The Semi-Permeable Membranes of the Various Protestantisms [Ecumenical]

ic ^ | July 21, 2009 | Mark Shea

[NYer]

One basic rule of thumb to understand in Catholic/Protestant conversations is that it is not the case that Catholics rely on Sacred Tradition and Protestants don't. Rather, Catholics (and by this I mean "educated Catholics speaking out of the Magisterial teaching of the Church") rely on Sacred Tradition and know they do, while Protestants rely on (parts) of Sacred Tradition and (usually) don't know they do.

So, for instance, despite Paul's prescriptions (directed only at clergy of his day) that a man must be the husband of but one wife, nowhere in the text of Scripture is it made clear that Christian marriage must be monogamous for all (a fact that did not escape Luther or John Milton). Nowhere does Scripture spell out that the Holy Spirit is a person, much less the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity, consubstantial with the Father and the Son. Similarly, you will look in vain for instructions in Scripture on how to contract a valid marriage (unless you buy this list of "Top 10 Ways to Find a Wife, According to the Bible"):

 

10. Find an attractive prisoner of war, bring her home, shave her head, trim her nails, and give her new clothes. Then she's yours (Dt 21:11-13).
9. Find a prostitute and marry her (Hos 1:1-3).
8. Find a man with seven daughters, and impress him by watering his flock (Moses, Ex 2:16-21).
7. Purchase a piece of property, and get a woman as part of the deal (Boaz, Ru 4:5-10).
6. Go to a party and hide. When the women come out to dance, grab one and carry her off to be your wife (Benjaminites, Jgs 21:19-25).
5. Have God create a wife for you while you sleep (Adam, Gn 2:19-24).
4. Kill any husband and take his wife (David, 2 Sm 11).
3. Cut 200 foreskins off of your future father-in-law's enemies and get his daughter for a wife (David, 1 Sm 18:27).
2. Even if no one is out there, just wander around a bit and you'll definitely find someone (Cain, Gn 4:16-17).
1. Don't be so picky. Make up for quality with quantity (Solomon, 1 Kgs 11:1-3).

Of course, this doesn't really help much. The fact is, the Bible says "marriage is good" but gives us not one word of instruction on how to do it. That's because Scripture is not and never was intended to be the Big Book of Everything. And yet, of course, Protestants all over the world get married, believe in God the Holy Spirit, and have but one spouse because, as James Dobson says, God's plan is one man and one woman. How do they do this when Scripture is so unclear?

 

Whether they realize it or not, they do it by accepting Sacred Tradition percolated to them from the Catholic Church through the Protestant tradition. It's the same way they know that the books of the Bible they accept are supposed to be books of the Bible. It's the same way they know that public revelation closed with the death of the apostles, even though Scripture is completely silent on the matter (Revelation 22:18-19 doesn't count since that passage refers to the Book of Revelation, not to the Bible, which was not fully collated -- and from which Revelation was sometimes excluded -- before the late fourth century).

 

 

Retention of Catholic Sacred Tradition fragments has kept Protestantism in such sanity as it still possesses. So when the Bible Answer Man appeals to "historic Christianity" in understanding what the Bible means, that's typically a good thing. He's appealing to Sacred Tradition and agreeing with the Church. It's Eupocrisy in action!

However, in those places where Protestantism attempts to reject Catholic Sacred Tradition, the narrative suddenly and wrenchingly changes. Suddenly, the demand is made for nothing less than an explicit proof text from the Bible. It works like this:

 

1. If a thing is condemned by the Church but permitted by the Protestant (say, gay marriage), the demand is for an explicit text forbidding it. ("Show me where Jesus said one word about not allowing gay marriage! That's just the Church imposing its purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.") 

2. Conversely, if a thing is allowed by the Church but condemned by the Protestant, the demand is for an explicit text commanding it. ("Where in the Bible do you find anyone asking us to pray to dead people? That's just the Church imposing it's purely human ideas on what Jesus came to say.")

Note how the terms of the argument shift to suit the "Heads I win, tails the Church loses" agenda. It's no longer good enough to say (as the Protestant generally does when, for instance, arguing for the divinity of the Holy Spirit), "Here are biblical passages which, taken together, point to the reality that the Holy Spirit is a Divine Person even though there is no text that says 'The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity.'"

