DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay:
Again, my brother, you make another attempt to drive a wedge between the Roman Catholics and "protestants".
The question boils down to what is "the church" that is refered to in Ephesians? Your definition is limited to those practicing the Roman catholic religion. However, the bible and the early church defined "the church" as all the saints who are believers and followers of Jesus the Christ. Yes, the church reveals the truth. And who is the truth? None other than Jesus! "I am the way, THE TRUTH, and the life." (John 14:6) So the bible is correct in saying that the church reveals the "secrets" or truths of the bible. However, it does not say the Roman catholic church. All Christians are part of "the church". No one outside of "the church" has the truth that is revealed in Jesus. Not Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, etc. Only the church in which Jesus is the head of.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Ernie,
The "wedge" was created when a portion of the Christian church revolted and rejected Christ's Church. I didn't create this - I'm just pointing out why you should come home to the Catholic Church.

If you read documents from the early Church, you'll see that you are incorrect in a big way. The Church clearly saw themselves as an institution under the primacy of Peter and the bishops. I recommend you read Matthew's View of "Church", which is a post that directly addresses this. The Church in protestant terms (a "group of all believers despite their differences") was not invented until Martin Luther's time. Until then the Church was always viewed as the institution Christ created in Matthew 16:18. Also, refer to 1 Corinthians where St. Paul seriously reprimands those within the Church who have differing views - I'm sure he would see the substantial differences in protestant theology as a problem.

In other words: the Bible and the early Church viewed "Church" much, much differently than you do. I recommend you read through some of the early Church fathers to understand this better. But be forewarned: they are extremely "Catholic."

God bless,
Jay

Hi Jay!

You write as if the Protestant Reformation was the first division the Christian church has ever encountered (“only the Catholic Church existed at that time (up until the protestant reformation, in fact)”) Do you really believe this? Because I’m led to understand the Arian heresy divided churches in the third century, and that the universal church has always suffered schisms and heresies ever since.

I totally agree with you, Jay, that people should know what early Christians wrote. So, since I mentioned the Arian heresy, let’s look at St. Athanasius for an example of what early Christians wrote about the visible church. Did Athanasius believe that we should listen to people with the right position in the church, or the people with the right faith? From his 29th letter (which you can read">http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/NPNF2-04/Npnf2-04-92.htm">read at this link):

For they [heretics] hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith? (my emphasis)

Sounds to me like Athanasius would have agreed with Ernie. He who holds to the same faith as the Apostles is in "the true Faith”, and he who does not, is not, regardless of their position in any church. Even the Roman one.

So. As the foremost scriptural apologist of his time, we must conclude that Athanasius was totally ignorant of Ephesians 3. Or perhaps he was simply ignorant of your interpretation of Ephesians 3?

But I agree with you in this: if one encounters someone selling "secrets to the Bible" or "hidden keys to revealing the secrets of scripture" or saying "without my novel interpretational grid, the Bible won't make any sense", I suggest three responses to your readers. Grab your wallet, grab your Bible, and head for the nearest exit.

In Him, Kaff

Ernie, at the risk of seeming like I'm "piling on" I would like add my two bits to this discussion.

Many world religions contain some elements of the truth about God: Islam holds that there is but one God; Buddhism teaches the importance of detachment from worldly possessions; and so on.

As Christians, we probably agree that the ultimate revelation of God to man is through the incarnation of His Son, Jesus Christ. The contradictions, however, between the distinctives of the Catholic faith, the Eastern Orthodox churches and the multifarious protestant denominations are such that each of us, in our quest to seek the face of God, is forced to choose.

The differences between, say, the Assemblies of God and the Greek Orthodox churches are not as great as those between the AoG and Sunni Islam, but the differences do matter. Christians simply cannot ALL be right about the means to salvation, the sacraments, sola scriptura, the authority of the Pope etc. And who amongst us would settle for 80 per cent of the truth about God, or even 99 per cent, if we thought that a particular church held and taught 100 per cent of the truth?

Jay's post is not designed to drive a wedge between Catholics and protestants (or Orthodox) - it merely draws attention to the fact that a gap already exists, and that the existence of this gap is not in accordance with God's will (1 Corinthians 1:10). As pilgrims, we are all called to respond to God's grace using the gifts that he has given us, including reason, to come to the closest possible communion with Him. Neither personal preference, nor upbringing, nor culture bears any relevance to the question of what is objectively true about God.

For my part, if the Catholic Church is not the Church established by Christ then I WOULD REALLY, REALLY LIKE TO KNOW!

Peace

Kaffinator,
Jay can definitely hold his own in responding to your commentary, but I felt the need to respond as well. First, it is agreed that historically there have been heresies and false doctrines that have arisen surrounding the Church since its inception. However, the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, has consistently put them rest as they have come about throughout the centuries. For instance, the Council of Nicea authoritatively determined the Canon of Scripture to put to rest the non-inspired texts.

Regarding St. Athanasius, it is agreed that he is a front-runner in apologetics for the faith. However with all due respect Kaff, Athanasius was then and is now a CATHOLIC apologist. You seem to suggest that he was of protestant thinking in that the Church is merely a group of disconnected believers. To quote your above post to Jay:

"Sounds to me like Athanasius would have agreed with Ernie. He who holds to the same faith as the Apostles is in "the true Faith”, and he who does not, is not, regardless of their position in any church. Even the Roman one."

Your extraction of Athanasius' writings are incomplete however. Again, we must remember that Athanasius was a Catholic bishop AND defender of the faith. So to understand him we must take his writings as a whole to fully understand his position. The quote below could not be more clear in how Athanasius viewed the relationship of the Church to "the true faith."

"In the beginning he [Satan] sowed you with the seeds of impiety, and now he persuades you to slander the Ecumenical Council, because it committed to writing not your doctrines, but those which FROM THE BEGINNING were handed down by those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word. For THE FAITH which the Council confessed in writing is THE FAITH OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. In order to establish this, the blessed fathers wrote as they did, while condemning the Arian heresy." (Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicea, 350/351 A.D.)

In essence, we have Athanasius saying that the faith from the beginning was and is that of the Catholic Church--they are one in the same. So he is saying that any doctrine that is not of the Church of Christ is a false doctrine and the faith of all true Christians is to be found in the Catholic Church. So it seems that Athanasius is well aware of Ephesians 3 and somehow 1700 years earlier came up with the same "interpretation" as Jay:) This is a real compliment for Jay since as you said above Athanasius was, "the foremost scriptural apologist of his time." Really though, I don't know how much clearer it could be from Athanasius' point of view.
In Truth,
Matthew

Brothers

We must be very careful when quoting the fathers like Athanasius and not realizing what they meant in context.

Are we to say that Kaff is correct and fathers advocated for multiple denominations? Would fidens' view be more accurate? This is very important and we should widen our view of our ancestors. Not just that they were closer to the apostles but we must realize that they dealt with heresy on a daily basis. This started from the 1st century not just with Athanasius in the 4th... Kaff is correct to say so.

I point to Acts 15 to recognize multiple churches is not scriptual! We have here (Council of Jerusalem) the template on how to handle schisms... 1 a new doctrine with legitimate support (Bishops) requires further elaboration. 2 A council is called. 3 the topic is reviewed and 4 a decision is made on the topic in question there is one truth and one Truth not multiple... all say aye and a second legitimate church is formed (NOT!). In fact we see in Matthew that those that disagree to the truth of the Church are to be outcast and treated as gentiles (excommunicated).

This is the identical format to the quote brought by Kaff. 1 Here we have the Arian heresy (Christ had no divine nature) with support of bishops. 2 the Council of Nicea is called (318 Church Bishops including Athanasius) 3 topic is reviewed 4 a decision is made and concilar statements were drafted with ANATHEMAS subjoined to EXILE those who would not sign them...that being a certain bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia who refused to condemn Arius! Athanasius (as we may have before interpreted from Kaff's quote) was not the marshmallow pro splitter as implied...he was hardline and became known as the "Father of Orthodoxy."

Just because Athanasius pressed the heretics like a medevial torture device may not be enough for some who wish to justify their schism... If you want to read more I for the 3rd time on this site plug a book on this very topic by evangelical Baptist Rod Bennett called "The Four Witnessess." But Bennett is not satisfied with the 4th century views of Athanasius...he goes back to the 1st and 2nd century writings of Romans, Jews, Church Fathers and Holy Scripture. He wanted to know what the 12 taught their direct successors on what really was true interpretation from what was heresy and misunderstanding.

So what else did Athanasius say if he wants us to have this Faith of his...what did he view as the true Faith and not just position...I would argue that the Father of Orthodoxy would tell you the Protestant position aside from being anathema is indeed not his faith but position (below from scripturecatholic.com):

re heresy: "[W]e are content with the fact that this is not the teaching of the Catholic Church, nor did the fathers hold this." Athanasius, To Epicletus, Epistle 59:3 (A.D. 371).

"Concerning those who call themselves Cathari, if they come over to the Catholic and Apostolic Church, the great and holy Synod decrees that they who are ordained shall continue as they are in the clergy. But it is before all things necessary that they should profess in writing that they will observe and follow the dogmas of the Catholic and Apostolic Church; in particular that they will communicate with persons who have been twice married, and with those who having lapsed in persecution have had a period [of penance] laid upon them, and a time [of restoration] fixed so that in all things they will follow the dogmas of the Catholic Church..." Council of Nicaea I (A.D. 325).

"This gave occasion for an Ecumenical Council, that the feast might be everywhere celebrated on one day, and that the heresy which was springing up might be anathematized. It took place then; and the Syrians submitted, and the Fathers pronounced the Arian heresy to be the forerunner of Antichrist, and drew up a suitable formula against it. And yet in this, many as they are, they ventured on nothing like the proceedings of these three or four men. Without pre-fixing Consulate, month, and day, they wrote concerning Easter, 'It seemed good as follows,' for it did then seem good that there should be a general compliance; but about the faith they wrote not, 'It seemed good,' but, 'Thus believes the Catholic Church;' and thereupon they confessed how they believed, in order to shew that their own sentiments were not novel, but Apostolical; and what they wrote down was no discovery of theirs, but is the same as was taught by the Apostles." Athanasius, Councils of Ariminum & Seleucia, 5( A.D. 362).

On APOSTOLIC TRADITION:

"But after him (the devil) and with him are all inventors of unlawful heresies, who indeed refer to the Scriptures, but do not hold such opinions as the saints have handed down, and receiving them as the traditions of men, err, because they do not rightly know them nor their power" Athanasius, Festal Letter 2 (c. A.D. 350).

