstborn who is supposed to take care of the parents. Jesus gave this role to John, not because he had no siblings but because it was his authority to choose her care taker. He chose John because at the time of his death, no one was in closer relationship to Jesus than John. Its is believed that many of His siblings didn't believe he was the Messiah until after his resurrection. So John is a logical choice and it's a great honor for John to have been chosen for this role.
This is completely inaccurate. No where in the Jewish culture does this right or responsibility exist. The firstborn was required to care for their aging parents. If they die, that role would belong to the other siblings. If they did NOT take care of an aging parents, that would be a grievous sin against the commandment to honor thy father and mother. Jesus would never have been complicit in allowing a "sibling" to commit such a sin.
John was entrusted because Jesus had no other siblings. Luther and Calvin both believed this as well. The notion that Mary had other children crept into Christianity long after the original "reformers."
And yet you give no explanation for why John never mentions any of the miracle of Mary outside of the immaculate conception.
Why wouldn't John mention even one of these crazy things that you Catholics believe about Mary?
Mary was supposedly the first sinless human, and no mention of it at all? That's an insane belief. Not a single scripture prophesize about her being sinless, not a single one that states the she was sinless... yet multiple scriptures talk about the sinlessness of Jesus.
No explanation... just a big "trust me bro".... typical.
How were the different books determined to be or not to be canon?canoso said:
The author of all Scripture is God. His word, both living and written, is eternal in the heavens and will never be added to or subtracted from.
Sam Lowry said:
A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.
Fre3dombear said:Oldbear83 said:
Nothing from Christ, and none say Mary is equal to Christ.
And as mentioned before, if being an older tradition mattered here, we'd be going with the Jewish Talmud .
Huh? What Christian believes Mary is equal to Christ?
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.
Umm, yeah, THE final authority:
"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."
You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.
Quote:
"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.
Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.
For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.
These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.
Quote:
Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.
Quote:
Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.
Quote:
In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.
Quote:
In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.
Umm, yeah, THE final authority:
"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."
You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.
That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:Quote:
"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.
Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.
For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.
These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.
Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:Quote:
Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.Quote:
Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.Quote:
In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.Quote:
In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."
In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.
BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.
Umm, yeah, THE final authority:
"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."
You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.
That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:Quote:
"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.
Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.
For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.
These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.
Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:Quote:
Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.Quote:
Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.Quote:
In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.Quote:
In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."
In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.
So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?
Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.
Read his quote again:
"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)
He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.
Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:BusyTarpDuster2017 said:Sam Lowry said:
A final authority, yes. The final authority, no. The Church has recognized its own teaching authority from the first ecumenical council, and later councils have continually cited earlier ones.
Umm, yeah, THE final authority:
"... they always went to Scripture alone."
"... it does invest Scripture with the character of an exclusive Rule of Faith."
You're trying really, really hard to wiggle out of this, and you just can't.
That was not his view as a Catholic. Here is Newman in more detail on the Council of Nicaea:Quote:
"See," says Athanasius, "we are proving that this view has been transmitted from Fathers to Fathers; but ye, O modern Jews and disciples of Caiaphas, whom can ye assign as Fathers to your phrases? Not one of the understanding and wise, (for all abhor you,) but the devil alone; none but he is your father in this apostasy, who both in the beginning scattered on you the seed of this irreligion, and now persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council for committing to writing, not your doctrines, but that which 'from the beginning those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word' have handed down to us. For the faith which the Council has confessed in writing, that is the faith of the Catholic Church; to assert this, the blessed Fathers so expressed themselves while condemning the Arian heresy; and this is a chief reason why these men apply themselves to calumniate the Council. For it is not the terms which trouble them, but that those terms prove them to be heretics, and presumptuous beyond other heresies." Decr. 27.
Elsewhere he speaks of the Arians "forcing on the divine oracles a misinterpretation according to their own private sense," Orat. i. 37, and cries out, "Who heard in his first catechisings that God had a Son, without understanding it in our sense? who, on the rise of this odious heresy, was not at once startled at what he heard as being strange to him?" Orat. ii. 34.