No, arguing from such obvious implication is out the window. In many circles, even a nearly algebraic piece of logic like

 

1. Jesus is God.
2. Mary is His Mother.
3. Therefore, Mary is the Mother of God.

 . . . gets rejected as "inbred reasoning" since Catholics can't produce the Bible verse that says explicitly, "Mary is the Mother of God." Suddenly, only direct, explicit testimony and instruction in legally watertight language will do.

 

How this works on the ground can be seen everywhere. The Protestant who wants to permit abortion points out that there is no unequivocal commandment in either the Old or New Testament saying, "You shall not have an abortion," and evinces absolutely no interest in how the texts we do have ("You shall not murder," for instance) have been universally read by the Church from the earliest times. Likewise, the Protestant who dogmatically rejects, say, prayer to the saints simply ignores you if you point to the fact that Scripture shows us that the dead (like Moses on the Mount of Transfiguration) are aware of what's happening on earth, that we are told that "we shall be like Christ" (who intercedes for us), that the Body of Christ is One (not split in two by death), and that the early Church understood all this to imply that we can ask prayers of the dead just as we ask them of the living.

As remote as the flaky pro-choice Episcopalian and the starchy Bible-thumping Fundamentalist preacher may seem to be from each other, they share a deep commonality in the way they reject whatever aspect of Catholic teaching they dislike. From liberal to conservative, the argument proceeds: "Unless the Bible explicitly commands what I forbid or forbids what I want to do, then the Catholic teaching I dislike is 'unbiblical.'" (Of course, the word "Bible" is not unbiblical -- even though it also never appears in Scripture -- because the word "Bible" is a fragment of extra-biblical Christian tradition generally acceptable to Protestants.)

Indeed all the various forms of Protestantism have this (and only this) one feature in common. They may differ on Mary or baptism or the divinity of Jesus or even the existence of God (if you include Unitarians as a particularly robust form of Protestantism that has jettisoned more of Catholic teaching than its predecessors). But they all agree on erecting semi-permeable membranes in which some (but not all) elements of Sacred Tradition are allowed through (different bits for different groups).

 

Those elements that are allowed through are called "the witness of historic Christianity" or "the clear implication of Scripture" or "the obviously reasonable position." Those not allowed through are called "human tradition" or "myths" or "the unbiblical teachings of Rome" or "relics of patriarchy" or "ancient superstition" (even when they are the obvious testimony and practice of all the apostolic communions in the world since the beginning of the Church.) Finally, to the filtered-in elements of real apostolic theological and moral teaching are stapled sundry human traditions like sola scriptura or some theory about predestinarianism or the "perspicuity of Scripture" or the need to speak in tongues or (in the past) the curse on Canaan as a biblical basis for American chattel slavery or (more recently) the glories of homosexuality or abortion.

Of course, as history goes on and at least some sectors in Protestantism allow the centrifugal force of Private Judgment to move them further and further from both Sacred Tradition and (inevitably, given the logic) Sacred Scripture as well, you reach a point where appeals to Scripture as an authority in debate don't matter, since Scripture is, after all, simply the written aspect of Tradition. Sooner or later, it occurs to people trending away from acceptance of Apostolic Tradition to ask, "If I've rejected everything else the Church says, why should I care about its 'holy' writings? I can find a hundred German theologians who say of the supposed 'word of God' what I've been saying of 'Sacred Tradition' all along."

For the present, many (graying) Evangelicals still retain a deep reverence for the sacred writings of Holy Church (though there are some signs that the itch to deconstruct Scripture will wreak enormous damage among those who come to clearly face the choice between the pole in Protestantism that seeks the Apostolic Tradition and the pole that seeks to keep deconstructing until nothing, including Scripture, is left).

For those still in this betwixt-and-between stage, who reverence Scripture and have this conflicted grasp of an Apostolic Tradition coming to them through a semi-permeable membrane, what is needed is a paradigm shift: the realization first of the shell game that is played in order to filter out Catholic traditions according to the preferences of the particular Protestant tradition one adheres to and, second, a willingness to acknowledge the possibility that when this is honestly done, it will be found that no Catholic doctrine -- none whatsoever --actually contradicts Scripture and that all that is essential in Scripture is also essential in Catholic teaching.