'For, what our Fathers have delivered, this is truly doctrine; and this is truly the token of doctors, to confess the same thing with each other, and to vary neither from themselves nor from their Fathers...Thus the Greeks, as not witnessing to the same doctrines, but quarreling one with another, have no truth of teaching; but the holy and veritable heralds of truth agree together, and do not differ...preaching the same Word harmoniously.' Athanasius, De Decretis 4 (c. A.D. 350).

On HERETICS WITH MULTIVARIANT NON CATHOLIC INTERPRETATIONS:

'Scarcely, however, did they begin to speak, when they were condemned, and one differed from another; then perceiving the straits in which their heresy lay, they remained dumb, and by their silence confessed the disgrace which came upon their heterodoxy. On this the Bishops, having negatived the terms they had invented, published against them the sound and ecclesiastical faith...And what is strange indeed, Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had denied the day before, but afterward subscribed, sent to his Church a letter, saying that this was the Church's faith and the Tradition of the Fathers.' Athanasius, De Decretis 3, (c. A.D. 350).

ON THE PERPETUAL VIRGINITY OF MARY

"Therefore let those who deny that the Son is from the Father by nature and proper to His Essence, deny also that He took true human flesh of Mary Ever-Virgin; for in neither case had it been of profit to us men, whether the Word were not true and naturally Son of God, or the flesh not true which He assumed." Athanasius, Orations against the Arians, II:70 (A.D. 362).

PETER'S PRIMACY

"Supposing, as you assert, that some offence rested upon those persons, the case ought to have been conducted against them, not after this manner, but according to the Canon of the Church. Word should have been written of it to us all, that so a just sentence might proceed from all. For the sufferers were Bishops, and Churches of no ordinary note, but those which the Apostles themselves had governed in their own persons…For what we have received from the blessed Apostle Peter, that I signify to you; and I should not have written this, as deeming that these things were manifest unto all men, had not these proceedings so disturbed us." Athanasius, Pope Julius to the Eusebians, Defense Against the Arians, 35 (A.D. 347).

ON THE DEUTEROCANON

"[T]he sacred writers to whom the Son has revealed Him, have given us a certain image from things visible, saying, 'Who is the brightness of His glory, and the Expression of His Person;'[Heb 1:3] and again, 'For with Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see lights;'[Ps 36:9] and when the Word chides lsrael, He says, 'Thou hast forsaken the Fountain of wisdom'[Baruch 3:12]; and this Fountain it is which says, 'They have forsaken Me the Fountain of living waters'[Jer 2:13]." Athanasius, Defense of the Nicene Faith, 2:12 (A.D. 351).

ON THE REGENERATIVE ESSENCE OF WATER BAPTISM

"And with reason; for as we are all from earth and die in Adam, so being regenerated from above of water and Spirit, in the Christ we are all quickened." Athanasius, Discourse Against the Arians, III:33 (A.D. 360).

ON THE EUCHARIST

"You will see the Levites bringing the loaves and a cup of wine, and placing them on the table. So long as the prayers and invocations have not yet been made, it is mere bread and a mere cup. But when the great and wonderous prayers have been recited, then the bread becomes the body and the cup the blood of our Lord Jesus Christ...When the great prayers and holy supplications are sent up, the Word descends on the bread and the cup, and it becomes His body." Athanasius, Sermon to the Newly Baptized, PG 26, 1325 (ante A.D. 373).

Indeed if we wonder what was his Faith...this was the Faith of Athanasius not the "position" found needy!

In the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ

when we were one

PS I forgot an interesting note about Nicea 1...present there after recent imprisonment was a certain Syrian Bishop known as Saint Nicholas of Myra:) who obviously signed off on the anathemas! Another marshmallow.

Wow, Fidens, your church thinks it has 100% of the "truth about God"? That's, uh, quite a LOT. Or would you care to limit that statement in some way? (And did you know the Mormons make pretty much the same claim? It's one reason that ex-Mormons make great Roman Catholics, they're conditioned to look to a human organization to supply all truth.)

Personally I do not believe it is within my rights to demand that God to reveal 100% of anything to me. In His wisdom I believe He will choose what to reveal and what not to reveal.

Also I do not believe God demands that every Christian everywhere have the exact same understanding of every single point of doctrine. After all, even sainted early Christians had disagreements on church practice and some doctrine.

In the scripture you mentioned, Paul exhorts the Corinthians to "be made complete in the same mind". Perhaps you assume Paul means that "same mind" unity is to be achieved through the dictatorial enforcement of all religious truths by a single hierarchical entity. But that's not what I think Paul was talking about. He expands upon the phrase "same mind" in another epistle (Phi 2:2):

"Make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose."

If you and I, with faith in Christ, are both intent on loving God and loving our neighbor then I think we are unified in the way Paul requested. Let us talk about our differences, but let's not allow them to interfere with our greater purpose by overemphasizing them.

In Him, Kaff

fidens:
Very well spoken and I appreciate your candor, humility, and sincerity.
You are right. I wish that we weren't "forced to choose". However, you refer to the different religions (Buddhism and Islam for example) as having some truths about God. I disagree in as much as these may believe in one god but not in the one true God. You see, it is the object of our faith that gives it credibiblity. Our faith is in the one true God through His only begotten Son, Jesus. All other religions place their faith in a god that does not exist. So although they may have some similarities with our faith (such as believing in only one god) they do not know the true God or any truths about the real God.
You are also correct in saying that ALL Christians cannot be right about the means to salvation especially if Jesus Himself said that there is only one way to the Father and different denominations may teach differently. This is why we must ALL adhere to the means of salvation as taught by Jesus who knows the truth and is "the way". Salvation is not granted by our inclusion or membership to a religious organization. Jesus never said "be a part of my church and you shall be saved". This is the discusion that was going around during the time of Martin Luther. "Salvation outside the church" vs. "Salvation outside of Christ".
God uses all things for good. Do you think that God has allowed many Christian denominations in an effort to reach more people in the world with the gospel than could be possible with one denomination? This is something I often wonder about.
Again, it also comes back to what does the bible and the early christians define as "the church"? From my understanding it what not a particular religion or denomination or Roman Catholocism but included ALL who were believers and followers of Jesus the Christ (Jews and Gentiles, Greeks and Romans). All these made up the church. Christ did establish the church. The catholic church. The universal church that includes all who believe in Him and declare Him as Lord and follow His teachings. Does salvation require being 100% correct about the things of God? Jesus never taught that. Within Christianity I wish we could find unity in our similarities and grant grace in our differences. Fidens, as for you and I, my brother, I will stand side by side with you and defend the truth of Christianity to the death despite our differences.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Interesting post. Like the other commenters, I wonder about your use of the word "church". I believe the Greek word in the original text means "assembly". As well as the Christian meaning of the word, it also meant,
1) a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly
a) an assembly of the people convened at the public place of the council for the purpose of deliberating
b) the assembly of the Israelites
c) any gathering or throng of men assembled by chance, tumultuously (Blue Letter Bible)

I would have to agree that "church" in the NT does not refer to the modern institution of the Roman Catholic church, but of the assembled body of believers.

If there are any "secrets" in the Bible, I suspect that many of them can be revealed by looking at the original languages in which Scripture was written. No translation is capable of capturing all the nuances of the original documents.

Also, when you say that only the Catholic Church existed at the time of Paul, that's a bit disingenuous. There was no catholic church. There were communities of Gentiles who followed Paul's lead. There were communities of Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah, and continued to worship in their own ways. I understood that there was quite a lot of disparity of belief at the time this Epistle was written. Shouldn't we read this letter within that historical context?

Kaff,

Your post begs the question "how is 'the right faith' established?" and consequently ignores the means by which the arian heresy, and all other heresies, have been resolved.

From www.catholicculture.org:

"In his Historical Sketch on Arianism of the Fourth Century, John Henry Cardinal Newman observed that there was a moment in that century when practically all of the bishops in the world were tainted either with the Arian heresy or the Semi-Arian heresy. Newman observed that the notable exceptions were the Pope and St. Athanasius. Because the vast majority of the faithful refused to accept and believe the heresies, the Pope and St. Athanasius had a power base which enabled them to summon the bishops to the Council of Nicea in the year 325 where they prevailed over the bishops who were tainted with the Arian heresies. The Council produced the Nicene Creed..."

Given that he was outnumbered by heretics, why did Athenasius not simply establish his own Church? Could it be because his understanding of the Church was closer to Jay's than Ernie's?

Is it reasonable to say that it is through the Church, guided and protected by the Holy Spirit (as promised by Christ) that the deposit of faith is established?

Interestingly, one of the sources of the Arian heresy was private interpretation of scripture (as with JWs today), whilst Athanasius argued from Apostolic tradition.

Peace.

Hmmm. Due to sloppy writing, my previous could be interpreted as stating that St. Athanasius did not argue from scripture, which is of course untrue. What he did was defend the Church's interpretation of scripture against those who rejected it in favour of private interpretation.

From "Discourses Against the Arians":

"[S]ince they allege the divine oracles and force on them a misinterpretation according to their private sense, it becomes necessary to meet them just so far as to vindicate these passages, and to show that they bear an orthodox sense" (Discourse 1, 37).

"This then I consider the sense of this passage, and that a very ecclesiastical sense" (Discourse 1, 44).

"Had Christ's enemies thus dwelt on these thoughts, and recognized the ecclesiastical scope as an anchor for the faith, they would not have made shipwreck of the faith" (Discourse 3, 58).

Peace.

Wow, what a thread! :)

Kaff - read my post again, nowhere do I say that the Catholic Church purports to have "100 per cent of the truth" about God, I merely posed a hypothetical question.

Talmida - "community of believers"... believers in what? If nothing else this thread demonstrates that the Christian creed we all seem to take for granted is the product of much debate. This debate predates arianism, going back to the "circumcisers" who believed that Christians must adhere to mosaic law.

Ernie - You asked: "Does salvation require being 100% correct about the things of God?"

Hypothetically, let's say that you found out that the woman you were deeply, passionately, but secretly in love with also truly loved you and wanted to marry you. Would you say to yourself "that's nice" and go about your day, or would you run to her side and confess your love and your desire to spend the rest of your life with her?

How much more then, should believers seek the closest possible communion with God? This is the best (but still flawed) analogy I can draw to belonging to the Church (and, for that matter, receiving the eucharist). As members of the Church (the bride of Christ) Catholics can enjoy that intimate communion with God. Nothing less should suffice.

God bless you all.

