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."
“It’s not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church”
This is a strange statement. I was never a Catholic, therefore I jettisoned nothing. Statements like this seem to be making a case that all were Catholic and then turned our backs on “the church” in some horrible act of rebellion. I was raised Protestant, I remain one, I harbor no ill will to anyone of other denomination or faith. I sincerely believe that all followers of Christ will meet up in His kingdom and we will be shown just how foolish arguments like Protestant/Catholic really are.
"If anyone saith, that the sacrifice of the mass is only a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; or, that it is a bare commemoration of the sacrifice consummated on the cross, but not a propitiatory sacrifice; or that it profits him only who receives; and that it ought not to be offered for the living and the dead for sins, pains, satisfactions, and other necessities: let him be anathema' (The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, Canon III. Cited by Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1877), Volume II, p. 185)
There's another section in the Doctrine on the Sacrifice of the Mass that also states that the mass is indeed a propitiatory sacrifice, I can supply that as well.
It's at odds with Scripture. There's no need for further sacrifices. Jesus did it once, and he sat down at the right hand of God. Done.
The thing is, whatever Protestant denomination from which your beliefs stem DID jettison the Church at some point - that is what it is to be a Protestant. Theologically and intellectually, you have jettisoned the Church, since that is your pedigree, so to speak.
I sincerely believe that all followers of Christ will meet up in His kingdom and we will be shown just how foolish arguments like Protestant/Catholic really are.
I don't disagree with you per se - the thing is, how many "churches" claim they are followers of Christ and say abortion is a personal choice or that gay marriage is okay? That is why Catholics fight so hard - it is scary to think what might happen without good teachers, or if people turn their faith solely inward.
“I don’t disagree with you per se - the thing is, how many “churches” claim they are followers of Christ and say abortion is a personal choice or that gay marriage is okay?”
I do not personally know of any church that ok’s those two things.
“That is why Catholics fight so hard - it is scary to think what might happen without good teachers, or if people turn their faith solely inward.”
Ah it’s not that scary, we have the Bible. We ought never turn our faith solely inward with the Word of God within easy reach.
Ah it’s not that scary, we have the Bible. We ought never turn our faith solely inward with the Word of God within easy reach.
But how can you say that? I clearly interpret the Bible differently than you do - we can't both be right. Does the Holy Spirit help you interpret it and not me, or vice versa?
“I can go find a ton of “churches” which teach those things, if you really want. Such is the beauty of the interweb.”
Did I say that they don’t exist?
“But how can you say that? I clearly interpret the Bible differently than you do - we can’t both be right.”
Oh I don’t know. Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Saviour?
We completely agree that Christ completed the sacrifice, for time eternal. However, I'm curious how you reconcile the teachings regarding the Eucharist that existed for 1500 years in both the Catholic and the Orthodox Churches? Were these Churches in error regarding the Eucharist the entire time? If yes, how do you reconcile that with Christ's promise that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His Church?
No, they weren't all in error regarding the eucharist the entire time. I have a quote from Eusebius of Caesarea (263 - 340 A.D.) that it's a memorial and commemoration if you'd like to see it.
But if a church (any church) teaches that there still needs to be a propitiatory sacrifice, the letter to the Hebrews says that's not the case.
And, I believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah of the Jews, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and the Logos. His death opened the gates to Heaven for all. So - the other stuff in the Bible, who is right?
Also, the Church does not teach that there needs to be a new Sacrifice - we know Christ's death accomplished that. Instead, the Church teaches we all need to partake of Christ's Sacrifice, since it is an eternal Sacrifice. We need to eat the Sacrifical Lamb.
“And, I believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah of the Jews, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and the Logos”
And your personal Lord and Saviour? If so, then we agree on the important things, see ya in Heaven.
“So - the other stuff in the Bible, who is right?”
After “And, I believe Jesus Christ is the Messiah of the Jews, the Son of God, the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, and the Logos” Does it really matter? Faith? Works? Semantics...why fight over such a loving God? He is big enough for all.
He is certainly big enough for all of us. However, his words were "Eat My Body and drink My Blood." He also passed along the keys of Heaven. I cannot claim to follow him and ignore such things. And with Faith v. Works, isn't your argument Faith alone is enough? Isn't that why you asked if Jesus was my Lord and Savior? Not trying to be combative - I'm actually curious as to your thoughts...
“And with Faith v. Works, isn’t your argument Faith alone is enough?”
It is and it is.
“Isn’t that why you asked if Jesus was my Lord and Savior?”
No. I was just trying to find out wether or not you are saved.
From The Catechism of the Council of Trent:SESSION THE TWENTY-SECOND CHAPTER I.