 

That's a terrifying prospect if one has accepted any of the various myths by which the sundry Protestantisms justify the rejection of whichever bits of Catholic teaching they reject. All the myths -- ranging from "I listen only to the Bible alone and not to the traditions of men!" to "I accept Tradition within reason, except that church tradition is never accepted as equal in authority to canonical Scripture; it is always subject to revision provided a scriptural basis can be found" -- are equally doomed if that turns out to be so, which is why those committed to the sundry Protestant schemas require not new information but an alteration of the will: a willingness to consider the possibility that there is no conflict between Catholic Tradition and Scripture and that every apparent conflict is just that -- apparent and not real.

 

Once that possibility is squarely faced and accepted, the argument for receiving all of Sacred Tradition rather than simply the bits you like can naturally follow in a rather reasonable way. But first, the membrane(s) must go.

[Mr Rogers]

You are wrong on your history.

See http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html

[MarkBsnr]

***It doesn’t matter who said it.***

Actually, it does, and the context in which they said matters arguably more.

***The point is, the Gospel stands on its own.***

Actually, it doesn’t. Jesus quite clearly states that He has left us His Church and the Holy Spirit. If the Gospel was complete in and of itself, there would not be these supplements, as it were.

***If one puts their faith in the Gospel because the Catholic Church moved them to do so, then I fear their faith isn’t whole.***

Fear away. It is a common theme of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church which have given the Faith to us all.

***Faith comes through the Gospel of our Lord; not through a church.***

Wait a minute. I thought that the Bible Believers (tm) teach that faith comes from God directly. Who said that the Protestant faith comes through the Gospel?

[MarkBsnr]

***You are wrong on your history.

See http://www.bible-researcher.com/canon5.html***

Interesting.

Your website lists the Shepherd, for instance, as only admitted by the Codex Claramontanus. Wikipedia says that: The Shepherd of Hermas (sometimes just called The Shepherd) is a Christian literary work of the second century, considered a valuable book by many Christians, and considered canonical scripture by some of the early Church fathers. The Shepherd had great authority in the second and third centuries.[1] It was cited as Scripture by Irenaeus and Tertullian and was bound with the New Testament in the Codex Sinaiticus, and it was listed between the Acts of the Apostles and the Acts of Paul in the stichometrical list of the Codex Claromontanus.

The Epistle of Barnabas is a Greek treatise with some features of an epistle containing twenty-one chapters, preserved complete in the 4th century Codex Sinaiticus where it appears at the end of the New Testament. It is traditionally ascribed to Barnabas who is mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, though some ascribe it to another apostolic father of the same name, a “Barnabas of Alexandria”, or simply attribute it to an unknown early Christian teacher. A form of the Epistle 850 lines long is noted in the Latin list of canonical works in the 6th century Codex Claromontanus [1]. It is not to be confused with the Gospel of Barnabas.

The most complete text is in the Codex Sinaiticus (=S; 4th century) and the Codex Hierosolymitanus (=H; 11th century), which are usually in agreement on variant readings. A truncated form of the text in which Polycarp’s Epistle to the Philippians 1.1-9.2 continues with Barnabas 5.7a and following, without any indication of the transition, survives in nine Greek manuscripts (=G; from 11th century onward) and often agrees with the old Latin translation (=L) against S and H.

Your site only lists Barnabas in Claramontanus.

The Book of Enoch (also 1 Enoch[1]) is a pseudepigraphic work ascribed to Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah and son of Jared (Genesis 5:18).

While this book today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches, it was explicitly quoted[2]:8 in the New Testament (Letter of Jude 1:14-15) and by many of the early Church Fathers. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical.

Your site does not list Enoch.

I submit that I am not wrong on my history; the Church took several hundred years to establish the NT Scripture, and another 150 years to firmly declare it.

The Bible did not fall down out of the sky. It took the Church to the limit of its fallible men for 300 years with the help of the Holy Spirit to declare the NT Scripture.

[bdeaner]

Interpreting Scripture isn’t hard if you read the text.

Sure, interpreting Scripture is easy. Interpreting it accurately so that it reveals the immutable Truth of the Word of God, is not so easy.

