Posted on 02/06/2006 1:02:10 PM PST by NYer
It's still a jolt for some people to realize this, but the Bible did not fall down out of the sky, leather-bound and gold-monogrammed with the words of Christ in red, in 95 AD. Rather the canon of Christian Scripture slowly developed over a period of about 1500 years. That does not mean, of course, that Scripture was being written for 1500 years after the life of Christ. Rather, it means that it took the Church some fifteen centuries to formally and definitively state which books out of the great mass of early Christian and pseudo-Christian books constituted the Bible.
The process of defining the canon of Scripture is an example of what the Church calls "development of doctrine". This is a different thing than "innovation of doctrine". Doctrine develops as a baby develops into a man, not as a baby grows extra noses, eyes, and hands. An innovation of doctrine would be if the Church declared something flatly contrary to all previous teaching ("Pope John Paul Ringo I Declares the Doctrine of the Trinity to No Longer Be the Teaching of the Church: Bishop Celebrate by Playing Tiddly Winks with So-Called 'Blessed Sacrament'"). It is against such flat reversals of Christian teaching that the promise of the Spirit to guard the apostolic Tradition stands. And, in fact, there has never ever been a time when the Church has reversed its dogmatic teaching. (Prudential and disciplinary changes are another matter. The Church is not eternally wedded to, for instance, unmarried priests, as the wife of St. Peter can tell you.)
But though innovations in doctrine are not possible, developments of doctrine occur all the time and these tend to apply old teaching to new situations or to more completely articulate ancient teaching that has not been fully fleshed out. So, for example, in our own day the Church teaches against the evils of embryonic stem cell research even though the New Testament has nothing to say on the matter. Yet nobody in his five wits claims that the present Church "invented" opposition to embryonic stem cell research from thin air. We all understand that the Church, by the very nature of its Tradition, has said "You shall not kill" for 2,000 years. It merely took the folly of modern embryonic stem cell research to cause the Church to apply its Tradition to this concrete situation and declare what it has always believed.
Very well then, as with attacks on sacred human life in the 21st century, so with attacks on Sacred Tradition in the previous twenty. Jesus establishes the Tradition that he has not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets but to fulfill them (Mt 5:17). But when Tradition bumps into the theories of early Jewish Christians that all Gentiles must be circumcised in order to become Christians, the Council of Jerusalem (Acts 15) is still necessary to authoritatively flesh that Tradition out. Moreover, the Council settles the question by calling the Bible, not to the judge's bench, but to the witness stand. Scripture bears witness to the call of the Gentiles, but the final judgment depends on the authority of Christ speaking through his apostles and elders whose inspired declaration is not "The Bible says..." but "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..." (Acts 15:28).
In all this, the Church, as ever, inseparably unites Scripture as the light and Sacred Tradition as the lens through which it is focused. In this way the mustard seed of the Kingdom continues to grow in that light, getting more mustardy, not less.
How then did Tradition develop with respect to the canon of Scripture?
In some cases, the Church in both east and west has a clear memory of just who wrote a given book and could remind the faithful of this. So, for instance, when a second century heretic named Marcion proposed to delete the Old Testament as the product of an evil god and canonize the letters of Paul (but with all those nasty Old Testament quotes snipped out), and a similarly edited gospel of Luke (sanitized of contact with Judaism for your protection), the Church responded with local bishops (in areas affected by Marcion's heresy) proposing the first canons of Scripture.
Note that the Church seldom defines its teaching (and is in fact disinclined to define it) till some challenge to the Faith (in this case, Marcion) forces it to do so. When Marcion tries to take away from the Tradition of Scripture by deleting Matthew, Mark and John and other undesirable books, the Church applies the basic measuring rod of Tradition and says, "This does not agree with the Tradition that was handed down to us, which remembers that Matthew wrote Matthew, Mark wrote Mark and John wrote John.
