Posted on 02/08/2006 1:14:31 PM PST by jecIIny
“He who grounds his faith on Scripture only has no faith”
The faith existing in the Church, from the beginning throughout all ages, is the infallible standard to determine the true sense of Scripture: and accordingly, it is certain, beyond the shadow of doubt, that the Redeemer is God, and hath filled us even with divine power. In fact, he who grounds his faith on Scripture only, that is, on the result of his exegetical studies, has no faith, can have none, and understands not its very nature. Must he not be always ready to receive better information; must he not admit the possibility, that by nature study of Scripture another result may be obtained, than that which has already been arrived at? The thought of this possibility precludes the establishment of any decided, perfectly undoubting, and unshaken faith, which, after all, is alone deserving of the name. He who says, ‘this is my faith,’ hath no faith. Faith, unity of faith, universality of faith, are one and the same; they are but different expressions of the same notion. He who, if even he should not believe the truth, yet believes truly, believes at the same time that he holds fast the doctrine of Christ, that he shares the faith with the Apostles, and with the Church founded by the Redeemer, that there is but one faith in all ages, and one only true one. This faith is alone rational, and alone worthy of man: every other should be called a mere opinion, and, in a practical point of view, is an utter impotency.
Ages passed by, and with them the ancient sects: new times arose, bringing along with them new schisms in the Church. The formal principles of all these productions of egotism were the same; all asserted that Holy Writ, abstracted from Tradition and from the Church, is at once the sole source of religious truth, and the sole standard of its knowledge for the individual. This formal principle, common to all parties separated from the Church;—to the Gnostic of the second century, and the Albigensian and Vaudois of the twelfth, to the Sabellian of the third, the Arian of the fourth, and the Nestorian of the fifth century—this principle, we say, led to the most contradictory belief. What indeed can be more opposite to each other, than Gnosticism and Pelagianism, than Sabellianism and Arianism? The very circumstance, indeed, that one and the same formal principle can be applied to every possible mode of belief; and rather that this belief, however contradictory it may be in itself, can sill make use of that formal principle, should alone convince everyone, that grievous errors must here lie concealed, and that between the individual and the Bible a mediating principle is wanting.
What is indeed more striking than the fact, that every later religious sect doth not deny that the Catholic Church, in respect to the parties that had previously seceded from her, has in substance right on her side, and even recognizes in these cases her dogmatic decisions; while on the other hand, it disputes her formal principles? Would this ecclesiastical doctrine, so formed and so approved of, have been possible, without the peculiar view of the Church entertained of herself? Doth not the one determine the other? With joy the Arian recognises what has decided by the Church against the Gnostics; but he does not keep in view the manner in which she proceeded against them; and he will not consider that those dogmas on which he agrees with the Church, she would not have saved and handed down to his time, had she acted according to those formal principles which he requires of her, and on which he stands. The Pelagian and the Nestorian embrace also, with the most undoubted faith, the decisions of the Church against the Arians. But as soon as the turn comes to either, he becomes as it were stupified, and is inconsiderate enough to desire the matter of Christian doctrine without the appropriate ecclesiastical form—without that form, consequently, by the very neglect whereof those parties, to which he is most heartily opposed, have fallen on the adoption of their articles of belief. It was the same with Luther and Calvin. The pure Christian dogmas, in opposition to the errors of the Gnostics, Paulicians, Arians, Pelagians, Nestorians, Monophysites and others, they received with the most praiseworthy firmness and fervency of faith. But, when they took a fancy to deliver their theses on the relations between faith and works, between free-will and grace, or however else they may be called, they trod (as to form) quite in the footsteps of those whom they execrated….
This accordingly is the doctrine of Catholics. Thou wilt obtain the knowledge full and entire of the Christian religion only in connection with its essential form, which is the Church. Look at the Scripture in an ecclesiastical spirit, and it will present thee an image perfectly resembling the Church. Contemplate Christ in, and with his creation—the Church—the only adequate authority—the only authority representing him, and thou wilt then stamp his image on thy soul….
