[PleaseReadBeforeJudging] Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Bouyer on Reformation

Catholic Dossier/ CERC ^ | MARK BRUMLEY

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation    MARK BRUMLEY

---

ABSTRACT: Louis Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them.

---

Martin Luther

Interpreting the Reformation is complicated business. But like many complicated things, it can be simplified sufficiently well that even non-experts can get the gist of it. Here's what seems a fairly accurate but simplified summary of the issue: The break between Catholics and Protestants was either a tragic necessity (to use Jaroslav Pelikan's expression) or it was tragic because unnecessary.

Many Protestants see the Catholic/Protestant split as a tragic necessity, although the staunchly anti-Catholic kind of Protestant often sees nothing tragic about it. Or if he does, the tragedy is that there ever was such a thing as the Roman Catholic Church that the Reformers had to separate from. His motto is "Come out from among them" and five centuries of Christian disunity has done nothing to cool his anti-Roman fervor.

Yet for most Protestants, even for most conservative Protestants, this is not so. They believe God "raised up" Luther and the other Reformers to restore the Gospel in its purity. They regret that this required a break with Roman Catholics (hence the tragedy) but fidelity to Christ, on their view, demanded it (hence the necessity).

Catholics agree with their more agreeable Protestant brethren that the sixteenth century division among Christians was tragic. But most Catholics who think about it also see it as unnecessary. At least unnecessary in the sense that what Catholics might regard as genuine issues raised by the Reformers could, on the Catholic view, have been addressed without the tragedy of dividing Christendom.

Yet we can go further than decrying the Reformation as unnecessary. In his ground-breaking work, The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, Louis Bouyer argued that the Catholic Church herself is necessary for the full flowering of the Reformation principles. In other words, you need Catholicism to make Protestantism work - for Protestantism's principles fully to develop. Thus, the Reformation was not only unnecessary; it was impossible. What the Reformers sought, argues Bouyer, could not be achieved without the Catholic Church.

From Bouyer's conclusion we can infer at least two things. First, Protestantism can't be all wrong, otherwise how could the Catholic Church bring about the "full flowering of the principles of the Reformation"? Second, left to itself, Protestantism will go astray and be untrue to some of its central principles. It's these two points, as Bouyer articulates them, I would like to consider here. One thing should be said up-front: although a convert from French Protestantism, Bouyer is no anti-Protestant polemicist. His Spirit and Forms of Protestantism was written a half-century ago, a decade before Vatican II's decree on ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio, yet it avoids the bitter anti-Protestantism that sometimes afflicted pre-conciliar Catholic works on Protestantism. That's one reason the book remains useful, even after decades of post-conciliar ecumenism.

In that regard, Bouyer's brief introduction is worth quoting in full:

This book is a personal witness, a plain account of the way in which a Protestant came to feel himself obliged in conscience to give his adherence to the Catholic Church. No sentiment of revulsion turned him from the religion fostered in him by a Protestant upbringing followed by several years in the ministry. The fact is, he has never rejected it. It was his desire to explore its depths, its full scope, that led him, step by step, to a genuinely spiritual movement stemming from the teachings of the Gospel, and Protestantism as an institution, or rather complexus of institutions, hostile to one another as well as to the Catholic Church. The study of this conflict brought him to detect the fatal error which drove the spiritual movement of Protestantism out of the one Church. He saw the necessity of returning to that Church, not in order to reject any of the positive Christian elements of his religious life, but to enable them, at last, to develop without hindrance.

The writer, who carved out his way step by step, or rather, saw it opening before his eyes, hopes now to help along those who are still where he started. In addition, he would like to show those he has rejoined how a little more understanding of the others, above all a greater fidelity to their own gift, could help their 'separated brethren' to receive it in their turn. In this hope he offers his book to all who wish to be faithful to the truth, first, to the Word of God, but also to the truth of men as they are, not as our prejudices and habits impel us to see them.

Bouyer, then, addresses both Protestants and Catholics. To the Protestants, he says, in effect, "It is fidelity to our Protestant principles, properly understood, that has led me into the Catholic Church." To the Catholics, he says, "Protestantism isn't as antithetical to the Catholic Faith as you suppose. It has positive principles, as well as negative ones. Its positive principles, properly understood, belong to the Catholic Tradition, which we Catholics can see if we approach Protestantism with a bit of understanding and openness."

