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
That's not an answer. Do you deny the Letter of St. James is canonical or not? If you do, why? If you do not, how can you blasphemously declare it to be "an epistle of straw"?
Then, to put things frankly, why bother to be a Christian? According to your thesis, it is manifestly clear that Christianity is a false religion!
Why? For 1500 years, the only Christian understanding regarding the Eucharist was that it is literally the Body and Blood of Christ under the "appearance" of bread and wine. If this is NT true, then Christianity must be false, because a sovereign God would NEVER allow the "corruption" of such an important doctrinal point to occur from the beginning and continue uncorrected for 1500 years! If you believe such to be the case, you either have ZERO understanding of the concept of Divine Providence, or you are totally wasting your time believing a religion that cannot POSSIBLY be worshipping the True God.
On the other hand, IF this understanding about the literal transubstantiation of the bread and wine to Christ's Body and Blood IS true, then there is internal consistency that does NOT violate a necessary application of Divine Providence, Christianity IS true, and we do well to follow Christ as the Son of God. I pray you will ruminate on this, and not just blow it off.
***Do you deny the Letter of St. James is canonical or not?***
Do I?
"Among the DISPUTED books, although they are known and approved by many, is reputed, that called the Epistle of JAMES and Jude. Also the Second Epistle of Peter and those called the Second and third of John, whether they are of the Evangelest or some other of the same name.
...EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY.
Excellent book. You should read it some time.
Yes they are cannonical. But you still have to look at them through the Jewish Christian filter.
See my post 182 in response to Clay+Iron Times' take on what he considers to be the fallacy of transubstantiation. The same thing applies to your take on the "symbolism" of the Sacraments. Please think it through.
They WERE disputed, among a small minority, until the Church, in several councils, culled out truly spurious books and left us with the NT canon we now have. Once the Church created the canon, that was the end of the matter.
The Letter of James is either inspired or it is not. If it IS inspired, talking about "Jewish Christian filters" is irrelevant to the question. No one says that the Scriptures are "perspicuous" on the Catholic side of the argument, it you non-Catholics who say that. So which is it? Talking about such "filters" implies that more might be needed for comprehension than just the plain text, which is precisely the Catholic position!
But, in any case, your argument about filters is coming across as more of an indirect attack on James as so obscure as to be of no use. You DID call it "an epistle of straw," did you not? This certainly does not sound like a ringing endorsement of canonical Scripture! Therefore, one wonders if you REALLY consider it canonical, or if you kinda wish it would just go away...
Who then did He give His teachings to if not believers as individuals?
"If any man will do His [the Father's] will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of Myself" (John 7:17).
An individual seeking to know God's teachings is NOT setting himself up as a magesterium. It is a MUST to know His teachings for ourselves.
I do not understand why it is so farfetched to believe a God who first created us in HIS image then who would send His only Son to die for us and redeem us from our sins and spare us from everlasting punishment would not desire that we know Him (through His teachings) intimately and personally.
*** You DID call it "an epistle of straw," did you not? This certainly does not sound like a ringing endorsement of canonical Scripture! Therefore, one wonders if you REALLY consider it canonical, or if you kinda wish it would just go away...***
Well, It's like the elephant in the living room. You have to live with it.
Meanwhile, When was Abraham justified? When he believed God (It was imputed to him for justice)or when he offered up Issac?.
He knew God would not allow him to kill his son because of the promise. What did he say to the men with him? "After we have worshiped WE will return to you."
For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God and it was imputed to him for justice.
Now to him that workith, the reward is not reconed according to grace, but to debt.
But to him that worketh not, yet believeth in him that JUSTIFIETH the ungodly, his faith is reputed to justice, according to the purpose and grace of God.
As David also termeth the blessedness of a man, to whom God reputeth justice without works:
Blessed are they whose iniquities are forgiven, and whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord hath not imputed sin."
Done in uncircumcision. Romans 4
He does desire that we knw Him intimately and perfectly! Who denies this? But it is clear that, despite many people's testimony and protestations to the contrary, the Spirit does NOT make each individual Christian an infallible arbiter and interreter of Scripture. We would ALL agree if such were the case. it is manifestly not the case, therefore the supposition itself is "wrong."
Regarding your quote of John 7:17, do you not suppose that the first part is operative, and makes the rest contingent on it? Anyone who follows private interpretation is NOT doing the will of the Father, at least in this, and such willful deviation from His will will not be endorsed by fulfillment of the rest of that verse. Consider the fuller implications of John 5:39.
