Posted on 01/05/2002 11:55:52 AM PST by Brian Kopp DPM
Hardly. Just like the doctrine of the Trinity is not literally written in scripture, these other Marian doctrines are not literally written in scripture. They are indeed contained in scripture, however. You accept the Trinity yet reject the Marian doctrines. That is the bias of your own personal interpretation of scripture which finds its roots in another unscriptural invention of your reformers, namely sola scriptura.
There is much clearly taught throughout the NT that you reject, like the Real Presence, the authority Christ gave His Church, the sacraments, etc. I do not consider you or your reformers to be the final arbiter of orthodoxy, for on many subjects you reject the clear sense of scripture when it does not suit your own personal interpretation and agenda.
ST. PETER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT
In the NT, the names Simon, Peter, or Cephas occur almost 200 times. The names of all the other disciples combined occur only about 130 times. In the NT lists of apostles, Peter is listed first. Matthew uses the word first (Mt 10:2) to "to single him out as the most prominent one of the twelve". He was the spokesman and authoritative voice of the apostles, as seen in the early chapters of Acts. Paul spent fifteen days in private with Peter before beginning his own apostolate (Gal 1:18).
Jesus bestowed special prerogatives on Peter, recounted in Matthew 16:13-20. Peter is given a new name, which in Scripture denotes a change in status or position (e.g., Gen 17:4-5). Jesus spoke Aramaic and gave Simon the Aramaic name Kepha (Rock) which is is "Petra" in Greek and "Peter" in English. The Greek "petra" is feminine so the masculine "Petros" was adopted. There is no distinction between Kepha the man and Kepha the Rock upon which Jesus would build his Church-Peter is the rock (cf. CCC no. 552). Protestants often claim that Christ is the only foundation (1 Cor 3:11) attempting thereby to unseat Peter. However, they mistakenly mix the metaphors. In 1 Corinthians, Paul is the builder and Jesus is the foundation; in Matthew, Jesus is the builder and Peter is the rock foundation. Another NT metaphor pictures the Church "built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus himself being the cornerstone" (Eph 2:20).
Jesus chose Caesarea Philippi as the backdrop for the Petrine appointment. Here Herod had built a temple to Caesar Augustus atop the massive rock, a center of pagan worship and a source of the Jordan River. At the rock base was a gaping cavern referred to by the pagans as the "gates of hell". Standing before the "temple" built to the "divine Caesar", Jesus revealed God's plan to build his new "temple", the Church, to the true God with Peter as the solid rock.
After establishing Peter as the "Rock", Jesus promises to give Peter the "keys of the kingdom of heaven"-a reference to the steward's keys in Isaiah 22. The Davidic throne had been vacant since the Babylonian captivity (586 BC). The archangel Gabriel announced to Mary her Son Jesus would be given "the throne of his father David" (Lk 1:42). As Jesus, the new King of Israel, re-established the Davidic throne he appointed Peter to the office of royal steward-to rule "over the house" of the king (cf. CCC 553). Keys represent exclusive dominion and this authority was granted to Peter alone. The office of royal steward was successive in Israel. Familiar with their history, the Jews certainly understand that the office of Peter would be filled by successors as was the royal steward's office in Judah. The steward may die, but the office continues.
As the steward of Christ's kingdom, Peter is given the authority to bind and loose. This entails more than "opening heaven's door to those who believe the Gospel". Protestant scholar M. Vincent explains, "No other terms were in more constant use in Rabbinic canon-law than those of binding and loosing. They represented the legislative and judicial powers of the Rabbinic office. These powers Christ now transferred . . . in their reality, to his apostles; the first, here to Peter." Aramaic scholar George Lamsa writes, " 'He has the key,' means he can declare certain things to be lawful and others unlawful; that is to bind or to loose, or to prohibit or to permit, or to forgive". Other passages express Peter's primacy. Jesus tells Peter that, "Satan demanded to have you [plural], that he might sift you [plural] like wheat, but I have prayed for you [singular] that your faith may not fail; and when you [singular] have turned again, strengthen your brethren" (Lk 22:31-32). Peter represents the apostles before God, and Jesus prays for him exclusively that he in turn can support his fellow apostles. This perfectly exemplifies the primacy of the Pope and his collegiality with the other bishops. Jesus also appoints Peter the shepherd of his sheep with the universal Church in view (Jn 21:15-17). The Jews would understand, according to contemporary usage, that the words "feed" and "tend" meant to teach, govern, and rule. St. Augustine comments, "The succession of priests keeps me [in the Catholic Church], beginning from the very seat of theApostle Peter, to whom the Lord, after His resurrection, gave it in charge to feed His sheep, down to the present episcopate." St. John, writing long after Peter's death, reminds Christians of Peter's singular status.
