Is Protestantism , in it's nature, a heresy?

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

Hi Pat,

It holds water because the early church did in fact practice sola scriptura. Here is a quote.

"We have learned from none others the plan of our salvation, than
from those through whom the Gospel has come down to us, which they
did at one time proclaim in public, and, at a later period, by the
will of God, handed down to us in the Scriptures, to be the
ground and pillar of our faith." (St. Irenaeus of Lyons, Against
Heresies, Book III Ch.1)

Yes, we must follow the priests of the Church (through the traditions, and scripture) according to apostolic succession, and thus have received the truth from Jesus Christ. Both those protestants that separated from the succession then? Iraneus supported APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

[Patavium]

Ok highrigger1,

Point to me in the bible where it says that SOLA SCRIPTURA is sufficient?

and also Point to me in the bible where it says that the Church is the authority, and that its members in the body of Christ have the ability to bind and loose?

See which one you can find in the bible.

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Patavium

highrigger1,

Who translated those books (the DC or the ones you said were excluded)?

What was Pope Damasus opinion of St. Jerome's comment that He considered them as NOT inspired by God?

How did this connect with the dead-sea scrolls, and the Jews in Alexandria?

Thanks,

pat,

Jerome translated them into the Vulgate and wrote this about them in the Vulgate.

The Bible, the Church, and Authority
by Joseph T. Lienhard (Catholic)

p59
"He (Jerome) writes,'This preface to the Scriptures may serve as a helmeted introduction
to all the books which we turn from Hebrew into Latin, so that we may be assured that
what is not found in our list must be placed among the Apochryphal writings'. He then
exludes Wisdom. Sarach, Judith, Tobit, the Shepherd and 1&2 Maccabees. He does not mention
Baruch."

Whatever the pope said he did not revoke what Jerome wrote in the Vulgate.

It was 200 years previous the Septuagint was translated into Greek for Greek speaking Jews. It included the Deuterocanicals. The DDS contained only timy scraps of the DCs but many other writings from other sources besides scripture. So?

Peace, JohnR

[PeterJohn]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

No I see no reason to assert that at all. WE are the church and we make mistakes. What makes us the pillar of the truth is that we teach and live the Gospel message.



No Im not. The Holy Spirit is our guide but not to perfection. No one is perfect. I am the church also but I am not perfect at all.



The bible was written before the end of the first century. So scripture was available. In fact many churches had Pauls letters after he wrote them. It was not 300 years. I quoted Irenaeus and that was 170AD. I think you got the ages mixed up.

Of course there was no sola scriptura when there was no bible but once there was and oral tradition had died out there was only sola scriptura.

I think I see where you are trying to go. You are trying to say all your traditions are those traditions that were oral and not written down. BUT if that were true the NT and the ECFs would have been implimentng those traditions but they were not. That is your problem. For example the early ECFs did not teach the following. No pope, no magesterium, no priests, no sacrifice of Christ in the eucharist, no seven sacraments, no praying to Saints, and on and on. That tells me those added things not in scripture were invented centuries later. Where have I gone wrong? peace, JohnR

I see no gospel message in your words besides division.

[PeterJohn]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

It was 200 years previous the Septuagint was translated into Greek for Greek speaking Jews. It included the Deuterocanicals. The DDS contained only timy scraps of the DCs but many other writings from other sources besides scripture. So?

Peace, JohnR

The Septuagint was translated way before that.
We need a fact checker to follow this guy around!

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Patavium

Yes, we must follow the priests of the Church (through the traditions, and scripture) according to apostolic succession, and thus have received the truth from Jesus Christ. Both those protestants that separated from the succession then? Iraneus supported APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

pat,

Apostolic succesion as it has traditionally been taught has been rejected by the historians. I am happy to agree with this definition by Raymond Brown

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them....That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

Irenaeus was a bishop but not a priest.

Protestants are entirely within the succession as defined above. Our bishops and pastors have take on the tasks of the apostles.

Peace, JohnR

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by PeterJohn

The Septuagint was translated way before that.
We need a fact checker to follow this guy around!

Yes indeed. Our friend highrigger1 cites what is adequate for him such Irenaeus citation of his famous book. However, He forgets that Irenaeus did believe in Apostolic succession.

highrigger1, please approach your arguments as a whole rather than buying pieces at a supermarket.

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

pat,

Apostolic succesion as it has traditionally been taught has been rejected by the historians. I am happy to agree with this definition by Raymond Brown

"Apostolic Succession concerns the fact that the bishops eventually took over
the pastoral tasks of the apostles;It does not involve HOW the early bishops
were chosen or appointed. We know little about that, not even being certain
that there was a formal action designating them....That does not mean of course
that all the presbtyer-bishops of the early church were appointed by apostles,
but there is a good chance that somewere that occurred....Eventually, of course,
the church developed a regularized pattern of selection and ordination of bishops,
and from the third century on that was universally followed.
Raymond Brown, 101 Questions and Answers On The Bible. page 120.
Approved for publication with the Imprimatur.

Irenaeus was a bishop but not a priest.

Protestants are entirely within the succession as defined above. Our bishops and pastors have take on the tasks of the apostles.

Peace, JohnR

Oh really? and when was your Church founded that it received apostolic succession?

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by PeterJohn

The Septuagint was translated way before that.
We need a fact checker to follow this guy around!

200 years pervious to Christ. Earlier than that? Peace, JohnR

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Patavium

Yes indeed. Our friend highrigger1 cites what is adequate for him such Irenaeus citation of his famous book. However, He forgets that Irenaeus did believe in Apostolic succession.

highrigger1, please approach your arguments as a whole rather than buying pieces at a supermarket.

pat,

I never said Irenaeus did not believe in a succession of bishops. He of course accepted the myths even though today we know they have been debunked.