This must be Catholic cr@pola.
"And Jesus answering said unto them, Do ye not therefore err, because ye know not the scriptures, neither the power of God?" Mark 12:24
Why did Jesus chastise the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures if it was not possible for them to interpret them?
When Paul and Silas preached in Berea, the people "... received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so." Acts 17:11. In other words, they (the people) interpreted the Scriptures for themselves with the help of the Holy Spirit.
Please show me, using scripture, where believers are forbidden to interpret scripture for themselves.
The scriptures do not place Peter anywhere in or near Rome at any time. They do place him in Babylon. You do realize that the Babylonian Empire stretched beyond the Euphrates and that Peter was referencing the territory of, not necessarily the ancient city of, Babylon. By the way....the City was beyond the Euphrates also.
Josephus says, ["but then the entire body of the people of Israel remained in that country"]; Then he brings it forward to the present (First Century) saying; ["Wherefore there are but Two Tribes in Asia and Europe subject to the Romans (present time first century) while the Ten Tribes are beyond Euphrates till now , and are an immense multitude, and not to be estimated by numbers. (still present time first century)"]. The "till now" is in the same sentence speaking of the Romans!
Galatians 2:7-8 spells out that Peter would not be an Apostle to the Gentiles (read Rome). See also Matthew 10:5-6.
Romans 15:16 says that Paul would be an Apostle to the Gentiles and verse 20 says he would not preach the gospel where Christ was already known as he did not want to build on somebody else's foundation. Odd?
Romans 1:11-13 tells us that Paul would be the one to officially establish the Church at Rome....not Peter. Odd?
Romans 16 ends with Paul greeting 28 different people. He never mentions Peter. Odd?
Acts 28:15 show the brothers at Rome coming to greet him. No mention of Peter. Odd?
Acts 28:17 shows Paul in Rome, summoning "the Chief of the Jews" to whom he told his story. No mention of Peter. Odd?
Acts 28:21 explains that the Jewish leaders had not received word from Judea about him, but they wanted to know all about this new "Sect". Now this is really "odd" if Peter, the Apostle to the "circumcised", had been in Rome doing his job.
During Paul's two year stay in Rome he writes to the Ephesians, Philppians, Colossians, Philemon and to the Hebrews.....not once mentioning Peter.
About four years later Paul is again in Rome as a prisoner. In 2 Timothy 4:16 Paul says, ["At my first defense no one came to my support, but everyone deserted me. May it not be held against them."] Does this sound like Peter ignored the whole thing? No....Peter was not, and never had been in Rome!
I don't have to prove that Peter was never in Rome. The scriptures do a very adequate job for me.
Christianity is Following The Lord Jesus Christ and maintaining a relationship with Him by picking up your cross (crucifying your flesh so you can walk in His Spirit, thereby being victorious daily in your life here on earth.)
God would NEVER allow the "corruption"
Oh but He most certainly did just as illustrated many times in His Word. The very fact that God sent His only Son to earth was to straighten everything out. Who do you think He was up against other than the Devil....The Priests!
Man will always be corruptable, because of the flesh
There's a difference in putting your trust in man and putting your trust in God. Eve trusted the serpent instead of God. Adam trusted Eve instead of taking God's Word to heart. According to your tone, you are rejecting God's Word in favor of holding on to a system. Anyhow, as in your words, is 1500 years running. The Word says we are but a vapor in time and a thousand years is but a day to God
Salvation is a "change", not a gradual process of "changing" because the only possible provision for the "change" was already made at a specific point in time, long ago at Calvary's Cross! The idea of "Process Theology" actually has it roots from a Grecian philosopher named Heraclites who viewed reality in terms of "becoming" rather than "being". Heraclites claimed that "...the basis of reality was change and flux." In past times, Catholics have primarily focused on the traditional "saving works" of the sacraments, the most important being the Mass, which perfectly demonstrates the theology of "process salvation" itself. The Mass constitutes the perpetual re-sacrificing of Christ as provision for a "process", while the Cross was the provision for a completed rebirth.
