I think I'd rather NOT try and wrap my very vivid visual imagery synapses around Petronski in that state...
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."
. . . SOUNDS . . .
incredibly confident
about what Prottys don’t know!
LOL.
Si.
"Been there, done that" will do that for ya.
So will shucking one set of
constructs
for
a very different set . . . regardless of the reasons for doing so.
“What do you find dispositive of Peter’s founding of the Church at Antioch in Acts 11?”
He didn’t.
(Acts 11:19-21) “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.”
In that passage only “men of Cyprus and Cyrene” and Barnabas and Saul are mentioned later in the passage, as founding he church.
Such as being correct?
The point of the sentence is that those men spoke to the greeks, not founded the church.
There is nothing positively asserting anything about the founding of the Church at Antioch in this passage.
If you can't recognize that fact, you are not qualified to render an opinion.
Actually, IIRC, the research is fairly clear . . .
that RELIGIOUS affinities, allegiances, choices
have . . . overtly . . . nothing to do
with any objective criteria over rightness or wrongness of a set of dogma . . .
instead, they virtually always have to do with relational/emotional/psychodynamic motivations for change.
I’m fairly confident that all the ‘changers’ both directions have a lot of confirmation of that
if and when
they are
able
and
willing
to face
such facts.
Maybe I AM that dumb, what do you think about THAT? ;D hehe Seriously, I don't know what else you want me to say. You asked "What does Pontifex Maximus MEAN", and I told you what it means, from the Latin.
If you also meant "Is it another title for the Pope?" then the answer is of course yes, but you already indicated you knew that so I saw no reason to say that. IMO, it's a perfectly acceptable title for our Holy Father, since he is also (at least supposed to be) a "bridge builder", a builder of bridges to the world, to bring them to the Good News of Christ.
To sum up, the title "Pontifex Maximus" is just a Latin phrase; it's adoption by a leader of Christianity, even if it was used by a pagan leader before that, is no more evil than the adoption of the celebration of Christmas, originally (the date, or a date close to it) a pagan holiday.
To see an example of its relative ambiguity, click here and read the paragraph that starts, "On this and related issues Stravinskas is a veritable pontifex maximus..." Now, I can assure you, Stravinskas is and never has been the Pope! The term is simply a Latin phrase; to read anything more into it is an attempt to justify an agenda.
So you've finally cracked the Pauline conversion!
Congratulations!
I understand many lesser scholars have actually been duped into accepting the validity of Christianity based on their inability to discern with your acumen!
I think I'd rather NOT try and wrap my very vivid visual imagery synapses around Petronski in that state...
“There is nothing positively asserting anything about the founding of the Church at Antioch in this passage.”
Well, that’s your opinion, but if Peter was soooo important to the church at Antioch, one would think Luke would have mentioned him, just once.
My statement was carefully worded . . . something the RCP2 problem may obscure.
I said nothing about God using such
in addition I said nothing about God using OTHER factors, means, supernatural whatevers
to effect conversion.
I merely commented on the objective research on such matters. Of course, we Prottys are well aware of the RC magicsterical’s denial of normal historical, Biblical and dictionary realities . . . denial of a lot of normal reality, actually.
Thankfully, God has used a number of miraculous etc. influences not that dissimilar to the Damascus Road experience of Paul . . . in moving quite a number of former RC’s into a dynamic, alive, Holy Spirit led Protty Christian walk.
PRAISE GOD FOR THAT!
It's not my opinion; it's textual fact. "Why" is irrelevant.
LOL.
Now, BD,
you know that
the RC magicsterical loves to
ARGUE FROM SILENCE.
They have little better to argue from!
Flame away and say what you will, but elevating Mary to equal or even superior status to Christ, elevating Mary to a full participant in the salvation of Man, and elevating Mary to the Queen of all things is utter blasphemy. To say that Catholics actively engage in goddess worship is an understatement. No wonder a reformation was needed!!!!!!!!!
= =
INDEED and well put.
Thx.
...is not "merely commenting" on "objective research." It is an evaluation.
Funny, I always find much more carefully worded comments in extrication than in proposition.
(Acts 11:19-21) “Now they which were scattered abroad upon the persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch, preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. And some of them were men of Cyprus and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the Lord Jesus. And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and turned unto the Lord.”
Rom 10:9 That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Act 2:47 Praising God, and having favor with all the people. And the Lord added to the church daily such as should be saved
What do you figure??? A group of people carried Peter in on a throne??? Peter was decked out in a gold robe while people bowed and kissed his feet??? And then Peter built the 1st Cathedral in Antioch???
These Grecians were 'added to the church'...There was no building...They didn't need no stinkin' building...The 'church' is not a building...
Luk 17:21 Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.
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.