PS I borrowed that analogy from someone, but I can't remember who!

Hi Matthew,

The Athanasius quote you provided demonstrates that Athanasius believed that the faith expressed by the council was authentic and in keeping with the doctrine taught by the original Apostles. That's all well and good but it does not speak to the issue I brought up, which was that Athanasius knew that holding a particular place or title, even in the Roman church, is not equivalent to holding Apostolic faith.

Hi WWWO,

I did not say that early Christians would have advocated multiple denominations. Nor did I try to portray Athanasius as a marshmallow. If you want to build a strawman, be my guest, but I ask you do not stick my name on it. I simply pointed out a writing of an early Christian whom we all respect, who I believe would have differed with Jay. In sum:

Jay is basically saying, you should trust the Roman Catholic Church because it is the authoritative institution and it is always right. And I find Athanasius basically saying, you should trust the apostolic faith, which parts of the visible church can indeed get wrong. Do you see the difference?

Publishing Athanasius' views on everything from water baptism to the second canon to the virginity of Mary may make for interesting discussion but it seems rather off-topic to me. How is all of this relevant?

Hi Fidens,

Can you explain to me the qualitative difference between "starting his own church", versus making sure that the church (of which he was a part) separated itself from heretics? It sounds like the same thing to me.

Athanasius did not argue from apostolic tradition. He argued very persuasively from the most reasonable interpretation of the scriptures, and points out how the Arian interpretation is essentially unreasonable. Have you read "Four Discourses Against the Arians"? I challenge you to find one single place in which he appeals to tradition as an authoritative source rather than scripture. The problem is not "private" interpretation per se (RCC apologists advance their own interpretations these days just as frequently as anyone else) but "wrong" interpretations, such as may be produced by the untaught or unstable mind.

You ask if it is reasonable to say that the church establishes the deposit of faith. First, if you define "the church" as "all those who believe" I would go as far as to say that in our Christian witness we support and uphold and proclaim the truth (see 1 Tim 3:15). But we do not "establish" the truth, it is God alone who does this.

Hi Ernie,

What can I say but, Amen. :-) Hope you don't mind me popping into the conversation.

Best to you all, Kaff

Jay:
We must be careful in throwing around the term "catholic church" as used by the apostles and early Christians and automatically assuming that they refered to the Roman Catholic Church. This is not so. Common sense, logic and even just the basic historical knowledge should tell you that "the church" began in Jerusalem not Rome. The catholic church seen as the universal church that Christ established involving all followers of Jesus is not a protestant idea as you suggested because it can be found in scripture and early church writings. Because at that time there were no "differences" between believers. Either you believed that Jesus was the Messiah or you did not. To be a part of the Church meant that you believed in Jesus as the Messiah. All the other differences involving doctrines and religious orders came later. Most of the heresies faced by the early church revolved around Christ's nature and diety. You cannot deny that Jesus was God (as the Gnostics did) and still remain within the faith (ie- within the church). As far as I know, most "protestants" do not deny the nature and diety of Christ. If they do then they are clearly outside of the Church. But to say that if you are not a member of the Roman catholic church you are outside of the church that Christ established is misleading and against the unity that the apostles and early church fathers sought.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

fidens:
I did not quite follow your analogy but are you saying that believers outside of the Roman catholic church cannot have a deep, meaningful, and full relationship with God? That only those within the RCC receive "the closest possible communion with God"? That others outside the RCC cannot "enjoy an intimate communion with God"? My brother, you will never convince me of that because I know firsthand, from personal experience, that I had little, if any, conscious relationship with God while I was a member of the RCC and have learned more about God, scripture, have prayed more than I ever did before, and have a deeper understanding and relationship with God since "leaving" the RCC. I can't explain why that is but it is what it is.

Hello to you, Kaff. I don't mind your "popping" into the conversation at all. Your input is always greatly appreciated and highly respected.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Hi Kaff,

See my comments above.

My point is precisely that St. Athenasius DID NOT "mak[e] sure that the church (of which he was a part) separated itself from heretics" - he, and the legates sent by Pope Sylvester (including Hosius, Bishop of Cordoba, who presided over the Council), championed the orthodox position at the Council which subsequently defined the dogma of the divinity of Christ.

Meletus, who instigated the schism, was returned to his see but was forbidden to ordain any more bishops (his previous ordinations were declared null and void). Other bishops were faced with a choice: either submit to the authority of the Council and teach the defined truth, or face a similar fate. That, my friend, is how heresy is combatted WITHIN Christ's Church.

Starting one's own church is what King Henry did. And Luther. And Calvin...

God bless.

Hi Fidens! My post and yours “crossed paths” (my 9:13pm post was sent before your 7:56pm post had appeared). How funny that I would point you toward the Discourses when you had already quoted from them! I shall deal with each in turn.

Discourse 1:37. Athanasius’ contention is not that the Arians went to the oracles and drew out a private misinterpretation; it is that they had a wrong idea about Christ to begin with, and then came to force this wrong idea upon the scriptures. From Discourse 1:10:

Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shown, and it shall be shown now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles. Therefore, since all that remains is to say that from the devil came their mania (for of such opinions he alone is sower), proceed we to resist him; for with him is our real conflict, and they are but instruments; --that, the Lord aiding us, and the enemy, as he is wont, being overcome with arguments, they may be put to shame, when they see him without resource who sowed this heresy in them, and may learn, though late, that, as being Arians, they are not Christians.

Discourse 1:44. I guess by quoting this you are saying that Athanasius is appealing to a church-sanctioned interpretation of that passage, and therefore, other senses are to be rejected. But if so why would Athanasius then continue the rest of paragraph 44 by showing “another way in which one might remark upon [Philippians 2:9-10]”? He would not, if it was a “private interpretation” to be condemned. Instead I think he is simply saying, “this is how we normally understand this passage, but this is not the only legitimate way to look at it”.

Discourse 3:58. I love the word picture of the “ecclesiastical scope” as an “anchor for the faith”. But what is Athanasius really talking about when he speaks of the ecclesiastical scope? The infallible pronouncements of a Roman-centered magisterium? Or simply the common beliefs of the church held in practice just as they are taught in scripture? From paragraphs 28 and 29:

[…] of what they now allege from the Gospels they certainly give an unsound interpretation, we may easily see, if we now consider the scope of that faith which we Christians hold, and using it as a rule, apply ourselves, as the Apostle teaches, to the reading of inspired Scripture. […] Now the scope and character of Holy Scripture, as we have often said, is this: it contains a double account of the Saviour; that He was ever God, and is the Son, being the Father's Word and Radiance and Wisdom; and that afterwards for us He took flesh of a Virgin, Mary Bearer of God, and was made man. And this scope is to be found throughout inspired Scripture, as the Lord Himself has said, `Search the Scriptures, for they are they which testify of Me.'

See how in paragraph 28 Athanasius says the scope is that faith which Christians hold, and how immediately in paragraph 29 he claims the scope itself is to be found "throughout" scripture. It’s almost as if he was saying Scripture interprets itself!

I will close by summarizing that Athanasius did not argue, “my interpretation is better because the church holds it and yours is private” but rather “my interpretation is better because it is consistent with the whole of scripture”.

In Him, Kaff

Kaff,
It is granted that faith is greater than position. We have all seen those who have had places of spiritual leadership, but not fulfilled the law of Christ. This goes without saying. However, to try and use Athanasius as a stumbling block to Catholic teaching and belief I would have to say is ill advised. Athanasius may have suggested having the right faith over position, but at the same time he affirms time and time again that the right faith, the faith of the Apostles is entrusted to the Catholic Church. Besides, read in context your quote is merely demonstrating that the Arian's had taken over churches under the heretical Arian Bishop Gregory and Athanasius is writing to encourage those who have been ousted.

"These For they [heretics] hold the places, but you the Apostolic Faith. They are, it is true, in the places, but outside of the true Faith; while you are outside the places indeed, but the Faith, within you. Let us consider whether is the greater, the place or the Faith. Clearly the true Faith. Who then has lost more, or who possesses more? He who holds the place, or he who holds the Faith?

So yes, true Apostolic faith is important and Athanasius emphasizes the fact that the Arians hold the places (i.e, churches) but not the true faith due to their heretical view of the relationship between the Father and Son. This quote makes no case for the protestant view that the Church is merely a disconnected band of believers nor does it minimize the fact that Athanasius holds that the Catholic Church is the steward and protector of the true Apostolic faith.

Furthermore, to counter your argument that Athanasius did not appeal to Tradition as authoritative is way off base as well. Anthanasius did not adhere to sola scriptura (that was reserved for the 16th century). Here are some examples. The first one is from the link that you provided and picks up where you ended your previous quote.

“…But ye are blessed, who by faith are in the Church, dwell upon the foundations of the faith, and have full satisfaction, even the highest degree of faith which remains among you unshaken. For it has come down to you from Apostolic TRADITION, and frequently has accursed envy wished to unsettle it, but has not been able.”
---Later on in the quote he appeals to Scripture as well….hmmm sounds like Catholic teaching to me (Scripture + Tradition = Deposit of Faith)

“...because it [the council] committed to writing not your doctrines, but those which from the beginning were HANDED DOWN by those who were eye-witnesses and ministers of the Word.” (Letter Concerning the Decrees of the Council of Nicea, 350/351 A.D.)
---This is Tradition! (Capital "T")

"But what is also to the point, let us note that the very TRADITION, teaching, and FAITH of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this THE CHURCH WAS FOUNDED... And because this is the FAITH of the Church, let them somehow understand the Lord sent out the Apostles and commanded them to make this the foundation of the Church, when He said: "Go out and instruct every people, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." (Four Letters to Serapion of Thmuis, 359/360 A.D.)

So Kaff, I prayerfully ask that you to consider how you’re trying to make Athanasius fit a mold that he was never cast in. Athanasius IS a stalwart for the “true faith,” which demonstrated time and time again is deposited in the bosom of the Catholic Church. I don't say this to boast, but merely echo the voice of Athanasius himself. I invite you to open your heart and mind to this truth.
In Truth,
Matthew

Hi Fidens (again),

You originally wrote, "who amongst us would settle for 80 per cent of the truth about God, or even 99 per cent, if we thought that a particular church held and taught 100 per cent of the truth?" This didn't sound to me like a hypothetical at all, so I beg your pardon for misreading you.