Testimony to this fact is given in the wide diversity of theological beliefs held by many Protestants, each of whom adhere to the doctrine of Sola Scriptura--and many of which, like you, believe in the perspecuity of the Bible--yet who nevertheless cannot come to consensus on many basic doctrines of the faith.

The Bible is indeed more often than not quite clear when approached open-mindedly and with a moral willingness to accept its teachings. But in actual fact many Christians (and also heretics or "cultists") distort and misunderstand the Bible, or at the very least, arrive at contradictory, sincerely-held convictions. This is the whole point from the Catholic perspective. Error is necessarily present wherever contradictions exist – clearly not a desirable situation, as all falsehood is harmful (for example, John 8:44, 16:13, 2 Thessalonians 2:10-12, 1 John 4:6). Perspicuity might theoretically be a good thing in principle, and on paper, but in practice it is unworkable and untenable. History has proven this beyond all doubt.

Yet Protestant freedom of conscience is valued more than unity and the certainty of doctrinal truth in all matters (not just the core issues alone). The inquirer with newfound zeal for Christ is in trouble if he expects to easily attain any comprehensive certainty within Protestantism. All he can do is take a "head count" of scholars and pastors and evangelists and Bible Dictionaries and see who lines up where on the various sides of the numerous disagreements. Or else he can uncritically accept the word of whatever denomination he is associated with.

In effect, then, he is no better off than a beginning philosophy student who prefers Kierkegaard to Kant -- the whole procedure (however well-intentioned, and I readily grant that it is) is arbitrary and destined to produce further confusion.

The usual Protestant reply to this critique is that denominations differ mostly over secondary issues, not fundamental or central doctrines. This is often and casually stated, but when scrutinized, it collapses under its own weight. Right from the beginning, the fault lines of Protestantism appeared when Zwingli and Oecolampadius (two lesser Reformers) differed with Luther on the Real Presence, and the Anabaptists dissented on the Eucharist, infant baptism, ordination, and the function of civil authority. Martin Luther regarded these fellow Protestants as "damned" and "out of the Church" for these reasons. He didn’t care much at all for doctrinal disunity among Christians, either.

Reformers John Calvin and Martin Bucer held to a third position on the Eucharist (broadly speaking), intermediate between Luther's Real Presence (consubstantiation) and Zwingli's purely symbolic belief. By 1577, the book 200 Interpretations of the Words, "This is My Body" was published at Ingolstadt, Germany. This is the fruit of perspicuity, and it was quick to appear.

Protestants will often maintain that the Eucharist and baptism, for instance, are neither primary nor essential doctrines. This is curious, since these are the two sacraments that the majority of Protestants accept. Jesus said (John 6:53): Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.

This certainly sounds essential, even to the extent that a man's salvation might be in jeopardy. St. Paul, too, regards communion with equally great seriousness and of the utmost importance to one's spiritual well-being and relationship with Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 10:14-22, 11:23-30). Thus we are already in the realm of salvation -- a primary doctrine. Lutherans and many Anglicans (for example, the Oxford Tractarians and C.S. Lewis), believe in the Real Presence, whereas most evangelicals do not, yet this is not considered cause for alarm or even discomfort.

Unfortunately for the Protestants, either Scripture is lacking in perspecuity--and therefore in need of infallible teachers to interpret it--, or Protestants generally are lacking in basic reading comprehension. I'm not sure if there is any other explanation than these two. I hold that there are plenty of Protestants with perfectly good reading comprehension; the problem is that the Bible is not perfectly clear, and open to multiple interpretation--thus, in need of an infallible teaching authority, which is the Magisterium of the Church.

If you need for the text to say things it doesn’t, then you need a Magisterium to tell you what it says.

If you really believe in the perspecuity of the Bible -- and if you are indeed willing to take Bible passages on face value, you will have to eat this statement. Why? Because Scripture itself states that it is insufficient of itself as a teacher, but rather needs an interpreter.

The Bible says in 2 Timothy 3:17 that the man of God is "perfect, furnished to every good work." But actually, this verse means only that the man of God is fully supplied with Scripture; it is not a guarantee that he automatically knows how to interpret it properly. This verse at most agues only for the material sufficiency of Scripture, a position which is held by some Catholic thinkers today.

