Articles of Religion and Roman Catholicism - Page 2

1holycatholic · #16 Aug 15, '10, 1:02 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul_Rimmer

I don't think I decide what is essential. I rather think that most Christians agree on the essentials, even if they don't agree upon what the essentials are. Those who take away or add to the essentials are objectively wrong. They are just wrong, if they add too much (as I think Rome does) on matters that are not essential.

I may also be wrong. But if I am wrong about the essentials, I am confident that I am wrong in having too many, instead of too few. And I trust on God's mercy, where I am in error.

That makes no logical sense.

Paul_Rimmer · #17 Aug 15, '10, 1:03 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1holycatholic

That makes no logical sense.

If you really can't make good sense of it, then ignore it. I think its meaning is plain, and it's useless to argue about plain things.

1holycatholic · #18 Aug 15, '10, 1:26 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul_Rimmer

If you really can't make good sense of it, then ignore it. I think its meaning is plain, and it's useless to argue about plain things.

It's self-refuting.

Paul_Rimmer · #19 Aug 15, '10, 1:34 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1holycatholic

It's self-refuting.

Not at all. Let me give you an example.

Let's say that there are only two essential things to believe for the sake of getting into Heaven (I don't think this is true, but imagine that it is).

1. That Jesus is God and Man
2. That God is Triune

Now, there are two groups. One group believes:

Both 1 and 2 and:
3. That 1 and 2 are essential beliefs.

Now the second group believes:
Both 1 and 2.
3. The Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
4. That 1, 2, and 3 are essential beliefs.

Now, group one is right about all three beliefs. Group two must be wrong about belief 4, but even though it is wrong, it still is the same as group one for all the essential beliefs.

Now, if you believe that the list of essential beliefs is itself an essential belief, then you think we have different essential beliefs. I think, however, that you would be wrong, in the same way group 2 is wrong, and that we do have the same essential beliefs.

Ghosty · #20 Aug 15, '10, 3:30 pm

Well, for an example of a teaching that is required but is not found in Scripture, just look at the Trinity. Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that God is one substance and Three Persons; this is why the Arians were able to gain such ground as "Scripture-onlyists".

It took a coming together of the worlds Bishops, who had received the non-Scriptural tradition of the Trinity, to anathemize Arianism.

Peace and God bless!

Paul_Rimmer · #21 Aug 15, '10, 3:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghosty

Well, for an example of a teaching that is required but is not found in Scripture, just look at the Trinity. Nowhere in Scripture does it teach that God is one substance and Three Persons; this is why the Arians were able to gain such ground as "Scripture-onlyists".

The Trinity is a difficult issue, but I'd argue that it's implied in Scripture. The teaching is in Scripture, but not explicitly. Just like the teaching about the authority of Scripture, or about the seven sacraments, or about the Immaculate Conception, is in Scripture, but not explicitly (not to imply that all these or any of these is necessary for salvation).

This means that Apostolic Tradition has an essential role, that of explicitly teaching what is implicit in the Bible. I don't think Article 6 disallows that. It doesn't require, for example, that the Bible be easy to understand properly, or that it clearly contains all that is necessary for salvation.

PatrickSebast · #22 Aug 15, '10, 3:55 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul_Rimmer

The Trinity is a difficult issue, but I'd argue that it's implied in Scripture. The teaching is in Scripture, but not explicitly. Just like the teaching about the authority of Scripture, or about the seven sacraments, or about the Immaculate Conception, is in Scripture, but not explicitly (not to imply that all these or any of these is necessary for salvation).

This means that Apostolic Tradition has an essential role, that of explicitly teaching what is implicit in the Bible. I don't think Article 6 disallows that. It doesn't require, for example, that the Bible be easy to understand properly, or that it clearly contains all that is necessary for salvation.

Article six doesn't JUST say that it contains all that is necessary for salvation, but it also says that nothing outside of scripture:" is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith." Yes you could argue that scripture holds what is needed for salvation, and is just hard to understand, but the idea of scripture being the only authority on what you should believe as an article of faith does not fit with the Church. The Church says scripture can not be the only or final authority on all things because scripture itself needs an authority to declare it as an authority.

Paul_Rimmer · #23 Aug 15, '10, 4:28 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by PatrickSebast

Article six doesn't JUST say that it contains all that is necessary for salvation, but it also says that nothing outside of scripture:" is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith." Yes you could argue that scripture holds what is needed for salvation, and is just hard to understand, but the idea of scripture being the only authority on what you should believe as an article of faith does not fit with the Church. The Church says scripture can not be the only or final authority on all things because scripture itself needs an authority to declare it as an authority.

This may be where I and Rome part ways. I don't think the Assumption of St. Mary, for example, should be required of people to believe, but I believe that it happened.