If I take your proposition as a hypothetical, I notice one important dimension missing. Let's say I evaluate two groups, A and B. Group A teaches 50 specific "facts" about God where group B teaches those same 50, plus another 50. Does this mean that group B is necessarily better? Only if I can be sure that the extra 50 facts are true. But if I had the capacity to evaluate the truth of those extra 50 facts on my own, why would I need group B to teach them to me? This is why we cannot simply look at the length of a church's catechism and simply pick the longest one.

I'm much more concerned when a church's teachings venture out beyond the boundaries God sets for the church, which I believe are to be found in the written form of Apostolic teaching: Holy Scripture.

In Him, Kaff

Matthew

a blessed and wonderful post.

In the Spirit of our Lord Jesus Christ

when we were one

Kaff,

I'm not sure I entirely get your point on your last comment. What if you had the capacity to evaluate the truth of the 50 initial teachings of church "A" on your own? Are you implying then that you would not need smaller-cathechism church A neither? Are you saying that our belonging to a church should be determined only by its capacity to teach us?

Rafa

Just to add my 2 cents.

What makes you the RCC the RCC?
Is it the belief of Mary being a virgin?
Is it the belief in communion of saints?
Is it the belief in communion of the bread and wine being literal?
Is it the belief in the pope?

Time and time again on this site, I hear that all the early church fathers were in agreement with these items that are distinctly RC. I and others have shown this to not be true. To say that the ways of the RCC is the right way due to the maintained beliefs and tradition of the early patriarchs..is false. Simply because a lot of the early patriarchs taugh opposite to some of these beliefs that are distinctly RC.
The only thing that remains consistent is the Bible.
So on what basis do you believe that the RCC is correct?

Hi Rafa,

Sorry if I left some confusion there. I'm responding to the hypothetical proposed by Fidens that suggests we should prefer a church that claims to teach 100 percent of the truth verses one that claims to teach 80 percent of the truth. I would in fact prefer the church that claimed only 80 percent of the truth if it could show that the 80 percent it teaches lie within scripture, when the other church's extra 20 percent comes basically out of thin air.

Naturally this hypothetical assumes all other points being equal. I believe there are other, perhaps more important qualifications than the length of a church's statement of beliefs. For example, a church that assents to the truth of scripture but does not exhibit any real spiritual fruit is a church I would have no interest in, regardless of what they teach. (And no I am not saying this about any church in particular.)

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for bringing in the rest of the quote. My argument is not that Athanasius denied "apostolic tradition" but that functionally he seemed to show that it was fully contained in the scriptures. You say that he defined the deposit of faith as Scripture + Tradition, but let's read Athanasius himself on the question:

For the true and pious faith in the Lord has become manifest to all, being both 'known and read' from the Divine Scriptures (Letter to Jovian, paragraph 1)

Clearly the Athanasian formula should not read "Scripture + Tradition = Deposit of Faith", as if Tradition contained other teachings that scripture lacked. Athanasius never asserted this. Rather, the formula should read "Scripture = Apostolic Tradition = Deposit of Faith".

Best to you all,
Kaff

When We Were One,
Thank you for your compliment on my post. May the peace of our Lord be with you always.
Matthew

Kaff thanks for clarifying...but again I seem to misunderstand your thoughts... "if I had the capacity to evaluate the truth on my own why would I need group B to teach them to me?"

Where in scripture are we instructed to interpret outside of the "church" as the "pillar and foundation of truth" 1 Tim 3:15?

Doesn't Peter say "First of all you must understand this, that no prophecy of scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation,... But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you..." 2 Pet 1:20 - 2:1.

I must have missed the passage that we should use our own guidance by the holy Spirit to interpret all scripture and therefore come to 30000 different denominations with 5 new denominations per week (Newsweek April 2001)...proving Christ wrong in his last wish before execution Jn 17:20. Did Christ have it wrong?

Does Acts 15 have it wrong when there is a question of interpretation they call the Council of Jerusalem? Shouldn't they have just interpreted on their own?

ERNIE

I know I'm a little slow but I don't understand your point "Common sense, logic and history the Church began in Jerusalem not Rome?" So what? the first "church" is the church in Antioch not Rome or Jerusalem. What does that prove... nothing.

What we need to look at is... what did these people believe? and are we still in that house?...I agree with you on that point...

But it wasn't just divinity at question in the 1st century as whether or not you were a Christian as you may have come to believe through fables we all hear. Baptist Rod Bennett who heard these fables(again I plug) points out that just as important to the early Christians (from Roman torture records and the writings of the Bishop of that 1st church in Antioch -ordained by Peter and trained at the foot of John the Beloved) Ignatius...was the Real Prescence of Christ in the Eucharist! They martyred them for this as Cannibals! Because that is what John taught Polycarp (the angel of Smyrna in Revalation) and Ignatius re: John 6! See his research...if you don't believe a Baptist then look at the writings of John Newman the Dean of the Oxford Seminary and arguably the greatest religious mind of the 19th Cen protestant or Catholic. He uses the entire resource of Oxford to overthrow Catholicism only to find the Real Presence of the Eucharist in the "real" communities. The Gnostics would not accept material as "good" as is ordained in Genesis. They rejected Christ as not human and matter as evil therefore if God cannot be man then God cannot consecrate bread and wine "in the order of Malchizediek (sp?)."

Do you believe in the Real Presence?

About today's (Newman) Protestant Oxford Scholar JND Kelley, Karl Keating notes:

THE Greek roots of the term "Catholic" mean "according to (kata-) the whole (holos)" or more colloquially "universal." At the turn of the second century, we find in the letters of Ignatius its first surviving use in reference to the Church. At that time or shortly thereafter the word was used to refer to a single, visible communion, separate from others. Because it is in the Apostles', Nicene, and Athanasian creeds, many Protestants try to claim it for themselves, insisting that the "catholic church" is the invisible, universal brotherhood of all believers--a completely unhistorical view that ignores the actual use of the term at the time the creeds were written.

Protestant early-Church historian J. N. D. Kelley writes, "As regards 'Catholic' . . . in the latter half of the second century at latest, we find it conveying the suggestion that the Catholic is the true Church as distinct from heretical congregations (cf., e.g. Muratorian Canon). . . . What these early Fathers were envisaging was almost always the empirical, visible society; they had little or no inkling of the distinction which was later to become important between a visible and an invisible Church" (Early Christian Doctrines, 190-191). Thus people who say the creeds with another meaning for "Catholic" are reinterpreting them according to a modern fancy, much as liberal scholars do with offensive Bible texts.

As an aside, J. N. D. Kelly also writes, "It should be observed that the Old Testament thus admitted as authoritative in the Church was somewhat bulkier and more comprehensive [than the Protestant Bible]. . . . It always included, though with varying degrees of recognition, the so-called apocrypha or deuterocanonical books" (Early Christian Doctrines, 53), which are rejected by Protestants.

With Love

when we were one

Ernie,
Two things, first to respond to your comment:

"...I know firsthand, from personal experience, that I had little, if any, conscious relationship with God while I was a member of the RCC and have learned more about God, scripture, have prayed more than I ever did before, and have a deeper understanding and relationship with God since "leaving" the RCC."

My friend, your relationship with God is not the sole responsibility of the Catholic Church. That is like saying, "I have a beautiful swimming pool at my home, but I really didn't enjoy swimmming until I swam in my neighbor's pool." That just won't float (forgive my humor). It sounds like a convenient way of putting the responsibility of your faith on the Church. The Catholic Church is a direct conduit to God and I am sad for you that you have left its beauty and majesty. It's like any other relationship, it takes work, and the Church is not responsible for how often you pray, read Scripture, receive the sacraments, listen to the urgings of the Holy Spirit, etc. So please consider what you are saying. It makes little sense.

Second, I would address you assertion that the early Church was not Catholic. All I can do is quote Bishop Fulton Sheen, who said that "to be deep in history is to cease to remain a protestant." Check out the book "Faith of the Early Fathers, Volume 1 by William A. Jurgens. It is well written and concise when it comes to the writings of the fathers and you will most certainly see that the beginning of the Christian faith is the same as the Catholic Church of today.

St. Ignatius (Letter to the Smyrnaeans, 110 A.D.), a disciple of St. John:
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop, or by one whom he appoints. Wherever the bishop appears let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church."
--This is the FIRST reference to the Church as being Catholic
AND
as far as the Catholic Church starting in Jerusalem not Rome St. Ireneus (Against Heresies 180-199 A.D.)says:
"...by pointing out here the sucessions of bishops of the greatest and most ancient Church known to all, founded and organized at ROME by the two most glorious Apostles PETER and Paul, that Church which has the tradition and the faith which comes down to us after having been announced to men by the Apostles...and it is in her that the faithful everywhere have maintained Apostolic tradition."

So Ernie I pray that you would be open to the fullness of truth that beckons and welcomes your return to the [Catholic] Church.
In Truth,
Matthew

SandT,

"The only thing that remains consistent is the Bible."

If by "consistent" you mean "unchanging", could you please explain why you consider this to be necessary?

"So on what basis do you believe that the RCC is correct?"

On what basis do YOU believe that the Bible is correct? I believe, like St. Augustine, because the Church established by Christ teaches it and established the canon. No book can attest to its own veracity.

Once again the circle is closed! These debates always return to the question of authority, and for good reason :)

Peace

Fidens,

"I believe, like St. Augustine, because the Church established by Christ teaches it and established the canon. No book can attest to its own veracity."

Augustine and many other church fathers taught that the Holy Scriptures had the ultimate authority.
So once again, on what basis do you believe that the RCC is the right way?

SandT,
I'm not really sure how you can assert that the only thing that remains "consistent" is the Bible since the Bible that you own, and I assume it is a NIV or similar, is missing some books from the originally ratified Canon. Now if you had said that the only thing that is consistent is the Catholic Bible then your assertion would be correct. Let's not digress to another topic, but I just wanted to follow up on the thoughts of fidens.

