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
Has NOTHING to do with what you wrote on your "Papal Contradictions". What does dueling have anything to do with the Deposit of Faith handed down from the Apostles? Infallibility only protects the Church on such solemnly defined issues, not on political issues or private opinions, or the color of vestments...
Regards
Can you show me that in the Catechism? I must have read over that one...
Regards
Not exactly a very good argument, Harley. The orthodox Church did not teach heresies. Just because a heretic came to Rome doesn't mean that the whole Roman community and the Pope fell in lock step with the heretic. And finally, were not all of those heresies refuted by Rome and the Councils?
Regards
The article states that *Babylonia* was a center for Jewish culture after the Roman destruction of Jerusalem. That may, to an extent, be true. But "Babylonia" is not the same as "Babylon," to begin with, and, if the case is to be made that it is *supposed* to be Babylon, there is more to consider. The scholarship of the article is more than a little suspect and, in any case, we're dealing with Wikipedia here. Wikipedia may be better than nothing to research a lot of topics, but the fact remains that it is NOT authoritative, as it can be edited by any contributor. Things can and do get edited out of spite, ignorance or sloppiness on Wikipedia all the time.
You ever consider that Rome had the LARGEST Diaspora in the world during the first century? That Rome was the CAPITAL of the known world? Why WOULDN'T Peter go there? And that is exactly what history says that he did. "Babylon" is a synonym of corruption and God-lessness of the OT Babylon. Peter and the Christian community are in the middle of this "Babylon".
Regards
If you don't believe Jews telling you about Jewish history
you need to reflect on that thought.
b'shem Y'shua
"There is no evidence that Rome was called Babylon by the Christians until the Book of Revelation was published, about 90-96 AD," International Standard Bible Encyclopedia
Well, then, there IS historical evidence, that you concur with yourself, that Christians had an early understanding, based on Scripture, precisely along the lines of my point! So what's your problem with it?
Most of the rest of your post conflates Babylon with Babylonia, not by any means the same thing. And your post also talks about things happening in the Old Testament, during times when Babylon DID exist (though most of your events you cite aren't placed in Babylon), so, again, what's your point?
You also seem to be engaging in quite a bit of Biblical speculation, for which there is not a *shred* of biblical evidence. The Magi were from *Babylon*? Scriptural citation for that one, please...
"Lets see, the bread is literal flesh because the Church says the bible says it was His body, but Babylon is not Babylon even though the bible says he did, because the church says it is not?"
Well, no, not so much because the Church says so, but because the plain facts of *history* say so. Since the city of Babylon had ceased to exist as a city before the New Testament was written, and we know that the early Christians often referred to Rome as Babylon even apart from St. Peter's use of the term, it is clear that the name "Babylon," as used in the New Testament, is allegorical. Some things ARE allegorical in Sfripture, you know. Do you honestly suppose, for example, that the Beast of Revelation 13 is going to *literally* appear with ten horns and seven heads, or do you suppose that they symbolize something?
"if the truth be told and the catholic church had its way no one would be permitted to think, speak or write against it in any way"
__________________________________________
The printing press changed everything. It's obvious that once people were able to read scripture for themselves that they quickly realized how far off track the Roman Church had fallen.
It's interesting that the churches experiencing the greatest growth are evangelical in approach and place a emphasis on Bible study and the RC churches have largely become museum's.
He is someone that has not yet been saved by faith.
Lets see what their first Pope says
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
1Pe 1:24 For all flesh [is] as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away:
1Pe 1:25 But the word of the Lord endureth for ever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Pray for this author that God open his eyes and ears to hear and believe .
On the other hand Josephus, Antiquities, Book xv, Ch 2, 2 says . "The ancient city of Mesopotamia, an area which was then a center of pure and uncompromising Judiasim" p. 65, 1 Peter by A. M. Stibbs. ACT 2:9 tells us they were in the Pentecost crowd. "After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law" Dictionary of the Bible, p. 72, by J. J. Davis
Sources...?
I googled your keywords (Paschal II, Eugenius III, duelling), and fully half of the sites get the following message from my filter: "Access Denied: Extreme Content."
Not a glowing endorsement of your assertions so far!
The pope is only infallible when officially defining Catholic dogma. No one said he is impeccable or always right.
if the truth be told and the catholic church had its way no one would be permitted to think, speak or write against it in any way
If you say so...
