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."
If you have ever been at a Catholic Mass, you surely noticed that the focus is on what is happening at the altar.
Let me ask another then...Would Catholics WANT to worship with out all that stuff that's required in one of your Masses???
Likely, huh?
Thank you both for your responses, again, interesting points! I must admit at this point I’m hoping to garner more responses to my post # 145 before I post any replies to the replies I’ve received so far. I am generally pleased with what has been posted so far though, thanks again!
There is no "requirement" for there to be any statues in a Catholic church or at a mass, if you believe otherwise you are mistaken.
But you STILL haven't indicated how this has ANYTHING to do with the pictures in 1380.
I think you need to support your original claim.
heh heh.
"Is it you, you troubler of Israel?" Lead me zot into temptation.
Um, among the non-clinical names is "psychic vampire", which addresses the need to feed off of others, and the drained feeling others have after an engagement with a sufferer.
But in the soon to be world-renowned MDDSM (Mad Dawg Diagnostic and Statistical Manual) it is
of course
(drum roll)
Ladieez and Gentledudes! Give it up for ....
Sado-Evangelism!
(No, no, thankyouberrymudge, you're very kind.)
You show that picture to a child and ask him/her what stands out more than anything in this picture...I think we all know the answer we will get...
Amen !
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua
It would be nice if you kept that in mind before claiming others here worship the Blessed Virgin Mary. You know, the one you denigrate so freely.
He was executed by the political leadership of the Holy Roman Empire. Do you know what that is?
Here's a hint: It was neither holy nor Roman nor an Empire.
What’s the source of that text?
Too bad about the crucifix. They must worship what one Protestant here called a "feckless" Jesus.
Petronski: Likely, huh?
Anti-Catholic: Almost certain, I’ve got this comic book, I mean tract, that explains it all right here. In fact I have an entire box of these comic books in my trunk, I litter the parking lots of Catholic churches with them weekly.
Yep, this “den of thieves” is so full of idolatry that there are even statues praying to other statues.
Then why is Jesus NOT the one bathed in light with Mary at his feet pointing UP???
What stuff is “required” at our Masses?
"this" does not mean "Peter".
Why deny it??? It's just not true...Half of your Catholics don't even believe it...
The probably "re-Crucify" Him.
Source?
And what about the Protestants, are they excused?
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.