The Reformation was Right

Bouyer's argument is that the Reformation's main principle was essentially Catholic: "Luther's basic intuition, on which Protestantism continuously draws for its abiding vitality, so far from being hard to reconcile with Catholic tradition, or inconsistent with the teaching of the Apostles, was a return to the clearest elements of their teaching, and in the most direct line of that tradition."

1. Sola Gratia. What was the Reformation's main principle? Not, as many Catholics and even some Protestants think, "private judgment" in religion. According to Bouyer, "the true fundamental principle of Protestantism is the gratuitousness of salvation" - sola gratia. He writes, "In the view of Luther, as well as of all those faithful to his essential teaching, man without grace can, strictly speaking, do nothing of the slightest value for salvation. He can neither dispose himself for it, nor work for it in any independent fashion. Even his acceptance of grace is the work of grace. To Luther and his authentic followers, justifying faith . . . is quite certainly, the first and most fundamental grace."

Bouyer then shows how, contrary to what many Protestants and some Catholics think, salvation sola gratia is also Catholic teaching. He underscores the point to any Catholics who might think otherwise:

"If, then, any Catholic - and there would seem to be many such these days - whose first impulse is to reject the idea that man, without grace, can do nothing towards his salvation, that he cannot even accept the grace offered except by a previous grace, that the very faith which acknowledges the need of grace is a purely gratuitous gift, he would do well to attend closely to the texts we are about to quote."

In other words, "Listen up, Catholics!"

Bouyer quotes, at length, from the Second Council of Orange (529), the teaching of which was confirmed by Pope Boniface II as de fide or part of the Church's faith. The Council asserted that salvation is the work of God's grace and that even the beginning of faith or the consent to saving grace is itself the result of grace. By our natural powers, we can neither think as we ought nor choose any good pertaining to salvation. We can only do so by the illumination and impulse of the Holy Spirit.

Nor is it merely that man is limited in doing good. The Council affirmed that, as a result of the Fall, man is inclined to will evil. His freedom is gravely impaired and can only be repaired by God's grace. Following a number of biblical quotations, the Council states, "[W]e are obliged, in the mercy of God, to preach and believe that, through sin of the first man, the free will is so weakened and warped, that no one thereafter can either love God as he ought, or believe in God, or do good for the sake of God, unless moved, previously, by the grace of the divine mercy . . . . Our salvation requires that we assert and believe that, in every good work we do, it is not we who have the initiative, aided, subsequently, by the mercy of God, but that he begins by inspiring faith and love towards him, without any prior merit of ours."

The Council of Trent, writes Bouyer, repeated that teaching, ruling out "a parallel action on the part of God and man, a sort of 'synergism', where man contributes, in the work of salvation, something, however slight, independent of grace." Even where Trent insists that man is not saved passively, notes Bouyer, it doesn't assert some independent, human contribution to salvation. Man freely cooperates in salvation, but his free cooperation is itself the result of grace. Precisely how this is so is mysterious, and the Church has not settled on a particular theological explanation. But that it is so, insist Bouyer, is Catholic teaching. Thus, concludes Bouyer, "the Catholic not only may, but must in virtue of his own faith, give a full and unreserved adherence to the sola gratia, understood in the positive sense we have seen upheld by Protestants."

2. Sola Fide. So much for sola gratia. But what about the other half of the Reformation principle regarding salvation, the claim that justification by grace comes through faith alone (sola fide) ?

According to Bouyer, the main thrust of the doctrine of sola fide was to affirm that justification was wholly the work of God and to deny any positive human contribution apart from grace. Faith was understood as man's grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-completed response to God's saving initiative in Jesus Christ. What the Reformation initially sought to affirm, says Bouyer, was that such a response is purely God's gift to man, with man contributing nothing of his own to receive salvation.