Furthermore, if the Bible, and let's assume for a moment that the protestant Bible you own is correct (i.e., missing the seven other books) then why does the NIV which is most popular these days change its language to fit its "doctrines?" The King James Version in its New Testament uses primarily the same words as the Cathoiic Bible, but the NIV and others change words that they don't feel comfortable with. For instance the change from "works" to "deeds" in James and the change of "tradition" to "teachings" in Thessalonians and elsewhere. How is this consistent? This goes to show that once again there is little "consistency" to be found in the protestant camp even in their Bibles. If there is no consistency even in your Bibles, which is your sole rule of faith in all matters, how can you possibly throw stones at the Catholic Church? It seems a little hypocritical to question our beliefs, and the beliefs of the the Church Fathers from this perspective. Essentially, there is no consistency or unity to be found other than holding to sola scriptura and sola fide along with believeing that the Catholic Church is wrong or even worse an apostasy. SandT neither "works" nor "tradition" are "dirty words" such as in protestant theology and it borders on arrogance to change them. If you really believe that the Scriptures are the word of God then how can protestants own Bibles that change the inspired writings to fit their own comfort level. SandT I agree with you that the Bible IS consistent although the Bible that you may own is not.
In Truth,
Matthew

Before anyone flames me and Ireneus (Matthew's quote) let me clarify..."the first place we were called Christians was Antioch (Acts 11)...but so what...it is the belief system of that church that determines it's membership" Ireneus is correct in pointing out that after leaving Antioch, Peter dies in Rome converting it and fulfilling
Dan 2:31-45 2 31 "You were looking, O king, and lo! there was a great statue. This statue was huge, its brilliance extraordinary; it was standing before you, and its appearance was frightening. 32 The head of that statue was of fine gold, its chest and arms of silver, its middle and thighs of bronze, 33 its legs of iron, its feet partly of iron and partly of clay. 34 As you looked on, a stone was cut out, not by human hands, and it struck the statue on its feet of iron and clay and broke them in pieces. 35 Then the iron, the clay, the bronze, the silver, and the gold, were all broken in pieces and became like the chaff of the summer threshing floors; and the wind carried them away, so that not a trace of them could be found. But the stone that struck the statue became a great mountain and filled the whole earth.
36 "This was the dream; now we will tell the king its interpretation. 37 You, O king, the king of kings--to whom the God of heaven has given the kingdom, the power, the might, and the glory, 38 into whose hand he has given human beings, wherever they live, the wild animals of the field, and the birds of the air, and whom he has established as ruler over them all--you are the head of gold. 39 After you shall arise another kingdom inferior to yours, and yet a third kingdom of bronze, which shall rule over the whole earth. 40 And there shall be a fourth kingdom, strong as iron; just as iron crushes and smashes everything,1 it shall crush and shatter all these. 41 As you saw the feet and toes partly of potter's clay and partly of iron, it shall be a divided kingdom; but some of the strength of iron shall be in it, as you saw the iron mixed with the clay. 42 As the toes of the feet were part iron and part clay, so the kingdom shall be partly strong and partly brittle. 43 As you saw the iron mixed with clay, so will they mix with one another in marriage,2 but they will not hold together, just as iron does not mix with clay. 44 And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that shall never be destroyed, nor shall this kingdom be left to another people. It shall crush all these kingdoms and bring them to an end, and it shall stand forever; 45 just as you saw that a stone was cut from the mountain not by hands, and that it crushed the iron, the bronze, the clay, the silver, and the gold. The great God has informed the king what shall be hereafter. The dream is certain, and its interpretation trustworthy."
In Love

when we were one

Kaff,
In actuality I merely said that Anthanasius appealed to Tradtion. In addition I said:
"Later on in the quote he appeals to Scripture as well….hmmm sounds like Catholic teaching to me (Scripture + Tradition = Deposit of Faith)"

I pointed out that Anthanasius held that Tradition and Scripture were on equal footing. He cannot appeal to Tradtion and not believe that it was authoritative on its own accord. Why would he? This is how Catholic teaching is done, appealing to Tradition AND Scripture as Anthansius does repeatedly. From a Catholic perspective, and I'm borrowing this thought from someone else: Scripture are the bricks, Tradition is the mortar to hold it together, and the Magisterum is the mason to help put it all together in proper order. This is much more aligned with Anthansius than your implication that Anthansius is a "Bible-alone" Church Father. Unfortunatley Kaff, this theory just won't hold up under close scrutiny.
In Truth,
Matthew

Fidens,

I get tired of hearing that Catholics have the logical high ground here because somehow the Protestant belief that the Bible is self authenticating is circular logic. Yet Catholics go on to claim that the RCC is the “Church” established by Christ. Why? Because that is the Catholic interpretation of certain passages of Scripture. So in other words the Catholic Church is the true Church because the Catholic Church says that the Bible says that it is. If that is not circular logic I don’t know what is . . .

The problem is that any and all appeal to a higher authority ends up being circular, because you end up making the appeal to the highest authority and since you can’t go higher than the highest authority, that authority must make the final statement as to its own authority.

Thus for Catholic and Protestants the circle is closed.

In Christ,

Thomas

Hi WWWO,

I was responding with a hypothetical to fiden's hypothetical to make a very specific point. Don't read so much into it.

And thanks for the opportunity, but I'm sorry to say I don't have sufficient time to engage each of your half dozen generic arguments in condemnation of non-Roman Catholic Christianity. Someday when I have my own blog I will deal with each of them, since they seem to be reheated and served up so often by RCC apologists.

Until that day, be well,
Kaff

Hi Matthew,

You can't just assert that Athanasius appealed to tradition for teaching of doctrine at the same level as scripture itself. You must show that he actually did. Especially when I have quoted him saying that the "true and pious faith" is "manifest to all" because it is "'known and read' from the Divine Scriptures". It is one thing to praise a thread of tradition because it conforms to scripture. It is another to claim that that a thread of tradition retains the authority to establish doctrine that is not stated in scripture. I don't see Athanasius ever having asserted this.

How did poor Athanasius know, in a day when many officials throughout the church were embracing Arianism? What was his litmus in order to determine whether a particular teaching was Christian or not? How could he run to "tradition" in a day when there appeared to be little or no reliable "place" in which to find it? He went to the same place we must go today. The Holy Scriptures.

(Incidentally, I would like to interact further with the "Serapion of Thmuis" quote but I can't find full text for it on the web, can you assist?)

Unfortunately, I cannot accept your analogy of bricks and mortar. If tradition is mortar then the RCC Magisterium is a very unique sort of bricklayer, creating dogma out of mortar without any bricks at all.

If you want an analogy, I prefer this one. God's Word is a light to the world. The church holds up this light, just as a lampstand holds up a lamp. (Matthew 5:16) The lampstand is not the lamp. It need not be perfect. But it must hold up the light.

In Him, Kaff

WWWO:
My point regarding the use of the term "catholic church" was not to say that the "catholic church" is not the "true" church established by Christ but that the "Catholic church" is not equivalent to the ROMAN Catholic church. You state that during the second century the use of the term "catholic church" refered to "a single, visible communion separate from others". Is this not what all christians are compared to the rest of the world? No group other than christians believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. That separates christians from other groups of people. I agree with your definition but that definition also includes anyone who believes in the divinity of christ regardless of their affiliation to a religion or denomination. The reason that the original use of the term did not make distinctions to "others" was because at that time there was no separations within the church.

Matthew:
To continue with this issue where you came in, I find the quote you used by Ignatius interesting. He said: "...just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic church". I find it interesting because Jesus said, "For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them." (Matthew 18:20). If this is true, which I believe it is, then if any 2 or 3 people outside of the Roman catholic religion gather together in the name of Jesus to worship Him, there will Jesus be. Therefore, according to Ignatius, there is the Catholic church and those believers are just as much a part of the catholic church as believers in St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. You also assume Ignatius was refering to the ROMAN catholic church when he said the Catholic church.
You also stated that "the beginning of the Christian faith is the same as the Catholic church of today". I would agree with you. Again, I have no disagreements that the early church founded by Christ was Catholic. But it is not the same as the ROMAN catholic church of today. I never said the early church was not Catholic, just not ROMAN catholic. No one is arguing or denying the historical lineage of the church in Rome. Of course you can trace all the bishops of Rome to Peter. However, that history is just as much a part of non-Roman catholics as it is to Roman catholics. You can trace all other "christian churches" around the world back to Christ in like manner.

On a more personal note, Matthew, regarding my "leaving" the Roman catholic church of course it makes little sense to you. I didn't expect it to "make any sense" to you. I never said or implied that my relationship with God was the "sole responsibility of the church" or put the responsibility of my faith on the church. I merely stated a personal fact. But I was not receiving any edification while in the Roman catholic church. Perhaps, the RCC did a poor job of communicating the truth to me. Is it not the responsibility of the church leaders to teach the members of the congregation on the truths of the church? I went to church almost every Sunday and never once did anyone within the church leadership encourage me to read scripture, learn church history, or pray (outside of Mass). Again, I am not blaming the Church or putting the responsibility of my faith on the church but this is what occured in my life. To use your pool analogy, if I don't know how to swim it would be foolish and dangerous for me to jump in the pool unless someone teaches me how to swim. I happened to go to my neighbor's house and he taught me how to swim. What's sad is that the people in my own house never bothered to show me how to swim and I had to go to my neighbor's house to learn.
I thank you for your prayers for my return to the Roman catholic church. If it is His will then it shall be so.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Thomas,

I disagree that it is circular reasoning, but you will probably disagree with me as well :)

From "Is Christianity True" by Arnold Lunn and C.E.M. Joad:

"[Catholics] approach the Bible... in the same spirit as that in which we should approach any other human document. We do not believe the Bible merely because it is the Bible, but because we are convinced of its veracity by rational inferences similar in kind to those which convince us of other historical facts...

"[W]e accept the Resurrection because, of all the theories which have been put forward to explain the origin of Christianity, the only theory which fits all the facts is the theory that Jesus of Nazareth claimed to be God and then proved His claim by rising from the dead...

"The Roman Catholic, then, claims to prove from the Bible, which he is still treating as a purely human document, that Christ intended to found an infallible Church...

"The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church in question."

So...

Step 1: Catholics argue the reliability of the Bible as a historical document.

Step 2: From the 'historical' Bible we determine that Christ is God and that He founded an infallible Church, which is the Catholic Church.

Step 3: We take the Church's word that the Bible is inspired (including the determination of the canon).

Without the existence of the Church, we could not tell that the Bible is inspired. Sorry you're tired of hearing it Thomas, but there it is again!

Peace

SandT,

Most protestants happily interpet the following passages figuratively and in a manner radically inconsistent with the understanding of the Church in its first 1500 years:

a) "This is my body"; and

b) "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life".

Given this, it seems no stretch for you to read your own interpretation to the writings of the Church fathers as well.

How do you explain Athanasius' appeal to papal authority or his devotion to the Blessed Mother?

Peace

Kaff,

You wrote:

"I'm much more concerned when a church's teachings venture out beyond the boundaries God sets for the church, which *I BELIEVE* are to be found in the written form of Apostolic teaching: Holy Scripture." (My emphasis!)

Why do you believe this? You believe in the trinity right? Even though both arianism and modalism were supported from scripture?