Matthew also issued among the Hebrews a written Gospel in their own language, while Peter and Paul were evangelizing in Rome and laying the foundation of the Church. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also handed down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter. Luke also, the companion of Paul, set down in a book the Gospel preached by him. Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord who reclined at his bosom also published a Gospel, while he was residing at Ephesus in Asia. (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses, 3, 1, 1)
In other words, there is, we might say, a Standard of Roots (based on Sacred Tradition) by which the Church weighs her canon. So when various other heretics, instead of trying to subtract from the generally received collection of holy books, instead try to add the Gospel of Thomas or any one of a zillion other ersatz works to the Church's written Tradition, the Church can point to the fact that, whatever the name on the label says, the contents do not square with the Tradition of the Church, so it must be a fake. In other words, there is also a Standard of Fruits. It is this dual standard of Roots and Fruits by which the Church discerns the canon -- a dual standard which is wholly based on Sacred Tradition. The Church said, in essence, "Does the book have a widespread and ancient tradition concerning its apostolic origin and/or approval? Check. Does the book square with the Tradition we all learned from the apostles and the bishops they gave us? Check. Then it is to be used in public worship and is to be regarded as the word of God."
It was on this basis the early Church also vetoed some books and accepted others -- including the still-contested-by-some-Protestants deuterocanonical books of Tobit, Wisdom, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Sirach and Baruch as well as some pieces of Daniel and Esther. For the churches founded by the apostles could trace the use of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament in public worship (a Greek translation of the Old Testament which includes all these books) back to the apostles. In fact, many of the citations of Old Testament Scripture by the New Testament writers are, in fact, citations of the Septuagint (see, for example, Mark 7:6-7, Hebrews 10:5-7). Therefore, the Body of Christ living after the apostles simply retained the apostles' practice of using the Septuagint on the thoroughly traditional grounds, "If it's good enough for them, it's good enough for us." In contrast, the churches had no apostolic tradition handed down concerning the use of, say, the works of the Cretan poet Epimenides (whom Paul quotes in Acts 17), therefore they did not regard his works as Scripture, even though Paul quotes him. It was by their roots and fruits that the Church's books were judged, and it was by the standard of Sacred Tradition that these roots and fruits were known.
These Root and Fruit standards are even more clearly at work in the canonization of the New Testament, especially in the case of Hebrews. There was, in fact, a certain amount of controversy in the early Church over the canonicity of this book (as well as of books like 2 Peter, Jude, and Revelation). Some Fathers, especially in the west, rejected Hebrews (in no small part because of its lack of a signature). Yet the Church eventually accepted it. How? It was judged apostolic because, in the end, the Church discerned that it met the Roots and Fruits measure when stacked up against Sacred Tradition.
The Body of Christ had long believed that Hebrews said the same thing as the Church's Sacred Tradition handed down by the bishops. Thus, even Fathers (like Irenaeus) who rejected it from their canon of inspired Scripture still regarded it as a good book. That is, it had always met the Fruits standard. How then did it meet the Roots standard? In a nutshell, despite the lack of attestation in the text of Hebrews itself, there was an ancient tradition in the Church (beginning in the East, where the book was apparently first sent) that the book originated from the pen of St. Paul. That tradition, which was at first better attested in the east than in the west (instantaneous mass communication being still some years in the future) accounts for the slowness of western Fathers (such as Irenaeus) to accept the book. But the deep-rootedness of the tradition of Pauline authorship in the East eventually persuaded the whole Church. In short, as with the question of circumcision in the book of Acts, the status of Hebrews was not immediately clear even to the honest and faithful (such as Irenaeus). However, the Church in council, trusting in the guidance of Holy Spirit, eventually came to consensus and canonized the book on exactly the same basis that the Council of Jerusalem promulgated its authoritative decree: "It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us..."
Conversely, those books which the Church did not canonize as part of the New Testament were rejected because, in the end, they did not meet both the Root and Fruit standards of the Church's Sacred Tradition. Books like the Didache or the Shepherd of Hermas, while meeting the Fruit standard, were not judged to meet the Root standard since their authors were not held to be close enough to the apostolic circle -- a circle which was, in the end, drawn very narrowly by the Spirit-led Church and which therefore excluded even Clement since he, being "in the third place from the Apostles" was not as close to the apostles as Mark and Luke (who were regarded as recording the gospels of Peter and Paul, respectively). The Church, arch-conservative as ever, relied on Sacred Tradition, not to keep adding to the New Testament revelation but to keep it as lean and close to the apostles as possible. This, of course, is why books which met neither the Root nor Fruit standards of Sacred Tradition, such as the Gospel of Thomas, were rejected by the Church without hesitation as completely spurious.