Papal infallibility is often challenged by mentioning Paul's public rebuke of Peter in Galatians 2:11-14. However, Paul does not oppose Peter's teaching, but rather Peter's failure to live consistently with his teaching. It was Peter's example that everyone followed so his conduct was crucial. Papal infallibility does not guarantee impeccable conduct; it only guarantees infallible teaching under strict conditions (CCC no. 891). Paul acknowledges Peter's office as "Rock" by referring to his as "Cephas" eight times-the title Christ himself had chosen. Tertullian (c. 160-c. 225) wrote, "If Peter was reproached [by Paul] . . . the fault certainly was one of procedure and not of doctrine" (On Prescription Against the Heretics, 23).
James' pastoral summary at the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15) does not nullify Peter's primacy. On the contrary, Peter delivered a binding pronouncement and defined doctrine. Only after Peter spoke did the debating assembly "keep silence" (Acts 15:12). After Paul relates his experiences, James spoke, as the bishop of Jerusalem, to summarize, quoting Peter along with Scripture. In 1 Peter 5:1, Peter's calls himself a "fellow elder". This humble greeting does not diminish Peter's authoritative office anymore than the President's words "My fellow Americans" denies Presidential authority, or the Popes' greeting "my fellow bishops" denies Papal authority.
In the first century, Christians and Jews referred to Rome with the pseudonym "Babylon"-persecutor of God's people. Peter wrote his first epistle from "Babylon" (1 Pet 5:13) where he was later martyred. Jesus prophesied that aged Peter's arms would be stretched out and John interprets Jesus' words as foretelling Peter's death (Jn 21:18-19). After decades of spreading the Gospel and ruling as Bishop of Rome, Peter's noble apostolate ended in crucifixion, though his Petrine office continued. Early Church history consistently affirms Peter's crucifixion and burial in Rome around AD 67. From the first century onward, the chair of Peter in Rome was revered among the Church Fathers.
*********************************************************
Greek definition of the word "first": Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other Early Christian Literature (William F. Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich [Chicago, IL: Univ. Chicago, 1957], 733).
Tertullian's quote: William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, Liturgical Press, 1:121.
Vincent's quote: M. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1887, 1980), 1:96.
Lamsa's Quote: George M. Lamsa, Old Testament Light [New York, NY: Harper & Row, 1964], 657.
Augustine's Quote: Against the Epistle of Manich¾us in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, first series, ed. by Philip Schaff [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1983], 4:130).
Tertullian's Quote: William Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers 1:121.
Referencing Rome as Babylon: (Orac. Sybil. 5, 159 f.; 4 Esdras. 3:1; Apoc. Baruch, vis. ii; Rev. 14:8; 16:19; 17:5; 18:2, 10, 21).
******************************************************
Recommended Reading:
Upon this Rock: St. Peter and the Primacy of Rome in the Scriptures and the Early Church, Steve Ray, Ignatius Press, 1999.
Peter in the New Testament, Raymond Brown, ed., Augsburg Publ. and Paulist Press, 1973.
And on this Rock: The Witness of One Land and Two Covenants, Stanley L. Jaki, Christendom Press, 1997.
The Keys of the Kingdom Stanley Jaki, Franciscan Herald Press, 1986.
Peter: Disciple, Apostle, Martyr, Oscar Cullmann, Westminster Press, 1953.
The Shepherd and the Rock: Origins, Development, and Mission of the Papacy, J. Michael Miller, Our Sunday Visitor, 1995.
Jesus, Peter, and the Keys, Scott Butler, Norman Dahlgren, David Hess, Queenship Publ., 1996.
What has private interpretation led to? To schism, to heresy, and to lots of sects. Just look at all those so-called "Christian denominations." They all claim to go by the Bible alone, yet none of them agrees with another on what the Bible means. Since the Protestant Reformation, thousands of sects and denominations have sprung up and have deceived and confused many Christians and others. That's what private interpretation results in.
