Posted on 10/02/2001 2:30:40 PM PDT by malakhi
| We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion...Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. - John Adams |
| Threads 1-50 | Threads 51-100 | Threads 101-150 |
| Thread 151 | Thread 152 |
The Neverending Story (The Christian Chronicles) -- Thread 153
We don't think that everything they taught is captured in the New Testament. Only all that God deemed necessary for us to have in His revelation.
To which I will answer "Why did the Fathers get it wrong?" If Irenaeus and Jerome are so authoritative, why didn't they get it right for us? If the RCC existed from the beginning, why did they have a hard time establishing a Canon? Surely their hierarchy was fully developed and they could have dealt easily with such a problem.
If you can name over 200 I'll give you a 5 dollar bill. And doesn't the Catholic church allow for different interpretations in certain matters? Certainly most of the different interpretations of Proddies (if you were to be honest with yourself) fall in these areas.
At least you ended where you started, with the same faulty presuppositions about sola scriptura.
Quote one bit of theological oral tradition from the first century AD.
Not when God is deciding. God chose to inspire. I assume you accept the same NT that I do.
You wrote: At what point in your life did you stop being taught about Christ and the Word and become the ultimate judge of the teachings of others? No doubt that we are fully equipped with the scripture, that without it we would not be complete. But that is not an argument for sufficiency.
I'm sorry; I don't claim to be the ultimate judge of the teachings of others. God's Word, I believe, should be the judge. We ought to compare all traditions taught to us with God's Word to see if they measure up---whether they are true or false; whether they are based on God's Word or based on some man's imagination or opinion.
Concerning the word, "equipped" in 2 Tim 3:17: If one is "equipped," it means that he has all that is necessary. We need no further revelation and no other authority---teaching, yes, but teaching based on Scripture and not on man or anything coming from man.
YOU WROTE: Let me ask about the passage from Lumen Gentium, in which it is stated that the Church of Christ subsists in the Catholic Church. What exactly does this mean? It seems to me to be saying that the Catholic Church is NOT identically equal to the Body of Christ. How do you understand the relationship between the two?
-----
I WRITE: First, I'll quote the pertinent passage from LG that you referenced. ** This is the one Church of Christ which in the Creed is professed as one, holy, catholic and apostolic, (12*) which our Saviour, after His Resurrection, commissioned Peter to shepherd,(74) and him and the other apostles to extend and direct with authority,(75) which He erected for all ages as "the pillar and mainstay of the truth".(76) This Church constituted and organized in the world as a society, subsists in the Catholic Church, which is governed by the successor of Peter and by the Bishops in communion with him,(13*) although many elements of sanctification and of truth are found outside of its visible structure. These elements, as gifts belonging to the Church of Christ, are forces impelling toward catholic unity. **
Sorry, it's a bit lengthy, but useful to have in front of us for this discussion. One thing that is continually amazing to me is the density of encyclicals, letters and other official Church documents. They really make most other theological discussions seem almost trite by comparison. They always impress me as being the result of a life spent in contemplation of divine mysteries, meditating on God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, and our relationship to the Holy Trinity. At any rate....
First, you read this as saying the Catholic Church is not identically equal to the Body of Christ. I would agree with your statement, although I don't think that's what this particular passage of LG is saying. And let me preface my agreement by saying that the reason I would agree with it is in the sense that Body of Christ refers to the infinite reality of God versus the institutional aspect of a finite Catholic Church. But when we start discussing the nature of the Body of Christ and the nature of the Catholic Church we inevitably run into a maze of problems simply because of the different aspects of both. There is the Body of Christ in the Holy Eucharist. This, in itself, is a finite substance -- Christ's body on earth was a finite substance as well. But the spiritual reality of it is infinite, as is the superabundance of Grace that it confers on the recipient.
The Catholic Church, as an institution is finite - it has walls. It has offices. It's populated by mortal beings. It had a beginning. And ultimately, it will have an end. But the sense that the Catholic Church is the Bride of Christ has a far more profound meaning - the Bride who will be eternally joined with her groom, who is Christ. And yet, she is nothing apart from Christ, for it is Christ who created her, made her presentable to Him, etc.