On the institution of the most holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
Forasmuch as, under the former Testament, according to the testimony of the Apostle Paul, there was no perfection, because of the weakness of the Levitical priesthood; there was need, God, the Father of mercies, so ordaining, that another priest should rise, according to the order of Melchisedech, our Lord Jesus Christ, who might consummate, and lead to what is perfect, as many as were to be sanctified. He, therefore, our God and Lord, though He was about to offer Himself once on the altar of the cross unto God the Father, by means of his death, there to operate an eternal redemption; nevertheless, because that His priesthood was not to be extinguished by His death, in the last supper, on the night in which He was betrayed,--that He might leave, to His own beloved Spouse the Church, a visible sacrifice, such as the nature of man requires, whereby that bloody sacrifice, once to be accomplished on the cross, might be REPRESENTED (i.e., made present again here and now), and the memory thereof remain even unto the end of the world, and its salutary virtue be applied to the remission of those sins which we daily commit,--declaring Himself constituted a priest for ever, according to the order of Melchisedech, He offered up to God the Father His own body and blood under the species of bread and wine; and, under the symbols of those same things, He delivered (His own body and blood) to be received by His apostles, whom He then constituted priests of the New Testament; and by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, He commanded them and their successors in the priesthood, to offer (them); even as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught. For, having celebrated the ancient Passover, which the multitude of the children of Israel immolated in memory of their going out of Egypt, He instituted the new Passover, (to wit) Himself to be immolated, under visible signs, by the Church through (the ministry of) priests, in memory of His own passage from this world unto the Father, when by the effusion of His own blood He redeemed us, and delivered us from the power of darkness, and translated us into his kingdom. And this is indeed that clean oblation, which cannot be defiled by any unworthiness, or malice of those that offer (it); which the Lord foretold by Malachias was to be offered in every place, clean to his name, which was to be great amongst the Gentiles; and which the apostle Paul, writing to the Corinthians, has not obscurely indicated, when he says, that they who are defiled by the participation of the table of devils, cannot be partakers of the table of the Lord; by the table, meaning in both places the altar. This, in fine, is that oblation which was prefigured by various types of sacrifices, during the period of nature, and of the law; in as much as it comprises all the good things signified by those sacrifices, as being the consummation and perfection of them all.
We therefore confess that the Sacrifice of the Mass is and ought to be considered ONE AND THE SAME SACRIFICE as that of the cross, for the victim is one and the same, namely, Christ our Lord, OFFERED HIMSELF ONCE ONLY, whose Sacrifice is daily RENEWED in the Eucharist, in obedience to the command of our Lord: Do this for commemoration of me.The question is not if the Mass is a propitiatory sacrifice, it is, but whether it is a new and different sacrifice. Catholics belief that at the Mass we are present at and participate at the one sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ upon the cross. Disagree with this if you must, but do not misrepresent what we believe.
Well, there are books written on “The Vatican Billions” by investigative journalists that will provide more detail. But this is just one “official” doc from 2001 that state Vatican income to be a staggering $466 Billion, with 17.720 Billion profit! Now that just the *income* - therefore it’s net worth is substantially more. (mind you, these are 2001 #’s) I would just love to see a list of “expenses” but we never will. Mind you, I believe the RCC does alot to help the poor, etc, however it she remains enormously weathly. It owns much of the world’s gold reserves, housed in England & elsewhere. Notice the reference to it’s market investments. Should Christ’s Church be gambling in stock & bond markets, or should it be totally dependant on tithes & offerings as taught in the New Testament Church?
http://www.zenit.org/article-1900?l=english
Besides, the Catholic Church’s authority does not go back to Peter, but back to Clement, the fourth Pope. He wrote a letter and no one complained. Later Popes used Clement as case law. That’s when this whole mess started. Interestingly enough, Clement’s letter talks about salvation through faith alone. Even more interesting, Clement’s letter talks about the phoenix as if it were real.
= = =
GREAT POINTS. THX
Apostolic succession is definetly practiced in the Book of Acts-—why do you think the Apostles lay on hands to those they are giving leadership or teaching authority to?
LOL, that is 17.720 Billion LIRE! If you had read the article that you linked you would have seen that in 2000 the Lira had an exchange rate of 2,080.89 Lire per dollar. As the article states, this was equal to only $8,516,000 US. This is hardly a large amount for an institution with the world wide responsibilities of the Vatican. BTW, most years the Vatican runs a deficit.
No where in the Bible does the idea of apostolic succession appear.
Just curious...why did they appoint someone to fill the place of Judas? Why is Paul’s name Saul until he recieves the laying on of hands?
= = =
Evidently you think those are related.
I suppose Apostolic Succession means whatever the Roman Rubber Dictionary declares it to mean.
Sounds to me like they found someone to help carry the load and fill in the missing slot.
Of course, Rome insists it has to do with RELIGIOUS POLITICAL POWER MONGERING in the name of Magnificent Magical Earth-Mother Mary . . . and a long list of other hogwash that would have made even the Pile-the-legalisms-on Jewish RELIGIOUS political power mongers of 2,000 years ago blush.
Had never thought of it that way.
Makes sense.
Political power mongering in the name of God when actually in the name of vain glory and politics; self-centeredness . . . is logically on the side of Cain, alright.
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.