I love to quote 1 Corinthians 1:10: "I urge you, brothers, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that all of you agree in what you say, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be united in the same mind and in the same purpose." That does not at all sound like an allowance for private interpretation to me. If we all interpret for ourselves, will we ever be always united in the same mind? Certainly not.
I am very much of the opinion that the one who WROTE the Bible should also INTERPRET that Bible, don't you agree? Now, who wrote it? Collectively, we can say, the Church did; the Catholic Church. Thus, what's wrong letting HER interpret it? Let's look at another Scripture passage:
Acts 8:30-31:
Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
Hey, did you read this? The Eunuch admits that a lay person cannot understand the Scriptures without a guide. Now, what use is it to have a guide if this guide is not infallible? 2 Peter 3:15-16 talks about those who misinterpret the Scriptures. Now, if I want to go to Heaven, I need to know what is to be believed; and did the Lord solve that problem? Yes, He said the Holy Spirit would guide the Apostles into all truth (John 16:13). If Jesus is telling the truth, then this implies infallibility. Remember Matthew 18:18: "Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." If Jesus was not granting the gift of infallibility here, then He would be agreeing to bind and loose error in Heaven, or at least, He would be taking that risk. And that is contrary to God. And don't forget about John 8:32, where Christ proclaimed that we would know the Truth, and the Truth would set us free.
If I do not have an infallible guide, how can I know whether someone's interpretation is subject to 2 Peter 3:15-16? I cannot. Yet, St. Peter warned us of that very much. He wouldn't have done so if it were not really important.
"What proves too much, proves nothing." Ever heard that? If Protestants want to justify private interpretation of the Bible, then 2 Peter 3:15-16 is in their way, because it undercuts their position. Since there is no guarantee that my interpretation is correct unless I am infallible, the Protestant argument does not work.
Anyway, Mr. Scheifler goes on to sum up 2 Peter 1:19-2:1, and quite well even, yet none of this proves his point, i.e. that the Bible can be interpreted by the laity. He's making it easy for himself: "How do you recognize a false prophet? Simple. What they predict fails to come to pass with unerring accuracy." I'd like to object to that that we do not always know when a prophecy is to be fulfilled, so the argument is not of much worth.
Next, Mr. Bible Light mentions 2 Peter 3:15-16, saying, "That is a warning to the Christian that should be heeded. Beware of those who would twist the meaning of scripture on crucial doctrinal issues." So far, so good. But now comes the blunder: "The only way to know when this is happening is to be well educated in the scriptures yourself." Really? Where does it say that? Rather, this is circular. If I want to study the Scriptures well, I need an interpreter, but, what if this interpreter misinterprets? Then I cannot study effectively. Thus, it's circular.
He also cites 2 Timothy 2:15:
Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
Good, so here we are told that people can wrongly divide the Word of God. So, then, how can I know if I am dividing it wrongly? I can't. By studying? That's circular, as I've just pointed out. But, indeed, we have to be scholarly to understand the Bible, because the unscholarly misinterpret the Scriptures to their own destruction, as St. Peter tells us in 2 Peter 3:15-16. It all comes down to one conclusion: We need an infallible guide, which we can only find in the successors of the Apostles who were entrusted with the Spirit of Truth, so that we may "know the truth, and the truth will set [us] free" (John 8:32).
Lastly, Scheifler is quite right that some Catholics are misusing 2 Peter 1:20. Yet, he did not prove HIS point: that the Bible can be interpreted privately by each individual. And that, after all, is what his heading implied: "Does the Bible Forbid 'Private Interpretation' by the Laity?" -As we have seen, the answer is YES.
This IS the orthodox position, GW.
Christ granted that authority to Peter. Rejection of that authority was really what the reformation was all about.
It was not about the sola's, it was not about predestination, it was about authority.
Christ gave it, the reformers rejected it, and 500 years later we're still fighting over it.
Furthermore, based on that rejection of the authority Christ gave His Church, we have all of Christianity except Catholicism officially teaching, against all Christians before 1930, that contraception is now OK.
In the end times, good will be seen as evil, and evil will be seen as good. The vast majority of protestants attend churches or denomination where at least one of the traditional moral theology teachings are abandoned, whether it be contraception, abortion, premarital sex, divirce, homosexuality, or euthanasia.