Ghosty · #24 Aug 15, '10, 5:58 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul_Rimmer

This means that Apostolic Tradition has an essential role, that of explicitly teaching what is implicit in the Bible. I don't think Article 6 disallows that. It doesn't require, for example, that the Bible be easy to understand properly, or that it clearly contains all that is necessary for salvation.

Apostolic Tradition is not found in Scripture, however, so again you're going outside Article 6.

Another departure between the Articles and the Catholic Faith is the notion that the Apocrypha isn't used to promote doctrine, but this is false from a Catholic perspective as 2 Maccabees supports purgation of the dead.

Peace and God bless!

1holycatholic · #25 Aug 15, '10, 6:24 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ghosty

Apostolic Tradition is not found in Scripture, however, so again you're going outside Article 6.

Another departure between the Articles and the Catholic Faith is the notion that the Apocrypha isn't used to promote doctrine, but this is false from a Catholic perspective as 2 Maccabees supports purgation of the dead.

Peace and God bless!

The Canon of Scripture is Apostolic Tradition, so to be consistent Scripture itself must be tossed out since it is defined by Apostolic Tradition.

1holycatholic · #26 Aug 15, '10, 6:38 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul_Rimmer

Not at all. Let me give you an example.

Let's say that there are only two essential things to believe for the sake of getting into Heaven (I don't think this is true, but imagine that it is).

1. That Jesus is God and Man
2. That God is Triune

Now, there are two groups. One group believes:

Both 1 and 2 and:
3. That 1 and 2 are essential beliefs.

Now the second group believes:
Both 1 and 2.
3. The Eucharist is the real Body and Blood of Jesus Christ.
4. That 1, 2, and 3 are essential beliefs.

Now, group one is right about all three beliefs. Group two must be wrong about belief 4, but even though it is wrong, it still is the same as group one for all the essential beliefs.

Now, if you believe that the list of essential beliefs is itself an essential belief, then you think we have different essential beliefs. I think, however, that you would be wrong, in the same way group 2 is wrong, and that we do have the same essential beliefs.

Let's simplify.

Baptism
T - Baptizes by sprinkling and believes it is essential for salvation.
U - Baptizes by pouring and believes it is essential for salvation.
V - Baptizes by immersion and believes it is essential for salvation.
W - Baptizes by sprinkling and does not believe it is essential for salvation.
X - Baptizes by pouring and does not believe it is essential for salvation.
Y - Baptizes by immersion and does not believe it is essential for salvation.
Z - Does not Baptize and does not believe it is essential for salvation.

GLantern · #27 Aug 15, '10, 6:42 pm

Lets grant for a minute that Scripture is all that one needs for salvation.
This would mean that Scripture is quite different from all other writings and thus would need to be differentiated from other writings. But how? Scripture itself does not say what is Scripture. If one is to differentiate Scripture from non-Scripture, then it seems that an extra-Scriptural source would be needed.

This is all to say that the Scripture itself does not actually say how the Scripture is to be assembled. Which means that what composes Scripture (the Gospel of Luke vs the Gospel of Marcion) is something that can't be dealt with by looking at Scripture

1holycatholic · #28 Aug 15, '10, 7:07 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by GLantern

Lets grant for a minute that Scripture is all that one needs for salvation.
This would mean that Scripture is quite different from all other writings and thus would need to be differentiated from other writings. But how? Scripture itself does not say what is Scripture. If one is to differentiate Scripture from non-Scripture, then it seems that an extra-Scriptural source would be needed.

This is all to say that the Scripture itself does not actually say how the Scripture is to be assembled. Which means that what composes Scripture (the Gospel of Luke vs the Gospel of Marcion) is something that can't be dealt with by looking at Scripture

That's exactly my point from post #25.

**Church Militant** · #29 Aug 15, '10, 8:22 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul_Rimmer

For the first part, what does it mean to say that the Apocrypha is canonical? What does "canonical" mean in that context?

For the second part, what necessary for salvation is not contained in the Bible?

The Apocrypha isn't canonical, because you would be talking about the Gnostic gospels and other works that are not inspired.

If, (as I'm sure they do), they refer to the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament which were discerned and affirmed to be inspired Canon in the 4th century, then that is someplace we disagree.

Also, having read the Bible many times, I have never seen anywhere where it says that everything that Christians believe and practice has to be found in its pages.

In fact, since it was the church by its own authority that discerned inspiration, collected the books, and guarded the inspired texts, as well as the New Testament itself which tells us plainly that the church is the pillar and ground of the truth, (as opposed to the scriptures), I would say there is a strong case to be made that this would be their first error.

PatrickSebast · #30 Aug 16, '10, 1:16 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul_Rimmer

This may be where I and Rome part ways. I don't think the Assumption of St. Mary, for example, should be required of people to believe, but I believe that it happened.

That was the purpose of this thread wasn't it? From your OP I was under the impression that we were supposed to be identifying which of the "Articles of Faith" fit in with Roman Catholicism...