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."
I suspect I’m far better formally, experentially, technically trained and more formally tested
as an expert in describing human behaviors . . .
than any other RC hereon that I’m aware of . . . certainly than some . . .
I realize, of course,
how important it is for some folks to construe my descriptions of human RELIGIOUS behaviors as horribly askew
else they’d have to confront the RC edifice and maybe their mirrors in frightful ways about frightful facts.
You mean like the weekend drunken binges and sex and more booze and then more sex so many Catholics engage in then Sunday morning go to Mass, confess their 'sins', then repeat everything all over again the next Saturday night?????? That kind of fruit????? (Hint: The name Teddy Kennedy ring a bell?)
Are you judging all Catholics by Teddy Kennedy?
Whatever expertise you might have is addled by your personal bias.
I wouldn’t dare, be akin to you judging all protestents based on the Westboro bunch.
I’m judging based on the ones I have personally known and still know PERSONALLY who engage in this behavior and then some......(and I’m not even mentioning the local priest who goes on these drunken binges.....)
Roman edifice teaching in formal document oriented ways might somewhat—to a rather limited degree—be as so many hereon persistently assert . . .
However, the gestalt; the COMMUNICATED memes; a vast array of slightly above subliminal messages communicates something else entirely and quite MORE effectively.
That’s very obvious to even layment not blinded by the magicsterical’s pomp and circumstance.
I did no such thing. You're making things up now?
Did Mary have 12 stars around her head and a big star in the middle (Sometimes shown)? If so that represents common image of her deriving from Rev. 12.
Looks like the centerpiece does have stars around the head.
http://www.stmaryevansville.org/worship.html
It's not what they say, it's what YOU say they say.
Right. You're playing The Game.
I’m not convinced that there’s more than a very few (usually quiet and mild mannered) RC’s hereon who can tell the
DIFFERENCE
between
a fruit and a rock crystal;
a fruit and a sparkplug;
a fruit and a dead armadillo;
a fruit and a plastic statue;
. . .
much less between quality and rotten fruit.
Actually, I’ve known a significant percentage to act remarkably like Scuba Teddy.
Maybe there’s some genetic defect transmitted through ‘holy’ water?
Convincing you of reality is a continuing problem.
Are you accusing me of lying AGAIN? You are the one who brought up fruit. If you want to judge others BY their fruit you might want to start with your own people first because every single Catholic I have PERSONALLY KNOWN has none.
I am not saying [before you twist what I've said] that there are no catholics who produce fruit because I am sure that there are.....I am talking about those I KNOW PERSONALLY. And the ones I know PERSONALLY who have produced fruit (like my Pastor's wife) have LEFT the RCC and call it a false religious system (SHE said that having been raised in it, NOT ME before you attack.....)
Eternity will tell.
So far, I’d match my human behavior predictive skills regarding RC’s and Prottys up against virtually anyone’s. I could easily not be the best but God has enabled me to be well above average. Therefore, my biases must not pollute such skills that much.
One can believe otherwise . . . if one chooses to believe yet another falsehood.
I’ve never found falsehoods to be lastingly comforting, however.
And as you’ve demonstrated and argued, you consider yourself free to ascribe behavior of members of a group to the members of the group in general.
That’s the stuff most folks know as bigotry.
You are leaving readers with the impression that I did this.
I did not.
Perhaps some memory pills would help a fair number of RC’s.
I’ve persistently not given much weight to what
RC’s SAY . . .
what they DO screams so much louder so much more often so much more destructively.
It might interest conservativegramma to know that individual Catholic parishes essentially have ZERO say over the readings at a regular Mass, priests ARE NOT at liberty to make changes in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. So, it escapes me how ANY parish can place ANYONE above our Lord.
I see NO MENTION on the website WHICH St. Mary the church is even named for. If conservativegramma is implying that naming a church after a saint or some other person, she needs to launch the same attack against nearly every protestant denomination.
Now, let's look at what the website DOES say and perhaps conservativegramma can enlighten us about where she is in disagreement:
We, the people of St. Mary Church,
through the guidance of the Holy Spirit,
are inspired to be a hospitable Catholic community
in downtown Evansville, Indiana.
We are dedicated to celebrating God’s presence in our lives
through sharing the Eucharist
and proclaiming the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
We are committed, as disciples of Jesus, to seek out and serve
the needs of the hungry, the hurting, and the homeless.
We hold sacred all family life through the nurturing of marriage,
the engagement process, and the single life.
We are entrusted to pass on our faith tradition
through Catholic education, evangelization,
and ongoing Christian formation.
We are challenged to be stewards of God’s abundance,
stewards of prayer, of one another,
and the Earth.
We are called to be a people of justice.
Funny, there is NOTHING here that indicates that ANYONE is placed above Christ, but read on.
Liturgy at St. Mary Catholic Church:
The documents of Vatican II state that “The Eucharistic sacrifice is the source and the summit of the whole of the Church’s worship and of the Christian life.” Here at St. Mary, we strive to always maintain the highest standard of liturgy. Our constant hope is that all who gather in worship will be enlivened and inspired by hearing God's Word proclaimed, by raising their voices in songs of praise, and by partaking of the Body and Blood of our Savior, Jesus Christ.
Our Liturgical Ministries seek to actively engage as many people as possible, so that all feel truly welcome and can fully participate in the Eucharistic Celebration. From Ministers of the Word to Greeters, Ushers, Masters of Ceremonies, Servers, Sacristy Assistants, and more, we seek to have a place for everyone in the Liturgy at St. Mary.
Along with our Liturgical Ministries, our Music Ministries cover the breadth of the musical spectrum and seek to give vocalists and instrumentalists solid opportunities to praise God in song.
To find out more about our Liturgical and Music Ministries, use the menu to the left.
So, I am quite confused what this parish is doing that Protestants consider "unbiblical" or how they are putting the Blessed Virgin Mary "above" the Lord.
Not really.
My reality testing is quite solid and grounded . . . really grounded . . . not on fantasy sky scrapers in the sky built on toothpics.
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.