ROBERT February 11, 2015 at 4:16 amEric,I think I’d have to say yes and no to this. Yes there should be public continuity given the promise of Jesus to His church.
Bingo.
The issue becomes how one defines that continuity.
Wrong answer. The issue should be how God defines that continuity.
There’s just no evidence in Scripture that the continuity is identified by the RC and EO view of Apostolic succession.
There is plenty of evidence. You just reject it. Here’s just one example:
Matthew 28:19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Do you think that the Church could exist to the end of the age, without continuity?
It certainly isn’t the primary way we define continuity.
Lol! Sounds as though you’ve got a secret, non-biblical source which you rely upon to define what Scripture means. What is this primary way by which you define continuity? And show it to me in Scripture.
Continuity is defined by the Apostolic tradition, which is either fixed (NT) or its whatever you want it to be.
Huh? If you say so. Now, show it to me in Scripture.
Rome goes off the rails (and the EO as well, though to a lesser extent) by not having a fixed Apostolic tradition that is equivalent to what the Apostles mean when they use the term tradition
You’ve got that totally flipped. If you look at Protestant history, you see a history of continual upheaval and reforming. Protestants continually going off the rails.
It is, in fact, Apostolic Tradition which is the anchor which keeps Catholic Doctrine on the rails of Christ’s Deposit of Faith.
We have no reason to accept the authority of Scripture without that continuity;
That is precisely what St. Augustine said:
“If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6).
This is a confusing statement at best. Basically, this forces one to say that no OT could know what Scripture was and that Jesus was essentially clueless when he expected them to.
Non sequitur
First, history shows that the OT Jews did not know what Canonical Scripture was. If you look at history, you will find that before the advent of Jesus Christ, the OT Jews had many more books than those which the Catholic Church put in her OT canon.
Second, history shows that after the ascension of Jesus Christ, in the age of the Catholic Church, the Jews rejected the Septuagint version of the Scriptures which Jesus Christ used.
The Septuagint is a Greek language version of the Scriptures which was originally written by Jewish Scholars for Greek speaking Jews.
Since some of them accepted this version but some rejected them, this is proof that they were confused as to the canon of Scripture.
Third, history shows that the Jews did not attempt to put together one volume of Scripture, as did the Catholic Church. There were many books out there which the Jews used as Scripture, which were not accepted by the Catholic Church. The proof of this is that some of these books were probably accepted by the Apostles themselves (Book of Enoch, Jude 1:14). Yet the Church did not admit them into Scripture because Christ did not make a reference to them and did not use them.
It also calls into question the idea that what the Apostles wrote was immediately authoritative by virtue of their position, whether or not their audience believed what they wrote. It basically makes the authority of Scripture dependent on the authority of the church, but it’s a circular argument because the only way that Rome can even begin to prove that it has authority is to go to the Scriptures and look for evidence that Christ founded the church in the way that they said.
That is the Protestant M.O.
The Catholic Church has access to the writings of the Fathers and other historical documents which prove her existence from Apostolic times.
Rome’s argument for authority is ultimately a vicious circle. Scripture is authoritative because the church says so and the church is authoritative because Scripture says so.
Lol! That’s not circular. That’s a helix. Here’s an example of circular reasoning, “the bible tells me so”.
indeed, the liturgical practice provided the context for the preservation of Scripture (i.e., what was read in the liturgy).
We pray as we believe and we believe as we pray. Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi: As We Worship, So we will Live
This is only half true. Liturgical practice did provide the context, but it wasn’t the only thing that provided the context.
That is Catholic Teaching.
The early church’s treasuring of the NT as the uniquely authoritative Word of God is another.
Uniquely? No. The entity which established the Liturgy and the Traditions which are the basis of the Liturgy as well as the New Testament Scripture were also authoritative for the Early Church.
The OT principle that the covenant community is to be governed by the authoritative covenant document is another.
Notice that the OT principle was not Scripture alone. God appointed Prophets and Kings and governments. And God only wrote one part of the OT, the Ten Commandments. The rest of the OT Scriptures were written by men based upon the Traditions which Moses had passed down to the community.
The principle that written revelation accompanies even revelation is another.
Accompanies. Not alone.
That’s what leads to this need to identify *the* Church that Jesus founded. If you can’t get there, then the whole idea of Christian belief through the centuries rapidly degenerates into absurdity.
Which is precisely what happened to the Protestant groups.
This presupposes that the church Christ founded must look a certain way and that in every generation its emphases must be the same.
Correct. It is a presupposition based upon the Teaching of Christ:
Matt 7 The Wise and Foolish Builders
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
24 “Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock.
It also essentially assumes that everyone in the first century had to be a Tridentine RC. For a community that tries its level best (nowadays) to stress development of doctrine, there’s no idea that perhaps doctrine can either develop in a wrong direction or that maybe, just maybe, the church Christ intended isn’t the church of visible hierarchical unity but doctrinal chaos.
That’s because we have faith in Jesus Christ to uphold His Church. And we believe Scripture:
Ephesians 3:10 His intent was that now, through the church, the manifold wisdom of God should be made known to the rulers and authorities in the heavenly realms,