Catholicism is the only Christian Church that has not caved on one single moral theology position.
Its all competing interpretations, and who yells loudest that "the clear sense of scripture is thus," or sola scriptura versus scripture and tradition.
Proof texts can be produced to "prove" either position.
Patristic texts can be produced to "prove" either position.
One side calls development of Doctrine inspired by the Holy Spirit.
The other side calls it man adding to scripture.
There is no end to this morass.
Unless...
Unless...
we examine that which ALL Christians agreed upon until most recently, namely moral theology.
"Salvation" theology is contested by both sides. Clearly from this thread there is little common ground.
Moral theology has never been debated. It has always been a common patrimony to both protestantism and Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
If sola scriptura and rejection of the authority of the RCC is divinely ordained and inspired by the Holy Spirit, then the denominations that are undergirded by sola scriptura should speak with one common orthodox voice on matters of moral theology.
They should maintain cohesively all the moral teachings of Christianity, including those on contraception, divorce, abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, etc.
However, no protestant churches teach that ALL forms of contraception are sinful, none admit the irrefutable link between contraceptive mentality and abortion, few have a cohesive teaching on divorce and remarriage, many are ordaining and marrying homosexuals, some pay for their own employees abortions, and a few are lobbying for legalized euthanasia.
One of the scriptural hallmarks of the general apostacy at the end times is that evil will be called good and good will be called evil. Also according to Daniel, the abomination of desolation will stop the daily sacrifice (of the mass, what other "sacrifice is left in Christianity?)
But all of us can still see the constant teachings of Christianity on moral theology, and their modern changes, because unlike these salvation theology differences, the moral theology differences are a product of our own day.
Only one Church has not apostacized on any of the moral theology teachings of Christianity.
However, all protestant denominations and independant churches have apostacized on at least one, and the vast majority on at least two or more.
We will never agree here which position, RCC versus protestant, is heretical/apostate on salvation theology, because there is no longer any objective measure, for we all disagree on the measuring units.
We can all see which position, RCC versus protestant, has objectively mainstained orthodoxy on moral theology. That is the only objective measurement I was able to apply when I left Catholicism for a short while in 1991.
For that reason, I am Roman Catholic.
And because all of protestantism has apostacized on moral theology, I cannot believe that their salvation theology is correct.
Roman Catholicism can and does defend all its positions scripturally, even if protestants disagree with that interpretation.
To an objective secular observer, neither side can win the salvation theology debate, for they are simply competing theories each with its own reasoning, proof texts, patristics, and adherents.
The same cannot be said for moral theology.
An objective secular observer can clearly see the RCC is right.
therefore the preponderance of evidence tilts towards the one Church that has not apostacized on contraception and other moral theology stands.
Rome wins by default.
Protestantism has embraced full blown apostacy on moral theology issues and thus cannot make claim to orthodoxy on salvation theology issues.
Even if it was sinful, because it was imprudent, thus causing scandal to those who misunderstood his intentions, we all know the Pope is a sinner just like you and me.
You confuse impeccability with infallibility.
When teaching on matter of Faith and Morals the Pope has the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
When meeting with Islamic leaders, to engage their cooperation in fighting the abortion and population control agenda at the UN, his actions are based on prudential judgement, and Kissing the Koran, though scandalous to some, is simply NOT a matter of a Papal teaching on Faith and Morals. It was simply a singular act, and as such does not define Catholicism, nor does it define his Papacy.
Your continual reference to this singular act reveals that you have no real answer to my basic premise.
Besides the obvious, which must be repeated!
The Pope met with Islamic leaders to save babies!
His entire thrust at interfaith dialogue was to engage the support of Islam in joining a coalition fighting a radical pro-abortion UN agenda.
Even here, the question must be addressed: Where is the protestant leadership in fighting this UN agenda?!?
The Pope takes a courageous lead and successfully forms an alliance between third world Catholic nations, third world Islamic nations, and the Vatican, and successfully DEFEATS singlehandedly a demonic population control/abortion agenda, and all you protestants can do is whine about him kissing the Koran?!?
While the titanic sinks, you folks are rearranging chairs on the deck.
The Pope is saving lives while you obsess over a singular unimportant (possibly imprudent) act!