In other words, it isn't as if God does his part and man cooperates by doing his part, even if that part is minuscule. The Reformation insisted that God does his part, which includes enabling and moving man to receive salvation in Christ. Man's "part" is to believe, properly understood, but faith too is the work of God, so man contributes nothing positively of his own. As Bouyer points out, this central concern of the Reformation also happened to be defined Catholic teaching, reaffirmed by the Council of Trent.

In a sense, the Reformation debate was over the nature of saving faith, not over whether faith saves. St. Thomas Aquinas, following St. Augustine and the patristic understanding of faith and salvation, said that saving faith was faith "formed by charity." In other words, saving faith involves at least the beginnings of the love of God. In this way, Catholics could speak of "justification by grace alone, through faith alone," if the "alone" was meant to distinguish the gift of God (faith) from any purely human contribution apart from grace; but not if "alone" was meant to offset faith from grace-enabled, grace-inspired, grace-accomplished love of God or charity.

For Catholic theologians of the time, the term "faith" was generally used in the highly refined sense of the gracious work of God in us by which we assent to God's Word on the authority of God who reveals. In this sense, faith is distinct from entrusting oneself to God in hope and love, though obviously faith is, in a way, naturally ordered to doing so: God gives man faith so that man can entrust himself to God in hope and love. But faith, understood as mere assent (albeit graced assent), is only the beginning of salvation. It needs to be "informed" or completed by charity, also the work of grace.

Luther and his followers, though, rejected the Catholic view that "saving faith" was "faith formed by charity" and therefore not "faith alone", where "faith" is understood as mere assent to God's Word, apart from trust and love. In large part, this was due to a misunderstanding by Luther. "We must not be misled on this point," writes Bouyer, "by Luther's later assertions opposed to the fides caritate formata [faith informed by charity]. His object in disowning this formula was to reject the idea that faith justified man only if there were added to it a love proceeding from a natural disposition, not coming as a gift of God, the whole being the gift of God." Yet Luther's view of faith, contents Bouyer, seems to imply an element of love, at least in the sense of a total self-commitment to God. And, of course, this love must be both the response to God's loving initiative and the effect of that initiative by which man is enabled and moved to respond. But once again, this is Catholic doctrine, for the charity that "informs" faith so that it becomes saving faith is not a natural disposition, but is as much the work of God as the assent of faith.

Thus, Bouyer's point is that the doctrine of justification by faith alone (sola fide) was initially seen by the Reformers as a way of upholding justification by grace alone (sola gratia), which is also a fundamental Catholic truth. Only later, as a result of controversy, did the Reformers insist on identifying justification by faith alone with a negative principle that denied any form of cooperation, even grace-enabled cooperation.

3. Sola Scriptura. Melanchthon, the colleague of Luther, called justification sola gratia, sola fide the "Material Principle" of the Reformation. But there was also the Formal Principle, the doctrine of sola Scriptura or what Bouyer calls the sovereign authority of Scripture. What of that?

Here, too, says Bouyer, the Reformation's core positive principle is correct. The Word of God, rather than a human word, must govern the life of the Christian and of the Church. And the Word of God is found in a unique and supreme form in the Bible, the inspired Word of God. The inspiration of the Bible means that God is the primary author of Scripture. Since we can say that about no other writing or formal expression of the Church's Faith, not even conciliar or papal definitions of faith, the Bible alone is the Word of God in this sense and therefore it possesses a unique authority.

Yet the supremacy of the Bible does not imply an opposition between it and the authority of the Church or Tradition, as certain negative principles adopted by the Reformers implied. Furthermore, the biblical spirituality of Protestantism, properly understood, is in keeping with the best traditions of Catholic spirituality, especially those of the Fathers and the great medieval theologians. Through Scripture, God speaks to us today, offering a living Word to guide our lives in Christ.

Thus, writes Bouyer, "the supreme authority of Scripture, taken in its positive sense, as gradually drawn out and systematized by Protestants themselves, far from setting the Church and Protestantism in opposition, should be the best possible warrant for their return to understanding and unity."

The Reformation was Wrong

Where does this leave us? If the Reformation was right about sola gratia and sola Scriptura, its two key principles, how was it wrong? Bouyer holds that only the positive elements of these Reformation principles are correct.