The re-killing of Christ in the Mass (since the Catholic Church teaches that the bread and wine turn into the literal Body and Blood of Christ, a.k.a. "transubstantiation") is a horrific work that the Catholic would not feel necessary to repeat if he or she believed that Faith in Jesus' one-time Sacrifice had been sufficient
So again...What is the object of your faith? Is it the Cross? or is it something else
Church actually means "Called out". All the Apostles were followers of Jesus Christ because He called them.
I grew up Catholic and went through 8 years of Catechism. Some of my family still call themselves Catholics. I certainly don't attempt anything other than reaching out to them in love. I just want them to know the depth of love the Lord Jesus Christ has for them. I pray that the eyes of your heart be enlightened, so that you would know, what is the hope of His Calling for you.
Jesus states: "You must be born again"
Catholics believe neither that it is possible to kill Christ again, nor that the Mass is a "re-killing" of Christ:
268 A. ... in the Mass there is no real shedding of blood nor real death, because Christ can die no more. Baltimore Catechism
265 A. The Mass is the same sacrifice as that of the Cross. Baltimore Catechism
I grew up Catholic and went through 8 years of Catechism
It's unfortunate you didn't pay attention because if you had you wouldn't have so many misconceptions about the Catholic Church.
Thanks for the sources !
And indeed that is so.
Notice that He calls them SIGNS . He does not say it is the body and blood of Christ
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.
He no where references transubstantiation but speaks to it as a SIGN .
Titanites if you error in your belief that the accidents are temporarily transformed and in fact Christ is spiritual present and not physically present, might we say that kneeling, prayer and incense might be considered idolatry rather like the jews with moses staff?
You are welcome. Blessings to you and yours.
Augustine sees the bread and wine as signs, just as the Church does as described here:
At the heart of the Eucharistic celebration are the bread and wine that, by the words of Christ and the invocation of the Holy Spirit, become Christ's Body and Blood. Faithful to the Lord's command the Church continues to do, in his memory and until his glorious return, what he did on the eve of his Passion: "He took bread. . . ." "He took the cup filled with wine. . . ." The signs of bread and wine become, in a way surpassing understanding, the Body and Blood of Christ; they continue also to signify the goodness of creation. Thus in the Offertory we give thanks to the Creator for bread and wine, fruit of the "work of human hands," but above all as "fruit of the earth" and "of the vine"—gifts of the Creator. The Church sees in the gesture of the king-priest Melchizedek, who "brought out bread and wine," a prefiguring of her own offering.
He does not say it is the body and blood of Christ
Not only did Augustine believe that the Eucharist is a sign, but like the Church, he also believed in the Real Presence, and to deny that Augustine did believe in the Real Presence is to give only yourself comfort in your false belief. Here are some more of his own words on the subject:
Christ bore Himself in His hands, when He offered His body saying: "this is my body." [Enarr. in Ps. 33 Sermo 1, 10; on p.377]
Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. [Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387]
[Referring to the sacrifice of Melchizedek (Gen 14:18 ff.)] The sacrifice appeared for the first time there which is now offered to God by Christians throughout the whole world. [City of God, 16, 22; on p.403]
Christ is both the priest, offering Himself, and Himself the Victim. He willed that the sacramental sign of this should be the daily sacrifice of the Church. [Ibid, 10, 20; on p.99]
He took flesh from the flesh of Mary. . . and gave us the same flesh to be eaten unto salvation . . . we do sin by not adoring. [Explanations of the Psalms, 98, 9; on p.20]
Not all bread, but only that which receives the blessing of Christ, becomes Christ’s body. [Ibid., 234, 2; on p.31]
What you see is the bread and the chalice . . . But what your faith obliges you to accept is that the bread is the Body of Christ and the chalice the Blood of Christ. [Ibid., 272; on p.32]
Not only is no one forbidden to take as food the Blood of this Sacrifice, rather, all who wish to possess life are exhorted to drink thereof. [Questions of the Hepateuch, 3, 57; on p.134]
The Sacrifice of our times is the Body and Blood of the Priest Himself . . . Recognize then in the Bread what hung upon the tree; in the chalice what flowed from His side. [Sermo iii. 1-2; on p.62]
The Blood they had previously shed they afterwards drank. [Mai 26, 2; 86, 3; on p.64]
Eat Christ, then; though eaten He yet lives, for when slain He rose from the dead. Nor do we divide Him into parts when we eat Him: though indeed this is done in the Sacrament, as the faithful well know when they eat the Flesh of Christ, for each receives his part, hence are those parts called graces. Yet though thus eaten in parts He remains whole and entire; eaten in parts in the Sacrament, He remains whole and entire in Heaven. [Mai 129, 1; cf. Sermon 131; on p.65]
Out of hatred of Christ the crowd there shed Cyprian’s blood, but today a reverential multitude gathers to drink the Blood of Christ . . . this altar . . . whereon a Sacrifice is offered to God . . . [Sermo 310, 2; cf. City of God, 8, 27, 1; on p.65]
He took into His hands what the faithful understand; He in some sort bore Himself when He said: This is My Body. [Enarr. 1, 10 on Ps. 33; on p.65]
The very first heresy was formulated when men said: "this saying is hard and who can bear it [Jn 6:60]?" [Enarr. 1, 23 on Ps. 54; on p.66]
Thou art the Priest, Thou the Victim, Thou the Offerer, Thou the Offering. [Enarr. 1, 6 on Ps. 44; on p.66]
Titanites if you error in your belief that the accidents are temporarily transformed and in fact Christ is spiritual present and not physically present, might we say that kneeling, prayer and incense might be considered idolatry rather like the jews with moses staff?
