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 centurythis 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 formwithout 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 creationthe Churchthe only adequate authoritythe 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
"And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you."
What is the gospel and where is it found?
So Peter may have lied and the Holy Spirit inspired it?
How can you possibly find irredeemable fault in jo kus' statement here? The "word" is clearly NOT the Bible alone, but, as he says, it includes the teaching and preaching of the Apostles. It's a logical fallacy to say otherwise. Were there Christians before a word of the NT was written? Certainly. Were they, or were they not, evangelized with the "word of God"? They certainly were! By way of your answer to jo, one wonders how! You might object to the Catholic understanding of the Bible's role in the totality of revelation, insofar as unnecessary doubt has been sown over the last five centuries. But, for heaven's sake, don't let the argument devolve to absurdities. Your reply to jo kus' comments, within the context in which his comments were written, simply makes no sense, and totally misses as an answer to his statement.
To engage in allegory or symbolism is NOT lying! Again I ask, do you "literally" expect that the Beast in Revelation 13 will physically appear as having ten horns and seven heads, or do you accept that the description is "symbolic" of something? Do you suppose that we are only to forgive our neighbor a grand total of 490 times, as Jesus, in Matthew 18:22 flatly says, or do you recognize that "seventy times seven times" is symbolic of forgiveness without numerical limit? Have you plucked out your right eye lest it cause you to sin, as Jesus tells you to do in Matthew 5:29? If you didn't, then you are not following the *literal* command of Christ Himself! If you did, then you have NO concept of symbolism or hyperbole. Either way, to insist on a hyperliteralism, as you seem to do here, is living proof that the Bible is not, apparently, quite as "perspicuous" to all people as Protestantism was founded to proclaim. I wish you well in your continued search for the fullness of the Truth.
No, of course not. What I'm saying is that Peter may have been using "Babylon" in the same way that "Sodom and Egypt" and "Babylon" was used to identify Jerusalem in Revelation.
He may also have been using "Babylon" to referred to the dispersed church, just as the Jews were dispersed to ancient Babylon.
Or he could mean ancient Babylon.
What is odd to me is that while folks discount the tradition that places Peter in Rome at one point, they have no problem accounting for him being in ancient Babylon based on this verse alone.
It seems odd that the first pope could have made it to Babylon without someome taking note of the fact. :-) (That's a joke.)
IV. ACTIVITY AND DEATH IN ROME; BURIAL PLACE
It is an indisputably established historical fact that St. Peter laboured in Rome during the last portion of his life, and there ended his earthly course by martyrdom. As to the duration of his Apostolic activity in the Roman capital, the continuity or otherwise of his residence there, the details and success of his labours, and the chronology of his arrival and death, all these questions are uncertain, and can be solved only on hypotheses more or less well-founded. The essential fact is that Peter died at Rome: this constitutes the historical foundation of the claim of the Bishops of Rome to the Apostolic Primacy of Peter.
St. Peter's residence and death in Rome are established beyond contention as historical facts by a series of distinct testimonies extending from the end of the first to the end of the second centuries, and issuing from several lands.
That the manner, and therefore the place of his death, must have been known in widely extended Christian circles at the end of the first century is clear from the remark introduced into the Gospel of St. John concerning Christ's prophecy that Peter was bound to Him and would be led whither he would not -- "And this he said, signifying by what death he should glorify God" (John 21:18-19, see above). Such a remark presupposes in the readers of the Fourth Gospel a knowledge of the death of Peter. St. Peter's First Epistle was written almost undoubtedly from Rome, since the salutation at the end reads: "The church that is in Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you: and so doth my son Mark" (v, 13). Babylon must here be identified with the Roman capital; since Babylon on the Euphrates, which lay in ruins, or New Babylon (Seleucia) on the Tigris, or the Egyptian Babylon near Memphis, or Jerusalem cannot be meant, the reference must be to Rome, the only city which is called Babylon elsewhere in ancient Christian literature (Revelation 17:5; 18:10; "Oracula Sibyl.", V, verses 143 and 159, ed. Geffcken, Leipzig, 1902, 111).
From Bishop Papias of Hierapolis and Clement of Alexandria, who both appeal to the testimony of the old presbyters (i.e., the disciples of the Apostles), we learn that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome at the request of the Roman Christians, who desired a written memorial of the doctrine preached to them by St. Peter and his disciples (Eusebius, "Hist. Eccl.", II, xv; III, xl; VI, xiv); this is confirmed by Irenaeus (Adv. haer., III, i). In connection with this information concerning the Gospel of St. Mark, Eusebius, relying perhaps on an earlier source, says that Peter described Rome figuratively as Babylon in his First Epistle.
"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"
Well, Protestant churches in Europe are even more moribund, as a rule. The Scandinavian countries are sure hotbeds of Christian fervor these days, I'm sure!
Your argument approaches the truth a little more closely here in the US, I suppose, since evangelical growth rates (conglomerating all of the different varieties of evangelicalism together) are, in fact, larger than Catholic rates. But so what? To equate the worldwide, relative health of Catholicism with its current state here in the US is highly parochial and shortsighted. The West in general is feeling the self-inflicted spiritual wounds of modernism, relativism and mediocrity. The REAL growth of the Church is in the Third world, particularly in Africa and Asia. We're more than holding our own there, I assure you!