For parallel passages from Athanasius and many others, vid. arts. on Definitions, Heretics, Private Judgment, Rule of Faith, and Scripture. From these it would appear that the two main sources of Revelation are Scripture and Tradition; that these constitute one Rule of Faith, and that, sometimes as a composite rule, sometimes as a double and co-ordinate, sometimes as an alternative, under the magisterium, of course, of the Church, and without an appeal to the private judgment of individuals.
These articles, too, effectually refute the hypothesis of some Protestants, who, to destroy the force of the evidence in favour of our doctrine of Tradition, wish to maintain that by Tradition then was commonly meant Scripture; and that when the Fathers speak of "Evangelical Tradition" they mean the Gospels, and when they speak of "Apostolical" they mean the Epistles. This will not hold, and it may be right, perhaps, here to refer to several passages in illustration.
Newman follows with a long list of examples, such as:Quote:
Irenaeus says, "Polycarp, ... whom we have seen in our first youth, ... was taught those lessons which he learned from the Apostles, which the Church also transmits, which alone are true. All the Churches of Asia bear witness to them; and the successors of Polycarp, down to this day, who is a much more trustworthy and sure witness of truth than Valentinus," &c. Here is not a word about Scripture, not a hint that by "transmission" and "succession" Scripture is meant.Quote:
Origen speaks of a dogma, "neither handed down by the Apostles nor indicated in the writings." So in S. Athanasius we read of "the Apostolical Tradition and teaching which is acknowledged by all;" and soon after, of a believing conformably "to the evangelical and apostolic tradition" where "tradition" means doctrine, not books.Quote:
In like manner, Neander speaks of two kinds of so-called Apostolical Traditions, doctrinal and ecclesiastical. And Le Moyne considers the Apostolical Tradition of S. Hippolytus to be what S. Irenaeus means by it, doctrine, as distinct from Scripture.Quote:
In like manner, S. Augustine contrasts Apostolical Tradition with writings, and he calls Infant Baptism an Apostolical Tradition. And S. Cyprian speaks of, not only wine, but the mixed Cup in the Holy Eucharist, as an "Evangelical truth" and "tradition of the Lord."
In case there is any doubt, Newman's Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine makes clear that this tradition is not merely interpretive. It is a substantive body of dogma and doctrine, independent of Scripture.
So where, in any of all that, does Newman indicate that he changed his mind that in councils the ancient fathers appealed to Scripture alone and exclusively, as a final authority?
Newman's view that Athanasius' "Rule of Faith" including both Scripture and Tradition, is not mutually exclusive with Athanasius' appealing to Scripture alone as a final authority. The same thing can be said for all the other church fathers' quotes you've given. You've only shown they believed Tradition to have authority, but not that they believed Scripture and Tradition to be equal in authority. The fathers believed that the nature of Scripture, being "God-breathed" was on a different, higher level than Tradition. This is what Newman noted in his quote I gave. Nothing you've given conclusively he changed his mind about that.
Read his quote again:
"The more I read of Athanasius, Theodoret, etc., the more I see that the ancients did make the Scriptures the basis of their belief... when they met together in council, they brought the witness of tradition as a matter of fact, but when they discussed the matter in council, cleared their views, etc., proved their power, they always went to Scripture alone." - John Henry Newman, "Letter to Rev. R.H. Froude" (Aug 23, 1835), Letters and Correspondence of John Henry Newman p.113 (1890)
He's saying that the fathers did include the authority of Tradition to argue their views - but it's authority and power was not considered on the same level as Scripture. This is perfectly consistent with all the quotes you've given.
It's right there in black and white. The more you read Newman's statements in context, the more obvious it is. I don't expect you to agree, but you asked for the evidence.
Look, no one is going to blame you for failing to enlist Newman to your agenda. He was a cardinal, doctor, and saint of the Catholic Church, after all. You set yourself an impossible task.