How about some civil discourse? I do not ridicule you. Peace, JohnR

[Erich]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

Our bishops and pastors have take on the tasks of the apostles.

That's the problem in a nutshell. I would encourage you to read By What Authority? In it, you will find the following (emphases mine):

God the Father (the superior authority) sends Jesus Christ "...these very works which I am doing, bear me witness that the Father has sent me." (John 5:36)

Jesus, in turn, sends the Apostles "...As the Father has sent me, even so I send you." (John 20:21)

Jesus sends these Apostles "as the Father has sent me," that is, in the same manner, with the same authority: "all authority."

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me." (Matt. 28:18)

The Apostles, then, did not take their office and authority upon themselves, but were appointed by a Superior Authority, Jesus Christ. The Scriptures attest to the unique authoritative status of the Apostles in several ways, which we will examine now.

Scripture shows that only the Apostles are "entrusted" with the care of the Gospel message:

• St. Paul

"...they saw that I had been entrusted with the gospel to the uncircumcised, just as Peter had been entrusted with the gospel to the circumcised."(Gal. 2:7)

"...in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:19)

"...in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted." (1 Tim. 1:11)

• St. Timothy

"Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... we have been approved by God to be entrusted with the gospel." (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:4)

"O Timothy, guard what has been entrusted to you." (1 Tim. 6:20)

"...guard the truth that has been entrusted to you by the Holy Spirit who dwells within us." (2 Tim. 1:14)

You may object at this point that St. Timothy was not an apostle. I will concede that he was not an "Apostle," with a capital "A," but you must concede that Scripture clearly calls St. Timothy an apostle, thereby attesting to his apostolic authority:

"Paul, Silvanus [Silas], and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ." (1 Thess. 1:1, 2:6)

It is not only St. Timothy who is called an apostle by Sacred Scripture, but also St. Barnabus, Apollos, and St. Titus:

St. Barnabus - "But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of it, they tore their garments and rushed out among the multitude..." (Acts 14:14)

Apollos - "I planted, Apollos watered... He who plants and he who waters are equal." (1 Cor. 3:6, 8)

"I have applied all this to myself and Apollos for your benefit, brethren... For I think that God has exhibited us apostles as last of all, like men sentenced to death." (1 Cor. 4:6,9)

The objection will be raised: Titus is nowhere in Scripture explicitly called an apostle. I reply, it is implicit in what kind of authority is accorded to the apostles. Scripture testifies that only apostles are given full authority. Compare what is said of St. Paul and St. Timothy (both of whom are called "apostles") with what is said of St. Titus:

St. Paul - "...nor did we seek glory from men, whether from you or from others, though we might have made demands as apostles of Christ." (1 Thess. 2:6)

St. Timothy - "As I urged you when I was going to Macedonia, remain at Ephesus that you may charge certain persons not to teach any different doctrine..." (1 Tim. 1:3)

"Command and teach these things." (1 Tim. 4:11)

"Remind them of this, and charge them before the Lord to avoid disputing about words, which does no good, but only ruins the hearers." (2 Tim. 2:14)

St. Titus - "This is why I left you in Crete, that you might amend what was defective, and appoint elders in every town as I directed you." (Tit.1:5)

"Declare these things; exhort and reprove with all authority. Let no one disregard you." (Tit. 2:15)

"...our boasting before Titus has proved true. And his heart goes out all the more to you, as he remembers the obedience of you all, and the fear and trembling with which you received him." (2 Cor. 7:14-15)

Scripture also shows that only the Apostles refer to the Gospel message as their own personal possession:

"...when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus." (Rom. 2:16)

"Now to him who is able to strengthen you according to my gospel and the preaching of Jesus Christ..." (Rom. 16:25)

"Remember Jesus Christ, risen from the dead, descended from David, as preached in my gospel." (2 Tim. 2:8)

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... for our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction." (1 Thess. 1:1 & 5)

"Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy, To the church of the Thessalonians... God chose you from the beginning to be saved, through sanctification by the Spirit and belief in the truth. To this he called you through our gospel..." (2 Thess. 1:1 & 2:13-14)

The Apostles possess the Gospel message precisely because it was (as the above passages demonstrated) "entrusted" to them, i.e., given to them, and not taken by them on their own initiative. This is completely in keeping with the restriction imposed by Heb. 5:4.

Your bishops and pastors have taken on the tasks of the apostles of their own initiative.

[PeterJohn]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

pat,

I never said Irenaeus did not believe in a succession of bishops. He of course accepted the myths even though today we know they have been debunked.

How about some civil discourse? I do not ridicule you. Peace, JohnR

Why are you on CA sir?

[Patavium]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

pat,

I never said Irenaeus did not believe in a succession of bishops. He of course accepted the myths even though today we know they have been debunked.

How about some civil discourse? I do not ridicule you. Peace, JohnR

I apologize highrigger1

I was not trying to ridicule you, but remember the argument is not to discard scripture, but to discard SOLA scriptura. Irenaeus is saying that the traditions passed to us. The bible is written tradition, but also there are other traditions that will be passed by the Church as the pillar of truth. The bible itself says the Church is the pillar of truth able to bind and loose.

[Erich]

Originally Posted by highrigger1

He of course accepted the myths even though today we know they have been debunked.

"Myths?" "We know?" "Debunked?" How is any of this in keeping with the forum rules, specifically:

Non-Catholics are welcome to participate but must be respectful of the faith of the Catholics participating on the board.

[highrigger1]

Originally Posted by Patavium

Oh really? and when was your Church founded that it received apostolic succession?

pat,

Definition does not give a time frame. It says eventually. The Catholic church was also eventually. No difference. Peace, JohnR