[The Catholic] is freely convinced, that the Church is a divine institution, upheld by supernal aid, ‘which leads her into all truth;’ that, consequently, no doctrine rejected by her is contained in Scripture; that with the latter, on the contrary, her dogmas perfectly coincide, though many particulars may not be verbally set forth in Holy Writ. Accordingly he has the conviction, that the Scripture, for example doth not teach that Christ is a mere man; nay, he is certain that it represents him also as God. Inasmuch as he professes this belief, he is not free to profess the contrary, for he would contradict himself; in the same way as a man, who has resolved to remain chaste, cannot be unchaste, without violating his resolution. To this restriction, which everyone most probably will consider rational, the Catholic Church subjects her members, and consequently, also, the learned exegetists of Scripture. A Church which would authorize anyone to find what he pleased in Scripture, and without any foundation to declare it as unecclesiastical, such a Church would thereby declare, that it believed in nothing, and was devoid of all doctrines; for the mere possession of the Bible no more constitutes a Church, than the possession of the faculty of reason renders anyone really rational. Such a Church would in fact, as a moral entity, exhibit the contradiction just adverted to, which a physical being could not be guilty of. The individual cannot at one and the same time believe, and not believe, a particular point of doctrine. But if a Church, which consists of a union of many individuals, permitted every member, as such, to receive or to reject at his pleasure, any article of faith, it would fall into this very contradiction, and would be a monster of unbelief, indifferent to the most opposite doctrines, which we might indeed, on our behalf, honour with the finest epithets, but certainly not denominate a Church. The Church must train up souls for the kingdom of God, which is founded on definite facts and truths, that are eternally unchangeable; and so a Church, that knows no such immutable dogmas, is like to a teacher, that knows not what he should teach. The Church has to stamp the image of Christ on humanity; but Christ is not sometimes this, and sometimes that, but eternally the same. She has to breathe into the hearts of men the word of God, that came down from heaven: but this word is no vague, empty sound, wherof we can make what we will.
Johann Adam Möhler
"I will cry unto God most high; unto God that performeth all things for me." -- Psalm 57:2
The acceptance or rejection by God did not focus on the man...It focuses on the man's sacrifice. Now being our best is as filthy rags, we cannot offer anything God would accept. The innocent lamb Abel sacrificed was a type of Christ because it was the shedding of blood of the innocents. So you see, we have to accept Christ and His Sacrifice. Everything else is dead that is produced or reproduce by man. These other things we reproduce by our own hand is an Idol. The Scripture says there must be a shedding of blood for the remission of sin.
So what you have here is a reproduction (a creation of your own hand)...and an unbloody one at that which God will never accept. Which means you are worshipping something less than yourself...the creation of your own hand in essence undermining the Finished Work of Jesus Christ at the Cross of Calvary.
For it is written:
Have you ever studied Oriental Poetry? Jesus spoke and taught in that form
How did the apostles eat His body when he was standing in front of them? His flesh was present to them, they could see it and touch it let alone eat the ACTUAL FLESH AND BLOOD of Christ..
Where are you seeing this? The Scriptures tell us on at least four occasions that Jesus said that the Eucharist was His Body and Blood. I see nothing about Jesus eating the Eucharist in any of the Scriptures. Where are you seeing this? Please show me a verse that says Jesus ate the Eucharist.
Jesus promised the disciples that he would “keep the passover”
Mat 26:18 And he said, Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the passover at thy house with my disciples. To "keep" the passover meant to partake of the meal and to “eat the passover”
Mar 14:14 And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the goodman of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guestchamber, where I shall eat the passover with my disciples?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke then point toward the evening of that very day, and depict Jesus as “eating” with the disciples
Mar 14:18 And as they sat and did eat, Jesus said, Verily I say unto you, One of you which eateth with me shall betray me.
Mat 26:20 Now when the even was come, he sat down with the twelve.
Mat 26:21 And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
Also consider that the law of Moses was still binding at this time,as they remained under the OT Law . Christ came to fulfill the whole law, which meant that the law had to be perfectly kept by Him. Christ was careful to do all that the law commanded as He was the Lamb without Spot, and Praise God He kept it perfectly for me and for all that are His
Mat 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.
Jhn 8:29 And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him..
Since the Passover was a part of the law’s requirement, to keep it He needed to keep the passover .
Scripture is clear, the Eucharist is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. The assertion that it is merely a symbol is without Scriptural basis and contradicts the direct meaning of Scripture.