Meanwhile, don't be too smug about evangelical growth here in the US. That growth is built largely on the foundation of Rapture Fever. When you guys find out that the Rapture, as you understand it, is NOT going to buy you a free trip out of the Tribulation, when it comes, I fear very much for the spiritual stamina of its adherents. Those whose faith is "brave" because there is an expectation that it won't need to be sorely tested will be in for a very rude awakening. Scripture speaks of a Great Apostasy. I have no doubt that there will be many Catholics involved in it. But I suspect the proportion of non-Catholics feeling betrayed by Rapture fever will apostatize in much higher proportion.
The Gospel is the Good News. It is the preaching of Jesus Christ. For example:
Now after John was put in prison, Jesus came into Galilee, preaching the Gospel of the Kingdom of God and saying, The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent ye and believe the Gospel. (Mark 1:14-15)
I dont find any mention of the Gospel being referred to as writings IN THE SCRIPTURES! The names of the authors of the Gospel, (Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) are not even part of the Scriptures! The Gospel is an ORAL PROCLAMATION as shown above in the beginning of Marks Gospel. Surely, you dont think that Jesus was referring to the Gospel as a yet unwritten book???
It is only later, the Apostolic Traditions, that determined that the 4 books of the Evangelists were known as Gospels.
Thus, the Word refers to the preaching of the Apostles, both oral and written, not a FUTURE BOOK!!!
Regards
"Now as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke it, and gave it to the disciples and said, "Take, eat; this is my body." And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, "Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." (Matthew 26-28)
What do you mean by control them? Do you think that mostly illiterate people really were going to spend a years wage to buy a set of scrolls or a codex full of teachings that they ALREADY were receiving from the oral teachings and proclamations at Mass?
After the printing press the cost to own the Bible must have been dropping dramatically making it available to a much broader audience. In other words the RC church no longer had a near monopoly on interpretation, since people could read the Bible for themselves
That cost, first of all, didnt drop until AFTER the Protestant Reformation. When did Guttenberg run his first copy of the Bible again? Thus, the printing press didnt start a big wave that led to the Reformation! It was led by person/persons who thought THEIR authority was superior to the Church established by Christ. And just because a book is widely circulated doesnt mean that it is widely understood. The fact of the matter is that many people do NOT understand much of it, even some who claim to be Christians.
It seems that the RC church has very little faith in their parishioners since they try to maintain a monopoly on how to interpret the Scriptures.
You enjoy conspiracy theories, dont you? The Church hierarchy believed that it was given a mission by Christ to continue to preach and teach (Jesus expected His Church to last for all time, not just during the life of the Apostles). Thus, considering that they felt they were the heirs to the Apostolic Succession, and that Christ would continue to protect His Church from the Gates of Hell and false teachings, it seems perfectly logical that this group of men felt THEY were in the best position to interpret it correctly. Now, you dont have to believe that claim. But IF a group of men DID hold that idea, that concept, why the conspiracy theories? Those men really thought they were given a mission by God. Argue that as a fact or not. But you are being unfair to say that the Church had bad intentions in mind by being the true source of interpreting the Bible.
In Europe the RC Churches are museums
In Europe, Protestant churches are even worse. At least the Catholic Churches are worth looking at. The Protestant churches are the end result of the rape brought on by the Deformation of Church Architecture. Most Protestant churches in Europe might as well be an empty barn.
In the USA parishes are consolidating to maintain attendance.
Thats a money issue left over from paying millions and millions of dollars to people who claim to have been sodomized in the 1980s and 1990s by priests.
The percentage of RC's as a percentage of total Christians is declining.
You are incorrect. There is a constant maintenance in slight growth. The percentage of Catholics remains roughly the same in the US. And frankly, the US Catholic Church only represents like 8% of the world Catholics. Dont get confused into thinking that what goes on here is indicative throughout the world. Notice how few other scandals occurred outside of the US?
Do I think the RC church will disappear, NO!
Well, that is good that you recognize that God is protecting the Church.
Regards
That's why the 'Church' says, "don't believe the bible"...
Jesus Christ our Lord is also known as "The Word"
**First I don't have a church***
What's the name on the sign in front of the building you worship in?
Inquiring minds want to know!
People who claim to have been sodomized?...
By that you are implying that there really was not an evil scandal and monstrous cover-up. It was just an extortion based on what hysteria?
I thought you were better than that.
1 Timothy 4:1 "...in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils",
2 Thessalonians 2:3 "Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first."
2 Thessalonians 2:3 "...for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first..."
2 Thessalonians 2:1 "...by the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, and our gathering together unto Him!"
2 Thessalonians 2:2 ...the day of Christ!"
2 Thessalonians 2:11 "And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion"
2 Thessalonians 2:10 "...because they receive not the love of the Truth, that they might be saved."
2 Thessalonians 2:7 "For the mystery of iniquity doth already work...
1 John 2:8 "Little children, it is the last time: and as ye have heard that anti-christ shall come, even now are there many antichrists; where by we know it is the last time."
All who Believe in Jesus are Children of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and are Born of God! All in the world today, Jew or Gentile who believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and trust alone in His finished work at Calvary for salvation, become heirs of God by faith!
Our salvation was paid in full by Jesus' one final sacrifice for sins!
"For He hath made Him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in Him." 2 Corinthians 5:21
"For all have sinned, and come short of the Glory of God." Romans 3:23
"In whom we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace." Ephesians 1:7
Only the shedding of Jesus' blood atones for our sins.
"But this man, after He had offered one sacrifice forever...." Hebrews 10:12
"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is a gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast."
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.