So, a seemingly innocuous statement (in your case, an interpretation of a given passage in LG) can turn into a very tricky proposition that needs to be carefully defined. We need to agree on the meanings of our words before we can proceed any further, I think. And so I have to put the question back to you -- what do you mean by Body of Christ, and what do you mean by Catholic Church? And actually, what do you mean by 'subsist'? In asking this, it has no bearing on the meaning of the passage in LG, by the way. I think our best bet for discovering the meaning and intent of that admittedly dense passage would be to have recourse to someone who has studied it at length, a relevant commentary on the passage, or perhaps a diocesan theologian, for us to commpletely flesh out the packed in meanings inherent in the text. But for us to continue in our discussion on what we each think this passage might mean, we need to settle on our terminology first. :-)
Agreed. These responses could get a little unwieldy. I’ll try to give briefer answers and I can go into greater detail as needed.
So, you have an unfalsifiable argument. Kinda what I posted earlier.
Yes, bass, that's at least the second time you have gleefully run into a logical brick wall. Maybe you should contemplate exactly why the argument is unfalsifiable. We didn't construct the idea of Sola Scriptura, we're merely pointing out its fatal flaw.
SD
If the concern was with those who could read, then there would have been translations in all languages possible. That there were not shows that there really was no particular interest in meeting that need. And the documented history is that it was used as a point of control. Keeping the people ignorant by having them hear the word in a language they didn't understand meant that the people were entirely dependant upon men to deliver the message.
You really are trapped in your 20th century mindset. Are you aware that widespread literacy is a recent phenomenon? I repeat, people who could read, read Latin.
Will you join me in laughing at vmatt's statement that the Church "translated the Bible into a dead language" and acknowledge that it was not dead when it was translated?
SD
Oh and by the way, have you figured out yet how Jesus could have afforded a tomb to be buried in and fine burial cloths and oils for annointing?
(Gee, didn't a rich man, secretly attracted to the cause donate these things cause they seemed fitting?)
SD
If it came down in writing through seculars or someone we could at least half trust for scholarship, then it would matter.
You are looking for unbiased, objective secular scholars 17 hundred years or so before the Enlightenment?
You really are trapped in a 20th century mindset.
SD
Listen, Havoc, I know you profess not to believe in Sola Scriptura. But try to understand this for a moment. As I tried to point out yesterday, attacking an idea about the Bible, about how it should be interpreted is not the same as attacking the Bible itself.
Can you affirm this, or can you truly not tell the difference between the two?
SD
You are assuming that Sola Scriptura is defined by its name, I assume. Sola Scriptura is not the doctrine that only Scripture can instruct us. It is the doctrine that Scripture has the primary place of importance in establishing theology and all other sources must be seen through the lens of Scripture. Thus, it is not a problem that the words "Sola Scriptura" do not appear in the Scripture (as is the case with much teaching). We can use principles which are stated in Scripture (see my lengthy post above) to arrive at the doctrine of Sola Scriptura. If you insist on defining our doctrine then we will insist on defining yours.
I Pointed out it's fatal flaws. One is the erroneous assumption that Christians believe it to be the only authority, God and Bible go hand in hand. Next to that, there is a underpinning of teaching of the prophets and apostles and goings on within the Bible. Some sow, some Water; but, God gives the increase. God, however, did not give us the Apocrypha or the writings of men who are only so quoteable as to be forgettable (So called 'church fathers').
You argue against an extreme not in practice by us, then jump off the other side of that cliff through raft assumptions that because you can't just accept the Bible and seem to be incommunicado with God that it is somehow neccessary to grab anything you deem logical and reasonable to add to the Bible in your search for truth. Your clergy takes bits of the Bible, traditions of men (wives tales and the like), Authors who neither agree with the Bible or themselves, and Philosophy then mix it in a pot and add some ceremony and parlor tricks - wallah, Catholicism. God and the Bible are reduced to mere ingredients that don't really seem to matter that much to the brew - afterall, you already have so many "preferred" sources, if you will, that you defend more staunchly than the Bible. Isn't it odd that one should cling to the Bible as the basis of their belief, get sucked out into tangentials, then ultimately reject the Bible in favor of the tangentials. Sounds pretty screwed up to me. What did the Apostles teach about returning to the first things you were taught...
Sola Scriptura is adhered to by all Protestants and Bible Christians who don't like being called Protestants. What you describe above (working absent God or responsibility) is indeed a red herring. Here's what Sola Scriptura really means: You may work with a teacher/congregation but you will test what they say by what your reading of the Scriptures says is true.
That's Sola Scriptura. If the choice came between listening to the adivce/interpretation of your present pastor and what your own reading tells you, you will abandond your pastor and find or found a new church which matches your understanding.
Sola Scriptura is a shorthand way to say that you recognize as authority only the Bible and God. Not the Bible, God and a Church to teach you.
SD
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.