Further proving my point:
Moral theology DOES matter.
In the end it is a reflection of the True, Real, Orthodox salvation theology of the RCC.
And your protestant moral theological apostacy is a reflection of the real failure of your sola scriptura, private interpretation of scripture Christianity.
NO!
You and I both know there is a diametrical divide!
To teach sin is good, and have your flock sin as a result, is apostacy --in the church and the flock.
To teach sin is sin, and have your flock follow the world, was the same that happened to Christ, as ever since, and was predicted to occur on a great scale in the great apostacy.
Catholicism still teaches sin is sin, even though some of her adherents prefer to have their ears tickled by a culture that started down the path to acceptance of this sin by their protestant brethren. And even though this acceptance lead directly to legalized abortion.
Actually, no, I do not believe this. I'm at least giving you the benefit of the doubt. Any observer honestly seeking the Truth, honestly reading scripture and patristics, and examining the empty claims of the reformers, shall find it not in the OP church but in the RCC.
What is amazing is your obstinate refusal to admit the error of protestantism and its result, and the implications of that error in how it relects on the underlying foundations that produced the error, namely the reformers new false gospel of rejection of the authority Christ gave His church, and embracing the private interpretation of scripture which gave us the full blown moral apostacy of protestantism (with a very few notable conservative exceptions).
The early Church only had the OT till the NT was codified. You cannot even grasp the fact that the early Church simply was not a "bible only" church but a hierarchical, sacramental, CATHOLIC Church:
Ignatius of Antioch wrote only 80 years after the resurrection of Jesus Christ, (almost the same amount of time since protestantism caved on contraception)in a letter to Christians in Smyrea:
Ignatius of Antioch:
They abstain from the Eucharist and from prayer, because they confess not the Eucharist to be the flesh of our Saviour Jesus Christ, which suffered for our sins, and which the Father, of His goodness, raised up again. Those, therefore, who speak against this gift of God, incur death in the midst of their disputes.
"Let no one do anything of concern to the Church without the bishop. Let that be considered a valid Eucharist which is celebrated by the bishop or by one whom he ordains [i.e., a PRIEST]. Wherever the bishop appears, let the people be there; just as wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. Nor is it permitted without the Bishop to baptize or celebrate the agape [Eucharist]; but whatever he approve, this too is pleasing to God, so that whatever is done will be secure and valid."
It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does[in reality] serve the devil. (Letter to the Smyrneans 8:2 [A.D. 110]).
This proves the early Church had authority, hierarchy, an institutional structure, and a sacramental system, long before the Church had a Bible. The canon of scripture was closed hundreds of years after Ignatius wrote here of the "Catholic" church and the authority of its bishops to lose and to bind.
Ignatius was himself a disciple of John the Evangelist. He received his teaching on the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, as well as the authority and hierarchy of the Catholic church, directly from John, an Apostle of Jesus.
Clearly the corporate structure of the Catholic church existed long before the New Testament was gathered together in the form in which you know it today. The celebration of the early Christians was of the agape, the Holy Eucharist. It was not one of reading and preaching on scriptures. Early Christians were sacramental Christians whose PRIMARY focus was the Real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist.
Bible only Christians would not yet exist for another 1500 years.
Sola scriptura is a laughable concept in a church that only had the OT, and in which the NT would not be codified for several hundred years. You can't argue with facts.
Private interpretation of written scriptures never occurred to early Christians. They were taught by the Apostles by word of mouth the truths contained in these two texts:
Acts 8:30-31: Philip ran up and heard him reading Isaiah the prophet and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" He replied, "How can I, unless someone instructs me?" So he invited Philip to get in and sit with him.
2 Peter 3:15-16 And count the forbearance of our Lord as salvation. So also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you according to the wisdom given him, speaking of this as he does in all his letters. There are some things in them hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other scriptures.
As usual, you think wrong.
To be Christian is to be a moral crusader at least to some degree, for to be Christian is to share the gospel, and part of sharing the gospel is sharing Godly living.
Repent and believe the Good News. Go and Sin no more. I have been called to teach part of the gospel that others reject. You dislike that part of it that I am teaching, because to acknowledge the Truth of what I'm saying is to question your world view. That you refuse to do.
Acceptance of contraception is common to both your wing of protestantism and the liberal wing.
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.