Not that this took place overnight. The canon of Scripture did not assume its present shape till the end of the fourth century. It was defined at the regional Councils of Carthage and Hippo and also by Pope Damasus and included the deuterocanonical books. It is worth noting, however, that, because these decisions were regional, none of them were dogmatically binding on the whole Church, though they clearly reflected the Sacred Tradition of the Church (which is why the Vulgate or Latin Bible--which was The Bible for the Catholic Church in the West for the next 1200 years looks the same as the Catholic Bible today). Once again, we are looking at Sacred Tradition which is not fully developed until a) the Reformation tries to subtract deuterocanonical books from Scripture and b) the Council of Trent in the mid-1500s finally makes that Tradition fixed and binding. This is the origin of the myth that the Catholic Church "added" the deuterocanonical books to Scripture at Trent. It is as historically accurate as the claim that the Catholic Church "added" opposition to embryonic stem cell research to its tradition during the pontificate of Pope John Paul II.
In summary then, the early Church canonized books because they were attested by apostolic tradition. The books we have in our Bibles (and the ones we don't) were accepted or rejected according to whether they did or did not measure up to standards which were based entirely on Sacred Tradition and the divinely delegated authority of the Body of Christ.
Never mind.
"Only the Calvinist ones."
Not in my book.
Oops. Sorry.
I meant: Only the Armenian ones.
Ooops. Sorry again. I know I'll get it right this time.
Only the PetroniusMaximus ones.
{^_^}
Yes, according to the Church. It is accorded the same level as scripture.
When you attempt to do so you must contradict clear scriptures.
God is invisible; Jesus is not but is the express representation of God.
God is spirit; Jesus is a man and in the flesh.
Ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth that there is one God and one mediator between God and men the man Christ Jesus.
Anything you do to 'prove' a trinity with each party being fully God will contradict the Bible.
In that passage it CLEARLY shows that Christ, who was a huge critic of the Pharisees, nevertheless believed in submitting to authority while surpassing them in holiness. The submission to authority is the essential thing that all protestant churches have ignored. God is a God of order, not of chaos.
Give me a break! This is the best you can do? I've been pretty impressed with your posts to this point.
Have you ever been separated from a loved one? Did you have a picture? Catholics who pray at the feet of statues are not (unless they are completely ignorant) praying to the statue as an object of worship but using the statue (or picture or other...) to focus our attention on the object of our prayer.
Yes, we pray in the name of Mary and the saints. But we pray for them to hear our plea and join our prayer, just as we ask the faithful in our visible flock.
I know you said you're done here more than once but please take just one more moment to consider something.
From early in the OT (in fact, first promised to Abraham), God promised an everlasting kingship out of Israel over the whole world. Later, that kingdom is defined as on the order of King David.
When Solomon assumed the throne after David, the first things he did were to enthrone his own mother as the queen mother to hear the supplications of his people and established his ministers. If I could point you to chapter and verse, I would but I don't know them off the top of my head. What you will find, if you take the time, in the institution of the Prime Minister is nearly the exact wording Jesus said to Peter of binding and loosing and the symbol of his authority were the keys to the kingdom.
The Catholic Church is very consistent in its interpretation of Peter's office and responsibility. If Jesus is a king of the Davidic line it isn't unreasonable to see His institutional words as they were understood through Solomon's wisdom.
Likewise, although I can get pretty acerbic at times, which is not something I take pride in. It's easy to let it all hang out in a publc forum, so if I've offended you or anyone, please forgive me.
You said:
I, for one have never said the small t tradition is any issue...One has to be completely naive that not all information was given in written text...that being said, the written text IS the Word of God...in it contains the knowledge of the promise and delivery of Salvation by God and we learn how His Grace will forgive those who believe on Him etc...any oral teaching MUST match this clearly and explictly, it cannot be 'sort of' shown thru the scriptures...
Yet this is exactly what Jesus was accused of perverting when He revealed Himself to the world. The Pharisees blasted Jesus for violating and negating the Law. Jesus corrected them by stating that He wasn't abolishing the Law, but fulfilling it. Jesus actions were contradictory of what was "clear" and "explicit" in the eyes of the elite, however, the Mosaic Law and the Old Testament was overflowing with foreshadowings of Christ, though they were not "clear" and "explicit". For example:
Christ signified by water:
Numbers 20:1
"And when Moses had lifted up his hand, and struck the rock twice with the rod, there came forth water in great abundance, so that the people and their cattle drank, "
And again: Exodus 17:6
"Behold I will stand there before thee, upon the rock Horeb: and thou shalt strike the rock, and water shall come out of it that the people may drink. Moses did so before the ancients of Israel"
Christ's crucifixion and the healing of our souls:
Numbers 21:8-9
"And the Lord said to him: Make brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: whosoever being struck shall look on it, shall live.