Unfortunately, these principles were unnecessarily linked by the Reformers to certain negative elements, which the Catholic Church had to reject. Here we consider two of those elements: 1) the doctrine of extrinsic justification and the nature of justifying faith and 2) the authority of the Bible.

1. Extrinsic Justification. Regarding justification by grace alone, it was the doctrine of extrinsic justification and the rejection of the Catholic view of faith formed by charity as "saving faith." Bouyer writes, "The further Luther advanced in his conflict with other theologians, then with Rome, then with the whole of contemporary Catholicism and finally with the Catholicism of every age, the more closely we see him identifying affirmation about sola gratia with a particular theory, known as extrinsic justification."

Extrinsic justification is the idea that justification occurs outside of man, rather than within him. Catholicism, as we have seen, holds that justification is by grace alone. In that sense, it originates outside of man, with God's grace. But, according to Catholic teaching, God justifies man by effecting a change within him, by making him just or righteous, not merely by saying he is just or righteous or treating him as if he were. Justification imparts the righteousness of Christ to man, transforming him by grace into a child of God.

The Reformation view was different. The Reformers, like the Catholic Church, insisted that justification is by grace and therefore originates outside of man, with God. But they also insisted that when God justifies man, man is not changed but merely declared just or righteous. God treats man as if he were just or righteous, imputing to man the righteousness of Christ, rather than imparting it to him.

The Reformers held this view for two reasons. First, because they came to think it necessary in order to uphold the gratuitousness of justification. Second, because they thought the Bible taught it. On both points, argues Bouyer, the Reformers were mistaken. There is neither a logical nor a biblical reason why God cannot effect a change in man without undercutting justification by grace alone. Whatever righteousness comes to be in man as a result of justification is a gift, as much any other gift God bestows on man. Nor does the Bible's treatment of "imputed" righteousness imply that justification is not imparted. On these points, the Reformers were simply wrong:

"Without the least doubt, grace, for St. Paul, however freely given, involves what he calls 'the new creation', the appearance in us of a 'new man', created in justice and holiness. So far from suppressing the efforts of man, or making them a matter of indifference, or at least irrelevant to salvation, he himself tells us to 'work out your salvation with fear and trembling', at the very moment when he affirms that '. . . knowing that it is God who works in you both to will and to accomplish.' These two expressions say better than any other that all is grace in our salvation, but at the same time grace is not opposed to human acts and endeavor in order to attain salvation, but arouses them and exacts their performance."

Calvin, notes Bouyer, tried to circumvent the biblical problems of the extrinsic justification theory by positing a systematic distinction between justification, which puts us in right relation to God but which, on the Protestant view, doesn't involve a change in man; and sanctification, which transforms us. Yet, argues Bouyer, this systematic distinction isn't biblical. In the Bible, justification and sanctification - as many modern Protestant exegetes admit - are two different terms for the same process. Both occur by grace through faith and both involve a faith "informed by charity" or completed by love. As Bouyer contends, faith in the Pauline sense, "supposes the total abandonment of man to the gift of God" - which amounts to love of God. He argues that it is absurd to think that the man justified by faith, who calls God "Abba, Father," doesn't love God or doesn't have to love him in order to be justified.

2. Sola Scriptura vs. Church and Tradition. Bouyer also sees a negative principle that the Reformation unnecessarily associated with sola Scriptura or the sovereignty of the Bible. Yes, the Bible alone is the Word of God in the sense that only the Bible is divinely inspired. And yes the Bible's authority is supreme in the sense that neither the Church nor the Church's Tradition "trumps" Scripture. But that doesn't mean that the Word of God in an authoritative form is found only in the Bible, for the Word of God can be communicated in a non-inspired, yet authoritative form as well. Nor does it mean that there can be no authoritative interpreter of the Bible (the Magisterium) or authoritative interpretation of biblical doctrine (Tradition). Repudiation of the Church's authority and Tradition simply doesn't follow from the premise of Scripture's supremacy as the inspired Word of God. Furthermore, the Tradition and authority of the Church are required to determine the canon of the Bible.