Obvbiouly it is only "clear" to those that sit under the teaching of the magistrum
Have you ever considered that if you are in error and the doctrine of transubstantiation is a false doctrine (as most protestants would assert) The practice of kneeling before the bread and honoring the bread as if it was actually God would violate the 1st commandment as it would be a false god?
Are you familiar with the Biblical account of the staff of Moses? It might seem to those of us that see the teaching of transubstantiation as a false doctrine that it has a similar application .
bookmark
Does a man and woman literally become one person in marriage?
Sacraments are SIGNS of spiritual reality
“Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs (such as the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord) for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3,9).
To confuse the bread (the sign) for the body of Christ (the signified) is, according to Augustine, weakness, bondage and error.
Thank you for the comment. Indeed saying something does not make it true, neither does the constant repetition of it make it authoritative truth .
That is why the "children of the reformation " try to do as the Bereans and seek out the scripture to see if things are true. (Sola Scriptura)
When one chooses a system where one must accept the teaching of the "authorities" of the church without question, one leaves themselves open to grave error.I believe that was why the example of the Bereans was left for an example of wisdom
Let's see what Augustine really said because your addition of the words (such as the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord) to his quote is a gross distortion:
13. Now he is in bondage to a sign who uses, or pays homage to, any significant object without knowing what it signifies: he, on the other hand, who either uses or honors a useful sign divinely appointed, whose force and significance he understands, does not honor the sign which is seen and temporal, but that to which all such signs refer. Now such a man is spiritual and free even at the time of his bondage, when it is not yet expedient to reveal to carnal minds those signs by subjection to which their carnality is to be overcome. To this class of spiritual persons belonged the patriarchs and the prophets, and all those among the people of Israel through whose instrumentality the Holy Spirit ministered unto us the aids and consolations of the Scriptures. But at the present time, after that the proof of our liberty has shone forth so clearly in the resurrection of our Lord, we are not oppressed with the heavy burden of attending even to those signs which we now understand, but our Lord Himself, and apostolic practice, have handed down to us a few rites in place of many, and these at once very easy to perform, most majestic in their significance, and most sacred in the observance; such, for example, as the sacrament of baptism, and the celebration of the body and blood of the Lord. And as soon as any one looks upon these observances he knows to what they refer, and so reveres them not in carnal bondage, but in spiritual freedom. Now, as to follow the letter, and to take signs for the things that are signified by them, is a mark of weakness and bondage; so to interpret signs wrongly is the result of being misled by error. He, however, who does not understand what a sign signifies, but yet knows that it is a sign, is not in bondage. And it is better even to be in bondage to unknown but useful signs than, by interpreting them wrongly, to draw the neck from under the yoke of bondage only to insert it in the coils of error.
Now let's see what Augustine really had to say about the Eucharist:
"I promised you [new Christians], who have now been baptized, a sermon in which I would explain the sacrament of the Lord’s Table. . . . That bread which you see on the altar, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the body of Christ. That chalice, or rather, what is in that chalice, having been sanctified by the word of God, is the blood of Christ" (Sermons 227 [A.D. 411]).
"What you see is the bread and the chalice; that is what your own eyes report to you. But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the body of Christ and the chalice is the blood of Christ. This has been said very briefly, which may perhaps be sufficient for faith; yet faith does not desire instruction" (Sermons 272 [A.D. 411]).
Ping to 168. I meant to include you.
The above quote was from magisterium and I read the article you posted in response....very enlightening. If I may, I would like to also pass on Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews", Book XI, Chapter 5, Paragraph 2, lines 1-6.
Josephus, of course being....a 1st century Jewish historian of good respect.
Infallibility in doctrine only. Even popes had opinions and all people, including popes are sinners.
Diego, please read Josephus more carefully yourself. He's talking about the time of Esdras and Darius. No one argues that babylon was not still a thriving city at that point! However, by the time he wrote these words that you cite here, in the late 1st Century AD, the city had all but ceased to exist. This is simple history.
So you say. Again, your interpretation of the situation is based on your own authority. How arrogant to suppose that the Lord has given you His teachings personally! How inconsistent! You decry Catholics for following the Magisterium, yet you set yourself up as your *own* magisterium!