Moses therefore made a brazen serpent, and set it up for a sign: which when they that were bitten looked upon, they were healed."
Exodus 16
Discusses at length "manna" = Jesus, the Bread of Life.
Also, the tribes of Israel encamped around the sacred tent in the shape of a cross.
The flight from Pharaoh signifies man's flight from Satan, saved by passing through the waters of the Red Sea (Baptism).
etc. etc. etc...
None of this is "explicit" of Jesus Christ to those in darkness. It wasn't indicative of Jesus Christ until Jesus Christ came and shined a light on it - for the sole reason that the Jews refused to receive the edification inherent in fidelity to God the Father. Their constant rebellion left them at the mercy of earthly foes and unable to recognize the Messiah when He came. Thus, the Pharisees did not recognize Jesus in the Mosaic Law because they did not have the grace to understand Scripture below the surface. Therefore, when Jesus claimed to be the Bread of Life, the faithful Jew recognized Him as the merciful God presented to the Hebrews in the desert. The "political" Jews and those left ignorant by their malfeasance (as "bad" shepherds, if you will) could not bear the teaching of the Eucharist because they could not understand beyond what was "explicit".
So, the insistence that any oral teaching "must match this clearly" is more than reminiscent of the attack of the Pharisees on Jesus, who revealed what was hidden in plain sight in the Old Testament, and contrary to their belief.
So, big T tradition, as you call it, only continues to reveal what is already "hidden in plain site" in Scripture. If you reject this practice, then you MUST reject the doctrine of the Trinity, because there is no "explicit" mention of a triune God anywhere in the Bible. Like the Immaculate Conception it was drawn out through many years of exegesis. The Immaculate Conception was pondered for hundreds upon hundreds of years before being declared dogma. It wasn't suddenly "invented" any more than the Trinity.
it cannot be 'sort of' shown thru the scriptures...
How is that quantified? Is it like being "sort of pregnant"? It either IS or ISN'T in Scripture. If it's "sort of" in Scripture then it IS in Scripture. What is important is that it supports God's plan of salvation for the world and does not contradict it. God's plan of salvation encompasses both the Bible and the Church. If it was just "the Bible", there would be no need for a "Church" (of any denomination) and Paul, himself, would be an impossible heretic for helping to establish churches.
This is silly. If you spend more time on the Internet than worshipping God, does it mean you love the Internet more than you love God (smacks of idol worship to me...)
Ok. Did Jesus serve the Apostles His Body and His Blood at the last supper and tell them to do as He did?
I guess I don't understand. Why is Mary used in intercession? Below is Jesus Himself on the topic.
Mat 12:46 While he yet talked to the people, behold, [his] mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him.
Mat 12:47 Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee.
Mat 12:48 But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren?
Mat 12:49 And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mat 12:50 For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.
Mar 3:32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.
Mar 3:33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren?
Mar 3:34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren!
Mar 3:35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.
He' not Jewish, he's a messianic gentile. But I still wonder, if he were Jewish, what king of slur is this?
"Ok. Did Jesus serve the Apostles His Body and His Blood at the last supper and tell them to do as He did?"
Answer me this first,
Is Jesus made of wood?
Does Jesus have leaves?
Not so.
Isaiah 48:
12"Listen to Me, O Jacob, even Israel whom I called;
I am He, I am the first, I am also the last.
13"Surely My hand founded the earth,
And My right hand spread out the heavens;
When I call to them, they stand together.
14"Assemble, all of you, and listen!
Who among them has declared these things?
The LORD loves him; he will carry out His good pleasure on Babylon,
And His arm will be against the Chaldeans.
15"I, even I, have spoken; indeed I have called him,
I have brought him, and He will make his ways successful.
16"Come near to Me, listen to this:
From the first I have not spoken in secret,
From the time it took place, I was there
And now the Lord GOD has sent Me, and His Spirit."
Even in Isaiah of the OT, you can find the Trinity, though not understood by Israel at the time. In the passage above, the speaker identifies Himself clearly as God Himself. He then goes on to say that God sent Him and His Spirit.
Kinda like to know what this was all about?
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.