Kinda on topic, I found this guy's journey interesting:

http://www.theymademeacatholic.com/

Peace

Hi Fidens,

Why I hold a belief in the Trinity is a bit off-topic but why not. :-)

When I first became a Christian a few years ago, I wasn't sure what to make of the doctrine of the Trinity. I knew my local congregation believed it, but my personal understanding of it was fuzzy, and I knew that the word "Trinity" does not appear explicitly in the Bible. So how did I come to believe in it?

I knew that it seemed to be an important topic, dividing the beliefs of most Christians from, say, the beliefs of the LDS (the church of my youth). So I began study. I learned that the doctrine of the trinity is made up of three interlocking beliefs:

1. There is one God.

2. God is three persons (Father, Son, and Spirit)

3. Each person is fully God.

Well and good, but are these propositions really scriptural? And how does it reconcile with the idea that Jesus is God’s “son”? What does that really mean? Interestingly, it was my encounter with the writings of Athanasius that started to move me. Not because he spoke from a position of doctrinal authority (so far as I know he never actually claimed any such position) but by his clear scriptural proofs. I didn’t agree with every interpretive turn that Athanasius took, but thanks to his skill and clarity I started to understand from the whole of scripture what was really meant by the term “eternal Son”. Eventually I felt my skepticism turn into belief and, ultimately, my belief into conviction. I hope, in between praise choruses, to thank Athanasius personally :-)

Allow me to offer a correction. Arianism and modalism can be supported from some scripture but I do not believe either position can supported by all scripture.

So, why do you, Fidens, believe in the Trinity? Perhaps you would agree with the author of that website you referenced:

Only after we accepted the doctrine as authoritative and final, as "what all Christians believe," did we look into the Scriptures and remark, "Yeah, I can see how that passage supports the Trinity."

I think Athanasius would join with me in responding: baloney. After quoting a laundry list of scriptures that refute the Arian position that Jesus was merely a creature, Athanasius wrote, “It is plain then from the above that the Scriptures declare the Son's eternity” (Four Discourses 1:13). He accuses those who hold to Arianism not of misinterpreting scripture but of “abandoning the oracles of divine Scripture” (1:4) and “Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shown, and it shah be shown now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles” (1:10).

If you don’t believe in the Trinity, then you don’t believe in the authority of the Word of God. It’s as simple as that.

Kaff and Matt and Fidens and Ernie :)

I think we are arguing over the idea (Athanasius and Tradition) that water is wet here and some say really wet and others not so wet.

In the debate vs the Arians he went sola scripturaist (new word :) because the Arians were primitive sola scripturists! He went head to head in those letters to prove on their turf...its like a JW coming to your door and being able to take their distorted scripture and question them from it (btw getting more difficult b/c they keep rewording the thing). On this site I try to go truncated scripture instead of the full scripture + Trad with protesting christians. Because protesting christians won't go Trad or full bible with us just as the Arians wouldn't go Trad with Athanasius.

From the multitude of post Nicea quotes above, we see that indeed Athanasius had Trad in his letters after Nicea 1. And boldly Trad at that...to deny this is to say I read only the letters that prove my point to the ignorance of others. It has been done in the past...ie removal of Septugiant.

So we are all right...St Athanasius was sola when he needed to but lived and wrote with Trad in mind...

Ernie: I agree with what you said that there were no divisions in the "Catholic Church" before the Great Schism then the Reformation. But the "Catholic Church" before both schisms believed uniformly in the Real Prescence of the Eucharist and regenerative infant baptism this is proven: Positively (Christian catechisms/letters) and negatively (Gnostic catechisms/letters). I still don't know your belief on both?

Its funny I sat next to a very popular Lutheran pastor at a recent wedding (Lutheran) and our wives went nuts because all we did was talk as we do here LOL. He tells me that Lutherans do not consider themselves Protestants. They believe in both the above...what do you believe Ernie? Gnostic(no divine Christ, no Real Presence, no Infant Baptism) Semi Gnostic, or Christian (Divine Christ, Real Presence, regenerative infant baptism)?

In Love

when we were one

Fidens,

I agree with your post until I came to these statements:

“The Roman Catholic, then, claims to prove from the Bible, which he is still treating as a purely human document, that Christ intended to found an infallible Church...”

and

“The Catholic claims to prove by pure reason that Christ was God, that Christ founded an infallible Church, and that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church in question."

First of all these are entirely two different propositions:

The first is stating that one can prove from the Bible that Christ intended to found an infallible Church.

The only way the Catholic can come to this “proof” is by way of the interpretation of the historic document called the Bible. When the Catholic interprets Scripture here, whose interpretation does he use? I can say that it is definitely not mine or any number of other Christian scholars, who emphatically believe that Christ did indeed found a fallible church. Instead the Catholic uses the RCC’s interpretation. How does the Catholic know or how can he “prove” that this is the correct interpretation? The only way that you can infallibly know that it is the correct interpretation, is by claiming that the Church has the authority to infallibly interpret Scripture. Unfortunately because you have not yet established that the RCC is infallible, you have engaged in circular reasoning. It may be a more convoluted circle than the Protestant’s assertion that the Bible is self authenticating, but no less circular.

The second is stating that the Catholic can prove from “pure reason” that Christ did indeed found an infallible Church.

By what “pure reason” can the Catholic claim that Christ founded an infallible Church? In other words the Catholic must convince the non-Catholic that it is completely unreasonable to believe that Christ could have founded a fallible Church, based upon reason and logic alone. I have as of yet not heard this iron clad “reasoning”.

In Christ,

Thomas

Ernie,
Yes, Jesus said this, but hold on for just a moment. By invoking the name of our Lord among a group, regardless of what that group consists of, does that mean that the Lord is in the midst of let's say...a KKK rally?! Probably not. Christ and the Father are one...perfectly one in all aspects. The Father doesn't say "baptize infants" and then the Son says "no, only if they say the "sinners prayer." This is not posssible. So yes, Christ does come among those outside of the Catholic Church who believe and obey Christ as best they can. This is not the issue. All Christians, Catholic or non-Catholic, have a Catholic heritage whether they acknowledge or believe it. Again, we must put things into context when discussing the Church Fathers. Ignatius' statements were made around the same time as the death of St. John. From Igniatius' statement read in context it makes sense that yes he WAS speaking of ALL Christians, but at the same time there was only ONE Church--which was/is Catholic. Again, the Trinity is one, the cross is one, the faith is one, and the church is one. Jesus cannot be divided, nor can what His Church teaches. He is not the author of confusion...Satan is!

Next let me ask you to forgive me if it came across negatively regarding your leaving the Church. All I meant was that it didn't make sense to me how you seemed to be putting the onus on the Church instead of taking responsibility for growing in your faith. That is all. I would prayerfully ask you to consider what you are saying though. You found no edification in your parish, but did not seek out guidance from your priest? You own a Bible I assume, so how come you didn't pick it up? You attended Mass with others, but did not form a fellowship to study the Scriptures and the Catechism? Again, Ernie consider what you are saying here. Yes, the Church bears some responsibility, but we are all responsible for deepening our faith...not changing it. This was Martin Luther's error. He may have sought reform in the Church, but what he did was effect a change because of his issues with the Chuch. If reform was his true goal then the substance would have remained the same. Instead by making a "change" he began a transformation into something new...and since that time we've seen sect after sect popping up claiming to have the "truth." I say again, truth is one...and the one truth is Christ evidenced to us through his Apostles and carried on by the Church to the present day.

Back to the analogy of the pool/swimming: You may have been taught how to swim in your neighbors' pool, but can they teach you infallibly how to swim? Can they teach the absolutely correct technique of getting from one side to the other in the quickest manner? Especially since your neighbor just might be George Forman who may be a good swimmer, but I think I would prefer the Olympic gold medalist Michael Phelphs to teach me. I can be certain that his teachings are modeled after the best of the best and can trust him fully:) May God bless you Ernie.
In Truth,
Matthew

Fidens,

"Most protestants happily interpet the following passages figuratively and in a manner radically inconsistent with the understanding of the Church in its first 1500 years:

a) "This is my body"; and

b) "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life".

Augustine is one many church fathers who clearly taught that the passages you point out were figurative.
What does that say about your proclamation of consistency of the literal teaching?

God Bless

Thanks Kaff,

Obviously, the arians were not aware that the plain meaning of scripture was as accessible as you seem to be suggesting, particularly considering they outnumbered Christians for quite some time.

In my post above I note that Athanasius did argue from scripture, but from an "orthodox" and "ecclesiastical" sense, which he contrasted with a "private sense" of scriptural interpretation. That he also considered this interpretation "plain" does nothing to undermine my point.

It is fine for you and I to discuss what Athanasius meant when he wrote X or Y 1700 years after the fact, but I think that Athanasius' own understanding of the Church and his place in it is key to this debate. I believe his Catholicity is further demonstrated by, amongst other things:
a) his appeal to (and the support of) the Bishop of Rome, Pope Julius I, following his usurpation as patriarch of Alexandria;
b) his understanding of the Eucharist (Sermon to the Newly Baptized); and
c) his belief in the perpetual virginity of Mary (Discourses Against the Arians II, 70).

I am unsure where you stand on these matters, and whether you think they are plainly scriptural, but there is no doubt where the Catholic Church stands. Be sure to thank Athanasius for passing these on too :)

Finally, I submit that if the "plain" meaning of scripture was as accessible as you seem to be suggesting, there would be less disagreement between, and within, protestant denominations who hold to 'sola scriptura'. No book is infallible without an infallible interpretor.

God bless.

Hi Fidens,

You seem to express incredulousness at the notion that Arians were not aware of the plain meaning of scripture. But this is precisely what Athanasius argued. Take it up with him! :-)

Yes, Athanasius argued from an "orthodox" sense, from the sense of a person holding up the light of Christ to the world just as the church ought to. But that does not change the thrust of his argument, which is that scriptures speak plainly on the fact of Jesus' eternal nature. He did not say in the Four Discourses, "O ye who are tempted by the Arians, you must resubmit yourselves to Roman teaching authority who will set you straight". Rather, he wrote, "For this we must seek before all things, whether He is Son, and on this point specially search the Scriptures" (3:73).

I would like to read “Sermon to the Newly Baptized”. Can you supply a link?

You wrote: “I submit that if the "plain" meaning of scripture was as accessible as you seem to be suggesting, there would be less disagreement between, and within, protestant denominations who hold to 'sola scriptura'.” I never argued that the Bible speaks with equal clarity on every point of doctrine we might wish to pursue. You and I were talking about the Trinity, and every major Christian denomination in America holds to the doctrine of the Triune god, while those that do not (such as LDS and JW) are generally shunned. So I find your criticism unfair.

