Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?
It's not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?
If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.
Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.
Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.
But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.
Luther's real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by "faith alone" apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.
The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatemtn), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."
Newman also wrote: "It is antecedently unreasonable to Bsuppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself...." And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."
St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."
Uh no. The catechism specifically says, 'union of the mother WITH the Son IN THE WORK OF SALVATION.....' making Mary part of the salvation process. The only way that is possible is to make her GOD. If you can't see that, I can't help you.
However, since united here means "harmonious mutual action, cooperation" it makes perfect sense
No, my defintion makes perfect sense, its yours that doesn't. Again, harmonious MUTUAL action, COOPERATION....only makes sense if both were God. There can be no harmonious mutual action or cooperation if one isn't God. Again, if you can't see that I can't help you.
That's quite the anti-intellectual streak you flashed there.
But what verse are you referring to??? I've posted a few...
I was replying a post of yours. Did it not occur to you that I was speaking of the verse you posted there?
I heartedly disagree. Children, especially newborns, have a great capacity for selfishness.
The key word is "choice," the learned exercise of the will.
Children lack that, that's why we don't imprison them for stealing from fellow kids.
I do but apparently you don't. There is only one who is sinless - Christ - and He's God. Anything else is extra-biblical teaching.
You are pulling the paragraph out of the context of the Catechism and distorting it to fit a conclusion you'd probably already drawn. I CAN see that.
Nonetheless, despite your spin and exegetical gyrations, Catholic teaching does not make Mary a deity, neither explicitly nor by effect.
Yes, it says that she was in union with Him in His work of Salvation. It DOES NOT say that she is a "co-savior" or anything else you may extrapolate from your misinterpretation of the Catechism.
Mary had to be God in order to become the mother of Jesus?
That's an interesting theory.
Mary was part of the salvation process. How can you deny that?
Paul says he consulted NO ONE other than Jesus Christ in his instructions for his ministry...So it was from Jesus to Paul to elders...
Just as it was from Peter to likely the elders...
And when the scripture was completed, one can see it's all over the scripture for pastors, deacons, and anyone in leadership positions...
So no, I didn't cancatenate anything...My understanding is right on track...
I don't know. And neither do you.
Do you realize that humanity and divinity are two entirely different "species"?
I do but apparently you don't. There is only one who is sinless - Christ - and He's God.
Why do you make me ask a second time?
Do you think a human without sin is the same as God?
Please answer. Thank you.
Then you must deny your own catechism because it does.
In giving birth you kept your virginity; in your Dormition you did not leave the world, O Mother of God, but were joined to the source of Life. You conceived the living God and, by your prayers, will deliver our souls from death.509
Her role in relation to the Church and to all humanity goes still further. "In a wholly singular way she cooperated by her obedience, faith, hope, and burning charity in the Savior's work of restoring supernatural life to souls.
Only God can 'deliver our souls' only God can 'restore supernatural life to souls'. If you can't see the blasphemy in these statements there is no help for you.
There aren't all that many definitions for 'unite'...Perhaps your church should change the word instead of you having to defend your church for using the wrong definition...
Except your posting of Mat 16:18.
What about the unborn? Do they sin? What sin do you imagine a one minute old baby to have committed? Please be speciic.
The ONLY "extra-biblical teaching" discussed on this thread is the 16th Century invention of sola scriptura.
Prior to Gutenberg's invention of the printing press in the 15th Century ALL Bibles had to be scribed by hand. This made them extremely rare and affordable to only the most wealthy. God KNEW that it would be impossible for everyone to have their own Bibles for fifteen centuries AFTER His Resurrection. So, why do you believe that the Lord is so cruel as to have a plan for Salvation that He KNEW would be impossible to implement for a millennium and a half? Why do you believe He would make people suffer for so many centuries?
It does not.
AMEN, AMEN, AMEN!
Perhaps no one connected with the translation of the Catechism could anticipate so hair-brained a misreading as we've been shown here.
Why? You don't respect the position of Protestants over sola scriptura. You attack that and claim its not biblical and tell us what to believe, even though it is biblically supported. This entire thread was posted as an attack. You honestly didn't expect those who believe this to sit back and say nothing did you???? Something like this thread gets posted, expect to get some heat in return.
You again misinterpret the teaching of the Church.
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.