Luther and Calvin did not follow the Radical Reformation in rejecting any role for Church authority or Tradition altogether. But they radically truncated such a role. Furthermore, they provided no means by which the Church, as a community of believers, could determine when the Bible was being authentically interpreted or who within the community had the right to make such a determination for the community. In this way, they ultimately undercut the supremacy of the Bible, for they provided no means by which the supreme authority of the Bible could, in fact, be exercised in the Church as a whole. The Bible's authority extended only so far as the individual believer's interpretation of it allowed.

The Catholic Church and Reformation Principles

As we have seen, Bouyer argues for the Reformation's "positive principles" and against its "negative principles." But how did what was right from one point of view in the Reformation go so wrong from another point of view? Bouyer argues that the under the influence of decadent scholasticism, mainly Nominalism, the Reformers unnecessarily inserted the negative elements into their ideas along with the positive principles. "Brought up on these lines of thought, identified with them so closely they could not see beyond them," he writes, "the Reformers could only systematize their very valuable insights in a vitiated framework."

The irony is profound. The Reformation sought to recover "genuine Christianity" by hacking through what it regarded as the vast overgrowth of medieval theology. Yet to do so, the Reformers wielded swords forged in the fires of the worst of medieval theology - the decadent scholasticism of Nominalism.

The negative principles of the Reformation necessarily led the Catholic Church to reject the movement - though not, in fact, its fundamental positive principles, which were essentially Catholic. Eventually, argues Bouyer, through a complex historical process, these negative elements ate away at the positive principles as well. The result was liberal Protestantism, which wound up affirming the very things Protestantism set out to deny (man's ability to save himself) and denying things Protestantism began by affirming (sola gratia).

Bouyer contends that the only way to safeguard the positive principles of the Reformation is through the Catholic Church. For only in the Catholic Church are the positive principles the Reformation affirmed found without the negative elements the Reformers mistakenly affixed to them. But how to bring this about?

Bouyer says that both Protestants and Catholics have responsibilities here. Protestants must investigate their roots and consider whether the negative elements of the Reformation, such as extrinsic justification and the rejection of a definitive Church teaching authority and Tradition, are necessary to uphold the positive principles of sola gratia and the supremacy of Scripture. If not, then how is continued separation from the Catholic Church justified? Furthermore, if, as Bouyer contends, the negative elements of the Reformation were drawn from a decadent theology and philosophy of the Middle Ages and not Christian antiquity, then it is the Catholic Church that has upheld the true faith and has maintained a balance regarding the positive principles of the Reformation that Protestantism lacks. In this way, the Catholic Church is needed for Protestantism to live up to its own positive principles.

Catholics have responsibilities as well. One major responsibility is to be sure they have fully embraced their own Church's teaching on the gratuitousness of salvation and the supremacy of the Bible. As Bouyer writes, "Catholics are in fact too prone to forget that, if the Church bears within herself, and cannot ever lose, the fullness of Gospel truth, its members, at any given time and place, are always in need of a renewed effort to apprehend this truth really and not just, as Newman would say, 'notionally'." "To Catholics, lukewarm and unaware of their responsibilities," he adds, the Reformation, properly understood, "recalls the existence of many of their own treasures which they overlook."

Only if Catholics are fully Catholic - which includes fully embracing the positive principles of the Reformation that Bouyer insists are essentially Catholic - can they "legitimately aspire to show and prepare their separated brethren the way to a return which would be for them not a denial but a fulfillment."

Today, as in the sixteenth century, the burden rests with us Catholics. We must live, by God's abundant grace, up to our high calling in Christ Jesus. And in this way, show our Protestant brethren that their own positive principles are properly expressed only in the Catholic Church.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Mark Brumley. "Why Only Catholicism Can Make Protestantism Work: Louis Bouyer on the Reformation." Catholic Dossier 7 no. 5 (September-October 2001): 30-35.

This article is reprinted with permission from Catholic Dossier. To subscribe to Catholic Dossier call 1-800-651-1531.

THE AUTHOR

Mark Brumley is managing editor of Catholic Dossier. A convert from Evangelical Protestantism, he was greatly influenced by Bouyer's book The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, when he first read it over twenty years ago. Recently, Scepter Books has republished The Spirit and Forms of Protestantism, which can be obtained online at www.scepterpub.org or by calling 1-800-322-8773.