And finally you said, “No book is infallible without an infallible interpreter.” There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don’t know where to begin. But today let us take this angle. One day, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write an epistle to the church at Ephesus. When exactly did it become infallible? Let’s apply your rule and find out.

A) When the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write the words of the epistle? But where was the infallible interpreter? Nobody has interpreted it yet, so by your rule, it’s not infallible yet.

B) How about when it was delivered, read, and acted upon by the church at Ephesus? Well, they would have had a few elders; but as a local group would they have been considered infallible? Probably not.

C) How about when it was received by other congregations as the letter was disseminated? Well the epistle could still have been a fake, how could they have known? Guess not yet.

D) Or when was received by enough of the church, several generations later to have warranted the appellation of “Scripture”? No; fine that it was making its way around, but no one had infallibly stated it was scripture yet!

E) I know, when it was formally recognized as scripture at the Synod of Hippo in the late fourth century? Whew! Finally we know it’s scripture. But now who will read it for us?

F) Was the Epistle to the Ephesians finally infallible when a Roman Pope first asserted his own infallibility in the eleventh century? Now there’s someone to help. But how can we be sure Pope Gregory was correct in asserting this? Perhaps we would need a council to be sure.

G) When a Roman church council finally asserted that the Roman Pope really was infallible in the 19 century? Now we infallibly know that the Pope has the infallible power to interpret scripture for us. So finally we can arrive at:

H) Was the Epistle to the Ephesians finally considered infallible when a complete and infallible exposition its meaning was formally approved by the Papacy? Oh wait, this hasn’t happened yet! Goodness, until we have that, we must still consider the Epistle to the Ephesians to be fallible because it has not yet been infallibly interpreted for us!

I) Supposing at some future point supposing we receive in our hands an infallible interpretation of Ephesians? But now who will infallibly interpret the infallible interpretation of infallible scripture for us? Remember, nothing can be infallible without an infallible interpreter, therefore the interpretations themselves demand an infallible interpreter or they cannot be considered infallible, according to your rule. Mercy me!

Or, maybe your rule is wrong, and we should go by what scripture says about itself: that it is profitable for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in righteousness not because of what any man says about it, but because God Himself breathed it (2 Tim 3:16-17). And at the moment He did, it had all the infallible authority it ever needed.

In Him, Kaff

SandT

sorry to dip in on your convo with fidens but...enough of the fables already.

"Augustine was one of the many church fathers that taught a symbolic eucharist."

You need to call Oxford and explain to them your findings from your basement because their scholars are looking at original 2000 year old manuscripts for over 200 years in a desperate search to back your claim and overturn Catholic authority with no success. In fact the Dean of that Seminary John Newman converts to Catholicism after his attempt in the 19th century showed clearly a Real Prescence from the 1st century Roman torture records.

This 21st century the current Oxford early christian scholar J N D Kelley notes of Augustines manuscripts "a balanced verdict must agree that he (Augustine) accepted the current realism. Thus preaching on the sacrament of the Lord's table to newly baptized persons he remarked:

'That bread which you see on the altar, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST'S BODY. That cup, or rather the contents of that cup, sanctified by the Word of God, IS CHRIST'S BLOOD. By these elements the Lord Christ willed to convey HIS BODY AND BLOOD, which He shed for us.'

This site debunks the myth of Augustine as a symbolist: http://hometown.aol.com/philvaz/articles/num30.htm

So who are the other fathers you imply?

I give you Ignatius of Antioch. Antioch is the city that the word "Christian" is first used as noted in Acts 11. After Stephen is stoned, the community of Jerusalem flees here, to northern Syria. Peter ordains a young convert (age of John) by the name of Ignatius and he enters discipleship under John the beloved. After training with John he is made Bishop of that church (a bishop at that time was considered on the level of one of the 12 since he replaced one of the 12 that died). This is what Ignatius teaches to his flock about those Gnostics with heterodox opinions before he is martyred in Rome to 2 female lions within 10 years of his teacher's death:

"They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again." Ignatius of Antioch, Epistle to Smyrnaeans, 7,1 (c. A.D. 110).

John's other disciple, Polycarp teaches the same to his disciples. At his (failed--the immense flames bowed out around him as he glowed gold) burning by the Romans, Scott Hahn notes that Polycarp is chanting loudly the Eucharistic prayer so the Christians in the crowd would document all that they were to see.

This you may find in the evangelical Baptist Rod Bennett's book "The Four Witnesses."

If you remember it is John 6 we are debating...these are quotes from his 2 greatest disciples both bishops both Saints...who are John's disciples you quote?

In Love

when we were one

Fidens,

What about Augustine's teaching of the bread and wine being figurative?

God Bless

Matthew:
To comment on your KKK reference I believe Jesus was refering to true believers. I would not consider any member of the Klan a "true believer". Calling myself a penguin does not make me a penguin. That particular group went directly against the teachings of Christ. So, I don't think your example applies. And, again, I am not arguing that the early church was not catholic, just not ROMAN catholic. (Sounds like an oxymoron anyways: universally Roman?)

Your apology, although sincere and welcomed, is not necessary, my brother. I was not offended by your comments regarding me leaving the "church" but only wanted you to understand where I was coming from. Yes, we are all responsible for "deepening our faith not changing it". However, I did not change my faith because I had no faith to change. I agree that I am the one responsible for my faith but the RCC didn't help. I do not know where in scripture this is but I believe that there is a verse that says something along the lines of: If no one preaches then how will they (people)know (about Christ).
I believe I have similar issues with the RCC as Martin Luther did. Why didn't Martin Luther seek to reform the church instead of making a "transformation into something new"? I don't know. There are/were numerous things within the RCC that do/did not align or seem to align with holy scripture. (I know you may disagree with that but I will list them if you like). I believe it came down to a choice for Martin Luther: Follow God or follow men. Men are fallible, God is not. It seems like a clear choice.

Back into the pool. You asked if I was taught "infallibly how to swim". You assume this is possible. It is if there was an infallible teacher. You would also need an infallible student to be able to grasp the infallible technique and perform it infallibly everytime. This is a nice theory but not possible because no one, with the exception of Jesus Christ, is infallible. Although this is something the RCC teaches, history has shown that the RCC and its leaders have made errors along the way.
Matthew, continue to pray for me in my search for truth.

Kaff,
Your A thru I counterpoints are excellent.

May God bless you always,
Ernie

Hi Kaff, in response:

"You seem to express incredulousness at the notion that Arians were not aware of the plain meaning of scripture. But this is precisely what Athanasius argued."

No, I am referring to the contradiction inherent in your argument: if the meaning of scripture is as plain as you suggest it is, there never would have been an arian heresy and we would not be having this discussion.

"Yes, Athanasius argued from an "orthodox" sense..."

And the "ecclesiastical" sense, why did you leave that out?

"...from the sense of a person holding up the light of Christ to the world just as the church ought to. But that does not change the thrust of his argument, which is that scriptures speak plainly on the fact of Jesus' eternal nature. He did not say in the Four Discourses, "O ye who are tempted by the Arians, you must resubmit yourselves to Roman teaching authority who will set you straight..."

I'm disappointed in this reductio ad absurdum argument - of course he didn't write that. He did however refer to the "ecclesiastical" sense of scripture, a reference which you still have not addressed.

"...Rather, he wrote, "For this we must seek before all things, whether He is Son, and on this point specially search the Scriptures" (3:73)."

Again, I am not contesting this point and it does not negate my argument.

"I would like to read “Sermon to the Newly Baptized”. Can you supply a link?"

I will look.

"You wrote: “I submit that if the "plain" meaning of scripture was as accessible as you seem to be suggesting, there would be less disagreement between, and within, protestant denominations who hold to 'sola scriptura'.” I never argued that the Bible speaks with equal clarity on every point of doctrine we might wish to pursue. You and I were talking about the Trinity, and every major Christian denomination in America holds to the doctrine of the Triune god, while those that do not (such as LDS and JW) are generally shunned. So I find your criticism unfair."

I'm sorry you feel this way, but it goes to my broader point - that scripture is used to support a broad range of contradictory theological viewpoints, a fact which is problematic for protestant denominations. Dr Matthew McMahon, a pastor in the Reformed Presbyterian Church, recently described Bishop N. T. Wright as "...a heretic. A heresiarch. He will forever burn under God’s righteous wrath and under the solemn and scornful gaze of the Lamb of God for all eternity if he does not change his theological views before he dies, or rather, his lack of good theology!" Strong words, and ones that fly in the face of Jesus' teaching on unity. I submit that Christians cannot avoid such confrontations without a single infallible teaching authority. Christ provided one through His Church.

"And finally you said, “No book is infallible without an infallible interpreter.” There are so many things wrong with this statement that I don’t know where to begin. But today let us take this angle. One day, the Holy Spirit inspired Paul to write an epistle to the church at Ephesus. When exactly did it become infallible? Let’s apply your rule and find out."

Let's not. It's clear from your "points" that I have not made myself clear and that you seem to be unfamiliar with the Church's teaching on infallibility. I was not stating a Catholic position, because Catholics do not consider the Bible to be infallible in the sense that some protestants do. Rather we "must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures" (CCC 107).

Infallible typically means incapable or erring or failing. Now a book may be free from error but it seems inaccurate to ascribe to any text such an 'incapability' - two people can read totally different meanings into ANY book. This is less like to happen, say, with a mathematics textbook than a philosophical treatise, but certainly the inspired and inerrant Bible is not immune from the prejudices, emotional responses, cultural context etc. of its readers. Even protestants who have a different understanding of the word 'infallible' allow for "wiggle room" (the Presbyterian Church (USA) has stated: "Our confessions do teach biblical infallibility. Infallibility affirms the entire truthfulness of scripture without depending on every exact detail.")

Mark Shea notes that "no Church Father is infallible. That charism is reserved uniquely to the pope, in an extraordinary sense and, in an ordinary sense, corporately to all the lawful bishops of the Catholic Church who are in full communion with the pope and are teaching definitively in an ecumenical council." You noted that "I never argued that the Bible speaks with equal clarity on every point of doctrine we might wish to pursue." Fine - how do we arrive at the truth then? I agree that Athanasius did it through excellent biblical scholarship, but he won the support of the Bishop of Rome, presented his scholarship at an ecumenical council and it was the infallible authority of that council that made it the doctrine preserved today - because Christ will not allow His Church to fail.