"Material sufficiency" would mean that the Bible in some way contains all the truths that are necessary for the believer to know; in other words, the "materials" would thus be all present or at least implied. "Formal sufficiency," on the other hand, would mean that the Bible would not only contain all the truths that are necessary, but that it would also present those truths in a perfectly clear and complete and readily understandable fashion. In other words, these truths would be in a useable "form," and consquently there would be no need for Sacred Tradition to clarify and complete them or for an infallible teaching authority to interpret correctly or "rightly divide" God's word.

Since the Catholic Church holds that the Bible is not sufficient in itself, it naturally teaches that the Bible needs an interpret. The reason the Catholic Church so teaches is twofold: first, because Christ established a living Church to teach with His authority. He did not simply give His disciples a Bible, whole and entire, and tell them to go out and make copies of it for mass distribution and allow people to come to whatever interpretation they may. Second, the Bible itself states that it needs an interpreter.

Regarding the second point, we read in 2 Peter 3:16 that in St. Paul's epistles there are "certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable wrest [distort], as they do also the other scriptures, to their own destruction."

In this one verse we note three very important things about the Bible and its interpretation:

a) the Bible contains passages which are not readily understandable or clear, a fact which demonstrates the need for an authoritative and infallible teacher to make the passages clear and understandable;

b)it is not only possible that people could "wrest" or distort the meaning of Scripture, but this was, in fact, being done from the very earliest days of the Church; and

c) to distort the meaning of Scripture can result in one's "destruction," a disastrous fate indeed.

It is obvious from these considerations that St. Peter did not believe the Bible to be the sole rule of faith. But there is more.

In Acts 8:26-40 we read the account of the deacons St. Philip and the Ethiopian eunuch. In this scenario, the Holy Spirit leads Philip to approach the Ethiopian. When Philip learns that the Ethiopian is reading from the prophet Isaias, he asks him a very telling question: "Thinkest though and thou understandest what thou readest?" Even more telling is the answer egiven by the Ethiopian: "And how can I, unless some man show me?"

Whereas this St. Philip (known as "the Evangelist") is not one of the twelve Apostles, he was nonetheless someone who was commissioned by the Apostles (cf. Acts 6:6) and who preached the Gospel with authority (cf. Acts 8:4-8). Consequently, his preaching would reflect legitimate Apostolic teaching. The point here is that the Ethiopian's statement verifies the fact that the Bible is not sufficient in itself as a teacher of Christian doctrine, and people who hear the Word do need an authority to instruct them properly so that they may understand what the Bible says. If the Bible were indeed sufficient of itself, then the eunchuch would not have been ignorant of the meaning of the passage from Isaias.

There is also 2 Peter 1:20, which states that "no prophecy of scripture is made by porivate interpretation.". Here we see the Bible itself stating in no uncertain terms that its prophecies are not a matter for which the individual is to arrive at his own interpretation. It is also most telling that this verse is preceded by a section on the Apostolic witness (verses 12-18) and followed by a section on false teachers (chapter 2, verses 1-10). St. Peter is obviously contrasting genuine, Apostolic teaching with false prophets and false teachers, and he makes reference to private interpretation as the pivotal point between the two. The clear implication is that private interpretation is one pathway whereby an individual turns from authentic teaching and begins to follow erroneous teaching.

So if the Bible is clear that the Bible is not clear, what then for your tradition of perspecuity? The implication is clear: the doctrine of perspecuity is self-contradictory and untenable.

[Mr Rogers]

A few points before going to bed...

Trinity. Not mentioned by name in the Bible, but it is clearly taught that God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is one God, but 3 persons. This we can accept by faith, without understanding.

A few hundred years into church history, a great deal of debate and declarations of heresy arose over the exact nature of the Trinity. I consider that good evidence that folks were already losing sight of this reality - we cannot reason our way to God, nor can we comprehend Him.

Scripture doesn’t teach the exact nature of the Trinity, and why should it? It isn’t needed for coming to God, believing in God, repentance, rebirth, living for God - so why do men worry about it?

“...he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

The saying is trustworthy, and I want you to insist on these things, so that those who have believed in God may be careful to devote themselves to good works. These things are excellent and profitable for people.

