Stacey was kind enough to actually interact with my recent post on the inconsistency of the RCC. That's much appreciated, b/c prior to her there wasn't much meaningful action.
Sorry for the delay. I've been bogged down in engagements with Darwinians elsewhere.
1 Corinthians 8:2 When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them suppose that they were also corrected
Yes, and then the Corinthians were corrected, again, in 2 Corinthians.
The Thessalonians were corrected about the very same issues a 2nd time in 2 Thessalonians.
Plus, isn't it true that these epistles were sent AFTER Paul had spent varying amounts of time preaching and teaching in that church? Paul was in Rome a while. He was in Ephesus for 18 months! Yet they ended up getting it wrong after a while, and so he sent a corrective epistle. And Tertullian would have us believe that, after 18 months of preaching, a 6-chapter epistle would definitely be enough to fix it all up? How often does that happen in RCC, after people receive an infallible proclamation? Sure, some, even many, follow it faithfully...for a while. What about their kids and grandkids and great grandkids? How holy is the populace of Avignon these days? How about of Rome?
Further, isn't it RCC's contention that oral tradition is what is missing out of the Sola Scriptura position, that Sola Scriptura is a blueprint for anarchy without the guiding power of the RCC's oral tradition? And here Stacey quotes Tertullian to the effect that an epistolary correction should suffice to clean up these errant churches, eh? Very, very interesting.
which nevertheless even at this day, unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same institution.
Well, most of them don't today. Is there an unbroken line of succession of bishops from the time of the apostles in the church in Ephesus? *IS* there a church in Ephesus today? Does anyone even live in Ephesus today? Philippi? Colossæ? Laodicæa?
"the final authority is the Church" would be a vital part of living Tradition.
No, it's the governing authority of Tradition. That which defines what is and isn't Sacred Tradition® is not part of it at all; it sits in judgment OVER it. Let's not equivocate on terms here.
You ask about the Theodoret quote. Point is, he's an early church writer. He's part of little-t tradition, from the 5th century. He's teaching Particular Redemption/Limited Atonement, a Calvinist distinctive doctrine. It is not (unless I'm mistaken) a view that is possible to hold and be in good standing with RCC, today. So this quote doesn't make it into Sacred Tradition® b/c it conflicts with MODERN RCC teaching.
I have also referred to the Catholic understanding of faith, and justification by faith alone is true if you mean faith that bears fruit in love
I'm sorry Stacey, but this is not the modern RC view (unless you want to count the touchy-feely liberal crowd who don't "judge" anyone). Justification by grace alone thru faith alone is not a view that is compatible with the doctrines of the treasury of merit, penance, and Purgatory, to say nothing of baptismal regeneration.
Even later in your comment, you said:
In fact, Scripture teaches "not by faith alone" in James 2:24.
So... which is it?
There is reason to believe that when James said "faith", he meant "belief" and when Paul said "faith" he meant "obedience to the will of God".
So when Paul said "faith", he meant "that which makes grace no longer grace" (cf Romans 11:6)? Interesting.
Let me help you decode - maybe you could tell us all why "faith" suddenly means "works" now.
But when the living Church of Christ is your guide, it's not as big a deal if people disagreed about such a thing, particularly before the Church held council to resolve the dispute
This is precisely the point! You appeal to the RCC for EVERYthing, but the RCC can't back up its claims. Why is Athanasius' canon not part of Sacred Tradition®? B/c RCC at a more modern time said so. So it proves my point every time it does so.
We cannot ignore the arrow of time, and once the Church has resolved the issue, then there should be no dispute in Tradition.
Yes, simply by removing the parts that don't fit your view. This is eisegesis with history. We Reformed, OTOH, let the CFs be who they are. We don't cut anything out of what they said. We understand that they were non-inspired writers, whose views have their proper weight but no more. RCC appeals to them, leans on them for her authority that she exercises in modern times, and one way RCC exercises her authority is to cut out writings and pick and choose writings from these very CFs to whom they appeal to justify their authority. It's viciously circular.
I think the issue of which books are included in the Old Testament canon is relatively insignificant to issues like "Is Christ present in the Eucharist?" and "Is baptism necessary for salvation?"
No offense intended , Stacey, but who cares what you think about this issue's relative importance? You really don't think that being in the dark about what is God's revelation is a minor issue?
No, indeed the Church does not include every word written by these men as the written Tradition. There is no written Tradition.
1) No written Tradition? None? So why does RCC quote CFs when it appeals to them for her authority?
2) Isn't this exactly the same as the admission that RCC is the final judge of what is and isn't true teaching, regardless of whether early Christians believed it or not? How is that not viciously circular?
The Tradition that Catholics speak of is not the writings of the Church Fathers, it is that to which the writings testify.
This is a pious cloud of nothing, I am sorry. How else do we know that to which they testify if there is no written Tradition?
Oh wait, let me guess - The Church® told you so.
I saw this on your blog earlier.
Yep, I thought it was fine as it stood and so copied and pasted! :-) James S told me I could do that back when he hired me (though I suspect that, as he recently doubled my stipend, I should probably step it up and produce all-original work from now on).
A submissive spirit to those He has put in authority over us, or a desire to exert our own will and understanding over those same people who are in authority over us?
This simply begs the question of who is in proper authority. Heb 13:17 - my elders are in authority over me. I am a member of a church. But I do appreciate your concern.
Yet you are relying on the authority of an organisation that appeals to herself to pick and choose which writings out of its alleged early members accord well enough with its current teaching to admit into one of the foundations of the authority by which it binds that authority on your conscience. Where did Scripture go? It suffers the same fate at RCC's hands as do the writings of the CFs - picked over, gleaned, the rest left to rot in the sun.