People were reading the Bible for over one thousand years before the printing press. What on earth are you talking about?
It's interesting that the churches experiencing the greatest growth are evangelical in approach and place a emphasis on Bible study and the RC churches have largely become museum's.
Again, what on earth are you talking about? We have people standing in the back of our church on Sundays, it is so full. Maybe you should actually get out and go to Mass and see for yourself if the Catholic Churches are "museums" before you pronounce us dead!
Regards
This "word" is not the bible alone, but the preachings and teachings of the Apostles, which includes both oral and written teachings. Nowhere do I find that the Bible calls itself the only means of how God "speaks" to us. Another Protestant tradition.
Regards
There's no evidence in the Bible that the Great Wall of China existed either. Nor does the Bible EVER mention the planet Jupiter...Big deal. The bible never makes the claim that it contains all human knowledge! There is not one contemporary piece of evidence and not one eyewitness.
How many eyewitnesses do you know that witnesses the Civil War? I guess it must not have happened... Until you can disprove that the writers are inaccurate, the basic premise on historical documents is that the historian is relating truth. This concept goes back even to the Greeks.
After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law
Ma'am, St. Peter was killed, along with Paul, in Rome by Nero in the mid-60's. That would be BEFORE the fall of Jerusalem and 70 AD...
Regards
Mesopotamia is not a "city." I think that Josephus knew that...so I believe your quote is garbled at best or from a shaky source.
As for evidence from next generation sources: what's wrong with that? If "Babylon" was universal code among Christians for "Rome" by an extremely early date (and your own source, cited previously, admits this much), why should you, removed by 19.5 centuries from the time the Scriptural passages at issuw were written, have any more credibility? The problem with such thinking is that it gives NO weight to the concept of Divvine Providence protecting the Church, if, as you imply, erroneous and fabulous tales are already circulating among the followers of Christ at such an early date.
There is a lot of evidence that St. Peter was in Rome, inferrentially in the NT, and specifically in a number of 2nd to 4th Century Christian writings. If you take issue with their witness, why even bother being a Christian? If they "lied" about such things, or their collective memory was that shaky, how do we know their word about the canon of Scripture, for example, wasn't equally muddled or fabricated? You have no real answer without embracing the veracity of the early Church!
Indeed, VERY little of the life of Christ Himself is independently verifiable outside of the New Testament. Objectively, how do we know it isn't all a lie? Don't say "Because the Bible says so." The Bible is not self-authenticating, certainly not in that way. The text has much cross-referencing of prophecy and fulfillment, from OT to NT, but that's not the same thing as self-authentication. We believe primarily because of faith fed by grace. The words were transmitted by each and every Christian generation, including the second and third generations you seem to have trouble with concerning truth-telling.
Using Scripture as the *only* guide in historical matters where there is no concrete statement contained in it about them is sheer folly. It is a natural outgrowth of the extreme-wing of Sola Scriptura. Babylon was NOT a center of anything in the 1st Century! Christians at the time already knew that. They used "Babylon" as emblematic of a corrupt, decadent power. It took no genius at the time to ascertain that "Rome" was meant. And your own evidence suggests that, contemporaneous with the promulgation of the Book of Revelation, "Babylon" WAS understood by Christians as "Rome." Therefore, the allegorical understanding of the word "Babylon" is quite clear.
Hmmmm. You are suggesting I have mis-stated the facts?
No. Only what I have been told by Catholic friends.
That is true. There is only some tradition to that effect.
On the other hand Josephus, Antiquities, Book xv, Ch 2, 2 says . "The ancient city of Mesopotamia, an area which was then a center of pure and uncompromising Judiasim" p. 65, 1 Peter by A. M. Stibbs. ACT 2:9 tells us they were in the Pentecost crowd. "After the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70 Babylonia became, and for centuries remained, a seat of Jewish Schools devoted to the study and interpretation of the law" Dictionary of the Bible, p. 72, by J. J. Davis
If we are to believe tradition, Peter was dead before the fall of Jerusalem. How far he traveled from Jerusalem during the time he served as "apostle to the circumcision" in unknown.
There is not one contemporary piece of evidence and not one eyewitness.
And the same is certainly true of Peter with respect to Babylon in Mesopotamia. Nothing to place him there, except a "literal" reading of his letter.
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.