Copyright © 2001 Catholic Dossier

[Brian Kopp DPM]

your tacit admission that Rome's teachings concerning Mary are scripturally unfounded

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.

[George W. Bush]

Hmmm, using this disingenuous criteria, the Trinity as you and I understand today is also a myth created later on by the Church.

For that matter, so is the canon of scripture. Doesn't cut it, GW.

So, once again, you are left with your manmade religion, a manmade Trinity, a manmade canon of scripture, a manmade (bad pun) perpetual virginity, etc.

Your beliefs have no foundation or mooring outside your belief in a line of popes, culminating in a pope who kisses the Koran, the "holy book" that denies the crucifixion and whose adherents martyr Christians in large numbers. Now. Today. All around the world.

Protestants deny such religion can be the true religion of Christ. We maintain that Christianity is a supernatural religion, not a manmade religion. The Church of Christ was not established and is not maintained by the acts of men but by the supernatural power of Christ himself.

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.

It is patent nonsense to pretend that the doctrine of the Trinity so clearly taught throughout the New Testament is in any way comparable with the Roman fantasies about Mary's life and role as Co-Redemptrix. Your views are actually even more shocking and unorthodox than I had had previously thought.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

It is patent nonsense to pretend that the doctrine of the Trinity so clearly taught throughout the New Testament

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.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Christ gave Peter and the Church the authority to teach and interpret.

ST. PETER IN THE NEW TESTAMENT

By Steve Ray
An article in the soon to be published "Catholic Dictionary of Apologetics and Evangelism" by Ignatius Press

From the obscure fishing village of Capernaum on the shores of Galilee, Simon son of John rose to great prominence in the early Church. When choosing Simon as a disciple, Jesus informed him that his name would be changed to Cephas (Rock) (Jn 1:42). From his simple beginning as a fisherman, Simon Peter's life ended in a glorious martyrdom in the Imperial City of Rome.

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.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

From The Fruits of Private Interpretation

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.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

The Church of Christ was not established and is not maintained by the acts of men but by the supernatural power of Christ himself.

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.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

We can argue interpretation of scripture on issues like salvation and justification, or even the proper role of Mary or the Pope, till we're blue in the face.

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...

[Brian Kopp DPM]

There is no end to this morass.

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?)

[Brian Kopp DPM]

None of us today can agree on salvation theology.

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.

[RnMomof7]

I am not going to respond to this post..as per your freep mail to me..

[George W. Bush]

It was not about the sola's, it was not about predestination, it was about authority.

Contrary to fantasies Rome presents as the history of the period, it was the rampant corruption of Rome which arose from the basic theological errors which the Reformers so cogently described.

The Reformers called upon the corrupt hierarchy of Rome to reform. They refused. The Reformers held to biblical principles and separated.

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.

You are absolutely fixated upon this subject. I have begun to suspect that you consider contraception to be far worse than abortion. Very few would agree with that. And you might encourage your infallible teacher in Rome to concentrate his attention on his own flock. Adherents of Rome use just as much contraception and get just as many abortions as Protestants and others do. So don't think you have some moral high ground to stand upon here.

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.

I will sidestep the usual ripostes. They do get tiresome. I personally oppose all the above except for contraception. I find that the RC teaching on contraception is not absolutely compelling because it does still allow family planning. The principle is still there. I find no difference between assiduously and perfectly practicing the rhythm method and a man getting a vasectomy. I can't convince myself that God would distinguish between the two. Frankly, the RC reasoning and writing on the subject is almost as strange as their instructions to women on how to receive the semen of a rapist.

Catholicism is the only Christian Church that has not caved on one single moral theology position.

Oh, right. And kissing the Koran which denies our Lord's resurrection is just fine?

I know what the ancient church laid down their lives for. Do you? What good does it do to pray for the intercession of saints when your church leadership repudiates the very actions they took to establish the church of Christ in defiance of ancient Rome?

[George W. Bush]

There is no end to this morass.

Unless...

we examine that which ALL Christians agreed upon until most recently, namely moral theology.