God bless

Sorry Kaff, I can't find a complete "Sermon to the Newly Baptized", (possibly because no complete version exists?) only citations drawn from St. Eutyches (+582 AD) "Sermon on Easter and the Holy Eucharist".

http://www.lumenverum.org/apologetics/DefendtheFaith/page167.html

http://csasso.hypermart.net/fathers15.htm (scroll down)

SandT, see WWWO's response.

God bless

Ernie,
If you want to split hairs over the term Catholic or ROMAN Catholic so be it. It doesn't change history a bit, but if you are more comfortable using Cathlolic then by all means do so. Truth is not divided.(Please take my last comment as nicely as possible because I don't know how to say it any other way).

As to your KKK comment, yes you and I can obviously see the errors of this group, but that isn't the issue. These people BELIEVE that they are in a right relationship with Christ and feel entitled to his promises. You yourself stated,
"If this is true (Matt. 18:16), which I believe it is, then if any 2 or 3 people outside of the Roman catholic religion gather together in the name of Jesus to worship Him, there will Jesus be." So don't these types of groups BELIEVE the exact same thing that you do? Again, this points out the problem with protestantism. The man-made "doctrine" of sola scriptura holds that all believers have a right to read and interpret Scripture as they feel the Holy Spirit is leading them. This is what the KKK, and even the most sincere and devout non-Catholic Christians do. They read Scripture, but they all interpret it differently. This is exactly what St. Peter warns us about (2 Peter 1:20 & 2 Peter 3:15-16) and causes division after division in the Body. Luther's own arrogance backs up the idea of the individual over the Church.

"Each man must believe solely because it is the word of God and because HE FEELS WITHIN THAT IT IS TRUE, even though an angel from heaven and all the world should preach against it." (From: Luther, Hartmann Grisar, tr. E.M. Lamond, ed. Luigi Cappadelta, 6 vols., London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1915; volume 4, 391 / from Werke [Weimar], Vol X, II, p. 90; Von Menschen leren tzu meyden, 1522)

As to Luther, I pray that you do not succumb to his selfishness. If he is the "hero" of the "reformation" then I'd rather be a bad Catholic than a good Protestant any day of the week. Here are a list of his errors that as a non-Catholic you may agree with.

(1) There is no supreme teaching power in the Church.
(2) The temporal sovereign has supreme power in matters ecclesiastical.
(3) There are no priests.
(4) All that is to be believed is in the Bible.
(5) Each one may interpret Holy Scripture as he likes.
(6) Faith alone saves, good works are superfluous. (7) Man lost his free will by original sin.
(8) There are no saints, no Christian sacrifice, no sacrament of confession, and no purgatory.

Well, let me share with you some excerpts from Luther's writings and lectures, and then compare them with what Christ taught. (Taken from the book CHRIST VS. LUTHER, edited by R. A. Short, copyright 1953 by the Bellarmine Publishing Company, Mound, Minn.)

- On Sin -
Christ: "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication . . . murder . . . and suchlike. And concerning these I warn you, they who do such things will not attain the Kingdom of God" (Galatians 5:19-21).

Luther: "Sin boldly but believe more boldly. Let your faith be greater than your sin. . . Sin will not destroy us in the reign of the Lamb, although we were to commit fornication a thousand times in one day" (Letter to Melanchton, August 1, 1521, Audin p.178).

Christ: "And do not be drunk with wine, for in that is debauchery" (Eph. 5:18). "Keep thyself chaste" (I Tim. 5:22).

Luther: "Why do I sit soaked in wine? ... To be continent and chaste is not in me" (Luther's diary).

- On Good Works -
Christ: "What will it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith, but does not have works? As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also" (James 2:14,26).

Luther: "He that says the Gospel requires works for salvation, I say, flat and plain, is a liar" ("able Talk, Weimer Edition, II, p.137).

- On Truth -
Christ: "Do not be liars against the truth. This is not the wisdom that descends from above. It is earthly, sensual, devilish" (James 3:1~15). "Do not lie to one another" (Col. 3:9). "The Lord hateth... a lying tongue... a deceitful witness that uttereth lies. . . "(Proverbs 6:1&17). "A thief is worse than a liar, but both of them shall inherit destruction" (Ecclus. 20:27).

Luther: "To lie in case of necessity, or for convenience, or in excuse, would not offend God, who is ready to take such lies on Himself" (Enserch Conference, July 17, 1540).

- On Marriage -
Christ: "Whosoever shall put away his wife and marry another, committeth adultery against her. And if the wife shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery" ~ark 10:11-12).

Luther: "As to divorce, it is still a moot question whether it is allowable. For my part, I prefer bigamy" (DeWette, Vol.2, p.459).

- On Free Will -
Christ: "Woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It were better for that man if he had not been born" (Matt. 26:24). "Let no man say when he is tempted, that he is tempted by God; for God is no tempter to evil" (James 1:13).

Luther: "Judas' will was the work of God; God by His almighty power moved his will as He does all that is in this world" (De Servo Arbitro - Against man's free will). Accosted on all sides by charges of heresy, even by many of his former associates in the Protestant movement, Luther found refuge in this, the strangest of all his beliefs. No man is accountable for his actions, Luther taught, no matter how evil. Not even Judas!

These Ernie, are the teachings of the first so-called "reformer" of Christ's Church! If Luther was divinely inspired or called in an extraordinary manner like the prophets before him, why did God permit him to fall into so many absurdities in points of doctrine?

"Luther finally brought himself to indulge the pleasing delusion that the Catholic Church was the detestable kingdom of Antichrist . . . that he himself was John the Evangelist... "(From the book LUTHER, P.65).

So Ernie, you can see the heresies, divisions, confusion, etc. resulting from the private interpretation of the Scriptures. Unless there is a church in the world, from the days of our Lord, which declares unmistakably (infallibly) who Jesus is, and what He taught, He might just as well have revealed nothing and woe to those who twist the Scriptures to scratch their "itching ears."
You are always in my prayers my brother.
In Truth,
Matthew

well said fidens

wwwo

Hi Fidens,

No, I am referring to the contradiction inherent in your argument: if the meaning of scripture is as plain as you suggest it is, there never would have been an arian heresy and we would not be having this discussion.

It is only a contradiction if you assume that Arians were indeed devoted to the truth of scripture above their own pet philosophies. But I have shown above that Athanasius believed and aptly demonstrated that the Arians were importing a false heresy into scripture. The Arian abuse of scripture does not in the least way impugn the clarity of scripture, when it is taken as a whole.

He did however refer to the "ecclesiastical" sense of scripture, a reference which you still have not addressed.

Actually, I did, but perhaps you missed it in this long thread. See my comments above on Discourse 3:58 in my "January 4, 2006 12:26 AM" post.

Again, I am not contesting this point [that Athanasius advised all to "search the scriptures"] and it does not negate my argument.

If your argument is that Athanasius stood in condemnation of people going directly to the text of scripture for correct doctrine, then I'm afraid it does. Athanasius clearly believed in the perspicuity of the Bible with respect to the nature of Christ. When someone claims to have the "orthodox sense" how do we measure that claim? By testing it against scripture or by testing it against the beliefs of the Roman bishop? Before you answer, carefully consider conditions in the year 356 AD, in which Felix, an Arian, held the Roman chair and during which "The majority of Roman clergy acknowledged the validity of [Felix's] consecration". He's now branded an "anti-pope" because, even though he was considered the valid bishop of Rome, he was not of the faith, and therefore not amongst the assembly of believers that we evangelicals call "the church".

I'm sorry you feel this way, but it goes to my broader point - that scripture is used to support a broad range of contradictory theological viewpoints, a fact which is problematic for protestant denominations. […]

I'm sorry too, Fidens. We were having a very interesting discussion. But then you launched off into a brand new direction, apparently so that you could unilaterally claim victory on a point which we haven't discussed, apparently so that you could grandstand on how rotten the protestant church is because sometimes people rebuke other leaders for false teachings (as if this has never happened in Roman traditions, even amongst ECFs!). I'm not familiar with the particulars of the case but a Biblical rebuke is actually a sign of the church in operation, not a proof that the church is absent as you seem to imply.

It's clear from your "points" that I have not made myself clear and that you seem to be unfamiliar with the Church's teaching on infallibility. I was not stating a Catholic position, because Catholics do not consider the Bible to be infallible in the sense that some protestants do. […]

So when a Catholic on a Catholic website advances an argument in his post like "No book is infallible without an infallible interpreter", I have to assume that he is using a non-Roman sense of the term "infallible", a sense which in fact no Christian outside the Roman church actually uses either? How absurd.

For your information, I and probably most evangelical Christians would have little argument with the CCC107 snippet as a working definition of infallibility. Furthermore, we all agree that wrong interpretations are possible, and that wrong interpretations by sinful man do not detract from the infallible quality of God's word. Where we disagree (and where I think you disagree with Athanasius) is how we arrive at the correct understanding: by reason from the scripture? or by fiat from a council?

I agree that Athanasius [arrived at the truth] through excellent biblical scholarship, but he won the support of the Bishop of Rome, presented his scholarship at an ecumenical council and it was the infallible authority of that council that made it the doctrine preserved today - because Christ will not allow His Church to fail.

The scriptures of the New Testament clearly attested to Jesus' full deity long before Athanasius was ever born. And Christians, ever since Thomas exclaimed, "My Lord and My God," have accepted it as well. I'm grateful to councils that from time to time have declared this scriptural truth succinctly. But we must not make the mistake that Athanasius thought it was the council's authority that made the doctrine true or ultimately established it within the body of Christian believers.

Athanasius never referred to the Nicean council as having been "infallible". He referred to its conclusions as correct, inasmuch as those conclusions expressed the "orthodox sense" of the scriptures. As he wrote in his defense of the phraseology of the Nicean creed,

… for the tokens of truth are more exact as drawn from Scripture, than from other sources; but the ill disposition and the versatile and crafty irreligion of Eusebius and his fellows, compelled the Bishops, as I said before, to publish more distinctly the terms which overthrew their irreligion; and what the Council did write has already been shown to have an orthodox sense, while the Arians have been shown to be corrupt in their phrases, and evil in their dispositions. (De Decretis, 7:32)

See how Athanasius explains that the purpose of the words of the council is not to authoritatively define truth, but to combat a severely mistaken sense of scripture. Thus he sees the authority of the council as subordinate, being derived from the orthodox sense which scripture contains and Christians have always believed. As he writes in defense of Jesus being the etern