BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

Coke Bear said:

---

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.

---

Maybe the assumed that the eventual readers would understand the evidence presented in -

• Luke 1:28 - (kecharitomene) Mary perfectly and completely graced
• Genesis 3:15 - Total enmity with Satan implies sinlessness
• Luke 1:42 - Supreme blessing among all women
• Luke 1:47 -Saved preventively, not remedially
• Revelation 12:1 -Glorified, radiant woman image of total holiness

This was understood for 1500 years (which even Luther, Calvin, Zwingli believed) before the so-called "reformers" had to separate themselves further from the Church.

Finally, to piggyback on what other have stated, I'll ask you the following:

Why didn't John use or define the word, "Trinity?"
Why didn't John discuss the hypostatic union or Jesus being Homoousios?
Why didn't John tell us how determine what scripture is and what is not?
Why didn't John tell us that Mark or Hebrews is scripture?

I apologize if this seems rather snarky. I merely want this to demonstrate that NOT everything is going to be explicitly called out in scripture. Christ left a Church for us to determine what is scripture and to develop doctrine.

Some doctrines are of a higher order of truths than others. For instance, the Divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit (affirmed in AD 325 and 381, respectively) are of a much higher order of importance than the doctrine of Mary's sinlessness or perpetual virginity. All are true, but the former are more important than the later.

---

Left us a church (not 45,000 to Pick and choose from) not a book. Couldnt even sola scriptura until the Catholics put it together.

Everyone on this board would have never even seen a written scripture the first few hundred years of the Catholic Church so it was almost exclusively for almost everyone oral and lots of tradition woven in, as is explocitly written in what we now have each of our homes.

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?

---

This is the thread title you posted at the start:

Imagine willfully not trying to honor Mary as much as our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

---

lol. Yall are projecting yet again. Adjust the emphasis ( and bias) and it will become clear it doesnt mean what you want it to mean.

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

Sam Lowry said:

---

BusyTarpDuster2017 said:

---

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.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

---

I said that it put me in good company with the ancient church fathers that Newman was referring to, not with Newman. You STILL can't comprehend it correctly.

I understand that you have to believe what you have to about Newman - it's because you can't read honestly, rather you have to read things so that your Church is always correct. It forces you to deny the reality that is right in front of your face, and look totally irrational.

I'm absolutely convinced if the RC posiiton was that Augustine loved apples, and I showed you a direct quote from him saying "I most certainly do NOT like apples" - you and your RC brothers would be here saying "but Augustine doesn't say he always doesn't like apples", or "that's not what he said, you took him out of context", or "here is a quote where he does say he loves apples" and then proceed to post a quote where he doesn't say that at all. Sadly, you are beholden to your Church and what it teaches, and it MUST be right, and so you must defend it at all costs, even if it goes against objective reality. And even if its overt and rank idolatry and heresy. It's really sad to witness. Roman Catholics really need to be honest, and open their eyes, if they every are going to get out of this mind trap.

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:

---

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.

---

No, it's not there in black and white. You are not showing that Newman changed his mind that the father appealed to Scripture alone as a final authority. You're only really establishing that Newman believed the church fathers believed Tradition to have authority along with Scripture - but just not equal to it in councils. You are giving NOTHING which says something to the effect of "In council, the fathers did NOT argue Scripture alone as a final authority - they also argued Tradition right along with it as having equal force and authority".

---

Can we agree that Newman's views changed over time?

---

Not changed in the way you're asserting, no. At least I've haven't seen any evidence of that.

---

Well, let's leave it there. I will just circle back and answer your original question whether being called "Mr. Sola Scriptura" puts you in good company with Newman. His answer would be an emphatic no.

---

I said that it put me in good company with the ancient church fathers that Newman was referring to, not with Newman. You STILL can't comprehend it correctly.

---

Well, I wish you had made that clear. Newman might have believed in sola scriptura at some point, but the Church Fathers obviously never did. There's no particular need to involve him in that debate.

Why are we talking about Newman, again?