But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless. As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.” — Titus 3.5-10

“Have nothing to do with foolish, ignorant controversies; you know that they breed quarrels.” - 2 Timothy 2.23

What God has revealed, we can know and accept, if not fully understand. What God has not revealed is worthless for knowing Him, so why should we fight over it?

“Yet Protestant freedom of conscience is valued more than unity and the certainty of doctrinal truth in all matters (not just the core issues alone).”

Why is this? As I’ve said before, wheat and tares. Catholics are fond of saying that God will protect the Church from error, but Jesus taught otherwise.

“He put another parable before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven may be compared to a man who sowed good seed in his field, but while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat and went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared also. And the servants of the master of the house came and said to him, ‘Master, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ He said to them, ‘An enemy has done this.’ So the servants said to him, ‘Then do you want us to go and gather them?’ But he said, ‘No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.’” — Matthew 13.24-30

When will the weeds be separated from the wheat? At the harvest.

Peter said the same: “But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words.” — 2 Peter 2.1-3

What did Peter predict?

“...there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies...And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed.’

Notice, he didn’t say, “Just follow my teaching and the teachings of My Successor”. There WILL be false teachers. Many WILL follow them. The Truth WILL be blasphemed.

Doesn’t sound like his successor is appointed to prevent the tares from mixing with the wheat...

But if we search the scriptures to see what is true, we will keep being led back to the common ground needed for godly living, if we have the Holy Spirit. And if we do not, we are tares.

And OF COURSE we need a teacher. “But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you.” - John 16.6

Who does Jesus say will teach us? “The Holy Spirit.”

What does Jesus say he will teach us? “All things.”

Not “the infallible teaching authority, which is the Magisterium of the Church” - sorry, bdeaner, the Magisterium of the Church isn’t tasked by Jesus to be the infallible teaching authority. That is what the Holy Spirit does.

[Melian]

Peter is mentioned by name 195 times in the New Testament. John, the most loved, only 29 times. Peter is always listed first when the apostles are listed by name. Judas was always listed last. This is not an accident. The Holy Spirit has been clear. The passages often read “ Peter and the rest of the apostles.” In Luke 5, Christ preaches to the crowds from Peter’s fishing boat. Again, nothing in the Gospels is an accident.

The passages that refer to Peter as spokesman for the apostles:
Matt 18: 21, Mark 8:29, Luke 8:45 and 12:41, Jn 6:69

Passages that clarify Peter’s primacy as leader:
Mt 16:13-20, Mt 14:24-33, Mk 16:7, Luke 22:31-32, Lk 24: 33-35, Jn 20: 6, Jn 21: 15-19, Acts 1: 15-26, Acts 3: 1-9, Acts 10-11, Acts 15: 6-11, Gal 1: 18.

I have never seen Mt 18: 19 worded the way you wrote it, Mr. Rogers. I am not familiar with your translation of the Bible.

The apostles never argued over Peter’s leadership once the Spirit had visited them. Paul grumbled, but always bowed to Peter’s authority. Peter was always fearful, that has nothing to do with what Christ asked of him: to lead the Church. Recall that Peter was fearful even when he was with Christ on several occasions.

By your logic, I can ask you, where in the Gospels does it say Peter is not the leader of the apostles?

You can’t have it both ways, you claim you can only believe what is written in the Bible. I have given you many passages that support Catholic teaching on Peter and Mary. Now you say that, because there is not a sentence in the Gospels that is worded the way you want, that it cannot be true. Again, I say there is more evidence for my belief that Christ selected Peter to head His Church, that He told Peter his pronouncements would be valid in heaven, and that the early Church accepted the notion that the power and validity of Peter’s leadership was passed on to successors.

Even if you don’t want to believe that Christ said those words to Peter alone, you seem to believe that the group had the authority to hold and loose on earth... they as a group held that Peter was their leader, that he had unique power, and that that power was passed on to his successors.

If you only believe what is written in scripture, then go to the best original translation of the scriptures and believe what is there. You will find I have written accurately.

[Melian]

“Trinity. Not mentioned by name in the Bible, but it is clearly taught that God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit is one God, but 3 persons. This we can accept by faith, without understanding.”

Then there are some things you will accept on “faith” even though they aren’t specifically spelled out in the Bible?

