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."
Thank you.
Really??? What's God going to do with all that junk???
Besides, you didn't give it to God...It's still in your church and owned by those people in Rome...
Millions upon millions upon millions of dollars worth of gold and jewels that were paid for by the people of your church...
I'm just guessing but I'd bet God would love for you to sell that junk and use the proceeds to 'feed His sheep'...
Only if you think you are smarter than God...
1Ti 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
We interrupt this fantasy to bring a little reality into the conversation. I note that my earlier query, to wit: WHAT jewelry, went unanswered.
Now I add that the most of the gold in our diocese is owned by the bishop as a "corporation sole", not y the Vatican, and I don't see the bishop handing it over just because the Vatican says it wants it. And some of the other property, either real or chattel, including gold or at least gold plate is owned by religious orders, which are notoriously protective of such autonomy as they have.
WHile the diocese legally has title to the diocesan churches and their chattels, in practice the diocese gets a percentage of the each church's income from whatever source, unless other arrangements have been made, as they often are.
The idea of a Pope who combines in himself plutocrat and autocrat is a fantasy, but ...
We now return you to your fantasy, already in progress.
But they are not authorities over your salvation, nor intermediaries in your relationship with God. They are certainly not “middlemen.”
They are teachers, helpers, counselors, and organizers. The Lord called those that attempted to be authoritarians “nicolaitanes.” He said that he hated them.
You might be on to something there...I suspect the Holy Spirit is an anti-muzlim bigot...
***Anyone who tries to explain God with science will only make a mockery of both***
God is the author of science. How can He mock Himself with His creation?
ON the contrary, "Worship the Lord in the beauty of holiness ..."
This is a conservative forum, and you don't get what's wrong with that thinking?
The money spent on chalices, organs, music, and vestments and the occasional statue employs organ makers, textile artists, workers in gold and silver, and other artists. IT rewards creativity and the manufacture of beautiful things and keeps certain arts and crafts alive.
If that same money and the beautiful things it provided were all converted to cash and given to the poor, it's not clear if that would be a real benefit to them. And in any case, despite their somewhat pinkish hue, I'd wager that the various Catholic relief organizations of various kinds have provided education, health, housing, and other sorts of welfare unmatched by any other NGO. While Protestants mock and disparage religious orders like the Vincentians and others, they have provided services when no one else would with religious brothers and sisters providing much of the human resource component at very low (comparatively) cost.
Throughout the past several hundred years, money spent on art by the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies has provided employment and opportunity for, I'd guess, thousands of artists, many of whom would have had a tough time without church related commissions.
No, it's not perfect. But to suggest that it would be significantly improved if Churches eschewed the use of beautiful things in their worship is silly.
It reminds me of one polemicist for the Protestant side who pooh-poohed my reaction the first time I heard the Salve Regina sung. She supposed that the whole thing was surrounded with incense and "flowing robes" and that that was what swept me away. Obviously she didn't get that in many religious orders the austerity extends to worship, and that not all RC worship is carried out with the full complement of gee-gaws and knick-knacks, but that when it is it can be very beautiful.
Dr. Eckleburg -
There are many Catholics on FR who have tried to explain our faith, year after year. Those who refuse to hear us persist in spreading falsehoods about our beliefs. This attitude is intellectually dishonest, as the Truth is not sought, only the perpetuation of an agenda.
Having been Presbyterian at one time, I can appreciate your citing of the Westminster Catechism. However, since you are not now, nor have you ever been Catholic, please do not lecture us on what our Church believes, unless you are willing to cite the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
I have given you plenty of Scriptural arguments for Catholic doctrine which you conveniently ignore, and having been Presbyterian myself at one time, I could probably match you one-on-one for Scripture references. Don’t get me started on “who knows Scripture better” and “who applies it properly!”
In the early days things wee not so defined or, comparatively, crisp. But elders as sort of sub-apostles to the successors to the apostles, the over-seers, and deacons as administrative4 assistants with an emphasis on the "social welfare" of Christians seems to have been worked out by, say, the third century, if not before.
"God is the author of science. How can He mock Himself with His creation?"
***Johns descriptions of the saints in heaven is not one of saints who can make intersession, but of saints waiting for the final judgment.***
“And the smioke of the incense of the prayers of the saints ascended up before God from the hand of the angel.” Revelation 8:4
How do you explain this verse?
In My Arrogant opinion:>P>Empirical science is the effort to develop "Theories" or systematic and reasonable accounts of natural phenomena in a process which can be described thus:
How'd I do?
The argument that the sacrifice of the mass isn't a separate sacrifice but the same sacrifice perpetuated through time.
I submit that the sacrifice made on the cross was a historic space-time event which occurred once and can never be repeated. The application of the crucifixion goes on to our present day by the Holy Spirit convicting men of sin and the need to receive the benefit of the finished work done on the cross - forgiveness of their sin.
The sacrifice itself cannot be perpetuated. It was once-for-all -
"For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God." Romans 6:9,10
The main theme of Hebrews is that there is no more sacrifice for sin whatsoever. Another theme is that there is also no need for a priesthood: Jesus was the perfect priest. And His work is done.
You said: If I thought, as some seem to do, that the Catholic Church thought it was repeating Christ's sacrifice in the Mass, I never would have converted.
Well, that's what the RCC teaches. It is a propitiatory sacrifice and it is repeated. Even employing the perpetuation of the same sacrifice isn't tenable given the Scriptures I've provided. I humbly suggest you re-read Hebrews.
Wagglebee’s response is on target. However, evangmlw, I had suggested to you that you identify two (2) areas that you believed to be false doctrine so that we could have a meaningful, focused discussion. Would you like to select two (2) from you list?
***what good is your Holy Eucharist? I mean, what does it accomplish for you?***
The Holy Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. The help is Jesus Himself, as promised in John Chapter 6.
Given the bold/italicized text above...
Are you saying that the mass is not a different sacrifice from that of Calvary, but the same sacrifice perpetuated through time?
Your attitude is the attitude of Judas who said, “Why was that alabaster box of ointment wasted? It might have been sold and given to the poor.” Instead the woman poured it out on Jesus for love of Him. Matthew 26:7-13
Read Exodus 25 again. God wants - and deserves - the best.
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.