My friend....the Romans were not a world power during the time of Esdras and Darius. Lines 5-6, [Wherefore there are but Two Tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans while the Ten Tribes are beyond Euphrates til now and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers.]
This is from where Peter was writing in 1 Peter 5:13. Notice to whom he addresses his letter; Peter 1:1 Peter was appointed Apostle to the "lost Sheep of Israel" [Matthew 10:5-6] and notice the condition of those whom he addresses in 1 Peter 1:2 Ones with the foreknowledge of God. These folks are not Gentiles....they are Israelites!
****Ruy Dias de Bivar, Do you not believe that the Letter of James is Scriptural?****
I believe it is scriptual, written by James to the 12 tribes.
We must keep it in it's pro-Jewish setting to understand why it is so different from Paul's letters the same way we put Christ's words in context during the Temple period. One cannot go and show himself to the priest as there is no temple today.
It is the same way that HEBREWS is more understandable if we remember that the writer is alluding to the time of Moses and Israel at Kadesh Barnea when they drew back from entering the Holy Land.
Well, IS St. James' letter Scripture or not? If it isn't it's on YOUR say so, and who are you to make such pronouncements? If it is, then God help you for calling it an "epistle of straw"! Your beef with it is the same as Luther's: that it buttresses the Catholic understanding of works. Therefore it "can't" be Scripture! No one pronounced it such until Luther did. And that's about 1450+ years too late and an infinite absence of authority to matter.
It must be easy to be a "Bible Christian" if just ANY layman can pick-and-choose his own canon! You are in my prayers.
Where on earth do you get this? Jesus is quoted as saying "I am the light of the world" twice. The first time is in John 8:12, the second is John 9:5. The timeframe is arrived at in John7:2, where it plainy says that the next several chapters take place during and immediately after the Feast of Tabernacles. This is a harvest feast, taking place in September or October, well before Hannakuh. Read chapters 7 through 9 and you will see that the timeframe is unquestionably the Feast of Tabernacles.
****Scripture never says we are saved by faith alone. That teaching was not invented until 16 centuries after the time of Christ. ******
"In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye were sealed with the holy spirit of promise,
Which is the earnest of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased posession, unto the praise of his glory....
...And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins....
For BY GRACE ARE YE SAVED, and that NOT OF YOURSELVES, it is THE GIFT OF GOD, NOT OF WORKS, LEST ANY MAN SHOULD BOAST.
For WE are HIS workmanship, created in Christ Jesus UNTO GOOD WORKS which God hath BEFORE ORDAINED, that we should walk in them."
See post #175.
Read it again! Josephus is talking about Esdras' and Darius' time all through chapter 5. THEN he makes a parenthetical reference to the two tribes under Roman control and the ten tribes "beyond the Euphrates." Notice the verb tenses: "...but THEN the entire body of the people of Israel remainED in that country, wherefore there ARE but two tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans, while the ten tribes ARE beyond the Euphrates till now..."
This is painfully obvious. He's saying that ALL 12 tribes were FORMERLY in the region of Babylon, and desired to go to Jerusalem. Only two tribes actually left and are NOW (to him, in the 1st Century) in Asia (the Roman province, not the present-day continent) and Europe under Roman control. He's saying that the remaining ten tribes ARE beyond the Eupharates. First, there was even then speculation what *actually* happened to these ten tribes, so he's being hopeful about them. In any case, even he says that, if they still exist, they are "beyond the Euphrates." He doesn't say that they are in Babylon, he only says that they are scattered around in the land beyond the Euphrates, a much wider scope.
Please read this passage carefully. You will find that his main timeframe in chapter five is hundreds of years earlier, and then he makes a clarification of where the 12 tribes were way back then, where they desired to go way back then, and how many made it to their destination and live in the west in his own day. That's it, really.
My word! All this to "prove" that St. Peter wasn't in Rome, when we have early Christian witness dating to people who had a living memory of his life and death. You will do *anything*, it seems to avoid conceding the witness of the early Church. Why trust them in anything else? The peple in question are even as far back as the latter part of the Apostolic Era, yet they mean nothing to you!
"I shall retire to Bedlam!"
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.