The most fundamental issues are not what you call the moral theology issues.

What part of "Thou shalt have no other god before me?" do you and your pope fail to grasp?

Kissing a Koran is not the act of any Christian in the ancient or modern church. Martyrs then and martyrs today testify of their faith in Christ by believing to the death in Him. Your pope has stepped outside this tradition of Christendom.

How many RC priests and nuns and lay people were martyred today by Islam? How many Protestants and evangelicals?

It's your pope that needs some basic instruction in the Ten Commandments. When he's mastered those, then we can talk moral theology.

[George W. Bush]

Roman Catholicism can and does defend all its positions scripturally, even if protestants disagree with that interpretation.

Sorry. You can't sell this to anyone who has actually seen what RCs do with even simple scripture readings. It's a little embarassing to see it actually. It's nice that the laity actually have started to study the Bible in the last century though now that they are permitted and even encouraged to do so. There are, of course, still far too many Jesuit authors in Catholic education. As OPie has pointed out, the Thomists are preferable. But never preferable to the Bible itself.

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.

You actually consider this a serious argument. I can tell. Amazing.

The same cannot be said for moral theology. An objective secular observer can clearly see the RCC is right.

You are undoubtedly 100% correct.

Unfortunately for you and for Rome, God is not an objective secular observer.

But you just keep angling to please those secular observers of religion, a sure guide to practice of the true Christian faith. I'll stumble along my pathetic way with such light as is given me by the Word of God, that which was the blessing and guide of the ancient church just as it is today to the modern faithful Remnant of Christ.

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.

I'm really glad you're a doctor and not a lawyer. You'd go broke as a lawyer. Or a theologian. FRegards, proud.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Kissing the Koran may have been an imprudent act in the effort at interfaith dialogue, but you know as well as I that its significance means far less that what you would hope it means.

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.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

Adherents of Rome use just as much contraception and get just as many abortions as Protestants and others do. So don't think you have some moral high ground to stand upon here.

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.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

You actually consider this a serious argument. I can tell. Amazing.

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).

[George W. Bush]

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.

Yes, it did.

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.

No, it wasn't. He wanted to kiss that Koran or he wouldn't have done it. Do you seriously expect anyone to think that human rights abusers like the Muslim governments (except possibly Turkey) have any credibility on these moral and human rights issues? Even before 9/11? Don't make me laugh. This is merely a clumsy redirection on your part.

The Pope is saving lives while you obsess over a singular unimportant (possibly imprudent) act!

He did not save any lives. He kissed a Koran. Period.

Further proving my point: Moral theology DOES matter.

Of course. And once you provide instruction to your pope on the proper and exceptionless observation of the Ten Commandments, we can proceed to moral theology.

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.

Yawn... Same old, same old. It seems to me that you have a manmade religion, not the supernatural faith of Christ. I think that you are a moral crusader more than you are a Christian. I think this is very prevalent in both the contemporary Roman churches and the liberal Protestant churches.

[George W. Bush]

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.

Oh! So, it's us nasty Protestants that make those otherwise virtuous RCs get abortions and use birth control?

Just come right out and say it. Then we can put you in the same column as Jesse Jackson and the racebaiters that try to convince everyone that modern whites are to blame for slavery in America even if many of us didn't even have ancestors in the country at the time.

This argument is really laughable. The real crux of the matter is whether contraception is sinful or not. Not who started it generations ago before we were born. If it was sinful then, it is sinful now. But you simply need to hang a Condom Of Shame around the neck of all Protestants.

[RnMom, I don't have any Protestant Condoms Of Shame. Do you know where I can get them at a bulk rate? Yeah, right. Like I'd ever use any even if I had a supply. But I thought I could wear them for everyday use so I can be a pr-r-r-r-roper Pr-r-r-r-rotestant.]

[Brian Kopp DPM]

that which was the blessing and guide of the ancient church just as it is today to the modern faithful Remnant of Christ.

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.

[Brian Kopp DPM]

I think that you are a moral crusader more than you are a Christian. I think this is very prevalent in both the contemporary Roman churches and the liberal Protestant churches.

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.