If you error in your belief that Jesus Christ is God, might we say that your worship of him might be considered idolatry rather like the jews with moses staff? (See how idiotic your question is?)
I am simply quoting YOUR post. Augustine clearly says they are but signs
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.
His word not mine
To look to the phrase "Real Presence" as translating to the current belief in transubstantiation is misleading, for as a child of the Reformation I believe that Christ is truly present at the Lords Supper . The term "Real Presence "does not translate into transubstantiation at all. As you well know the proposition that the bread became the physical presence of Christ was not [proposed until the 9th century and not a mandatory belief ( dogma of the Catholic church until Trent.
Nobody eats this flesh without previously adoring it. [Enarr. in Ps. 98, 9; on p.387]
Interesting quote here as eating flesh to the Israelites was an abomination , and this was from a sermon on an OT books.. So I see it as interesting that a practice seen as an abomination would be used by Augustine to support eating the actual flesh of Christ.
Do you have a link to that sermon? ?
If you error in your belief that Jesus Christ is God, might we say that your worship of him might be considered idolatry rather like the jews with moses staff? (See how idiotic your question is?)
No not idiotic but serious. Often the Catholic church has used the example of the rod of Moses changing substance into a snake to substantiate the principle of a change in the accidents. So it is a serious question.
So humor the idiot, what do you think?
If you are wrong and the bread is just bread and not transformed, would not kneeling in front of it, offering incense to it and making it the centerpiece of your worship be idolatry, just as the rod of moses became an idol?
That is a straw-man Magisterium, you are offering a false set of choices , not a good debating technique.
The fact is that the proposition that Christ was PHYSICALLY present in the bread was not a universally held belief prior to the 9th century. It was debated at that time and not firmly decided until the 1300's and not an article of faith until the 1300's . It was made a mandatory doctrine by Trent demanded that it must be believed under penalty of a judgment of God.
It is interesting that even today many polls show only about 1/2 of Catholics actually believe it is the physical body and blood of Christ
If this is NT true, then Christianity must be false, because a sovereign God would NEVER allow the "corruption" of such an important doctrinal point to occur from the beginning and continue uncorrected for 1500 years! If you believe such to be the case, you either have ZERO understanding of the concept of Divine Providence, or you are totally wasting your time believing a religion that cannot POSSIBLY be worshipping the True God.
We are called to a correct reading of the scriptures, which would include reading the passages in context and having an understanding of the symbolism and cultural of the words spoken read and searching the scriptures for other passages that support the studied passage. That is why on a Sunday morning you see protestants with their bible opened reading along to make sure the text is being correctly presented. Simply repeating the words of another as fact is of no spiritual benefit to anyone.
Often we are mocked as believing in "Faith alone" yet every time a passage may only have the meaning ascribed to it by the Magisterium one is taking much more on Faith, because one is trusting other men and not the word of God
There is no evidence that the apostles or the disciples believed in transubstantiation or that the bread was the 'ACTUAL body' of Christ at the time the scriptures were written. Would you dare accuse Paul or Peter of not being "Christians"?
I would say I have a more complete understanding of the providence and sovereignty of God as a Calvinist than you would claim for yourself.
Can I ask you why Christ died? What was the purpose of the cross, and what effect did it have?
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.