You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Rogers. You can’t take Catholics to task because you don’t think our beliefs are spelled out specifically enough for you in the Bible, yet choose to accept something on faith that is nowhere to be found in Scripture. You are believing an oral tradition from the original Catholic Church if you believe in the Trinity.

If we’re right about the Trinity, based on the oral teaching from the early Church that we have carefully preserved throughout time, common sense says that our other teachings are worthy of careful consideration.

[Melian]

One last thought on the leadership of Peter, Mr. Rogers, before I go to bed:

Scott Hahn writes:
“ In Isaiah 22 beginning back in verses 19 and 20, we have some very interesting background. This is where Jesus goes for a quotation to cite this passage.

What’s happening here? Well, in verse 19 it says, “I will thrust you from your office and you will be cast down from your station and on that day I will call my servant Eliakim, the son of Hilkiah, and I will clothe him with your robe and will bind your girdle on him and will commit your authority to his hand, and he shall be a father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the House of Judah; and I will place on his shoulder the key of the House of David.”

The House of David is the Davidic kingdom, the Davidic dynasty. We know this because David has been dead for hundreds of years when this is happening in Isaiah 22, “I will give you the key of the House of David. He shall open and none shall shut, and he shall shut and none shall open. He will become a throne of honor to his father’s house.” Look at all of the symbols of dynastic authority that are being given to this individual. First of all, an office. Second, a robe. Third, a throne and fourth, keys, the key of the House of David, these royal keys.

Now, Eliakim is a minister in the cabinet, but now he is being granted the Prime Minister’s position. How do we know? Because he is given what the other ministers do not have, the keys of the kingdom, the key to the House of David. That symbolized dynastic authority entrusted to the Prime Minister and dynastic succession. Why? Because it’s the key of David; it’s the House of David.

Let me go back and try to simplify this even further. I’ll read the quote. Albright says, “In commenting upon Matthew 16 and Jesus giving to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Isaiah 22:15 and following undoubtedly lies behind this saying.” Albright, a Protestant, non- Catholic insists that it’s undoubtable that Jesus is citing Isaiah 22, “The keys are the symbol of authority and DeVoe rightly sees here the same authority as that vested in the vicar, the master of the house, the chamberlain of the royal household of ancient Israel.” In other words, the Prime Minister’s office.

Other Protestant scholars admit it too, that when Jesus gives to Peter the keys of the kingdom, Peter is receiving the Prime Minister’s office, which means dynastic authority from the Son of David, Jesus, the King of Israel, but also an office where there will be dynastic succession. The role of Peter as steward of the kingdom is further explained as being the exercise of administrative authority as was the case of the Old Testament chamberlain who held the keys.”

Now, what he means there is that nowhere else, when other Apostles are exercising Church authority are the keys ever mentioned. In Matthew 18, the Apostles get the power to bind and loose, like Peter got in Matthew 16, but with absolutely no mention of the keys. That fits perfectly into this model because in the king’s cabinet, all the ministers can bind and loose, but the Prime Minister who holds the keys can bind what they have loosed or loose what they have bound. He has, in a sense, the final say. He has, in himself, the authority of the court of final appeal and even Protestants can see this.

In fact, I found this quotation in Martin Luther from 1530, years after he had left the Church, “Why are you searching heavenward in search of my keys? Do you not understand, Jesus said, ‘I gave them to Peter. They are indeed the keys of heaven, but they are not found in heaven for I left them on earth.’” This is Jesus talking, “’Peter’s mouth is my mouth, his tongue is my key case, his keys are my keys. They are an office.’” Luther even saw it, “’They are a power, a command given by God through Christ to all of Christendom for the retaining and remitting of the sins of men.’” The only thing that Luther won’t admit is that there was succession after Peter died, which is exactly what the keys denote, given their Old Testament background.”

Sorry this is long, but it might help. If you do a web search for Scott Hahn, you will find his writings and he will answer all your objections much better than I can. He understands the Protestant point of view very well.

[bcsco]

Jesus quite clearly states that He has left us His Church and the Holy Spirit. If the Gospel was complete in and of itself, there would not be these supplements, as it were.

Christ didn't "leave" us the Holy Spirit. The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are one in Trinity. The Gospel is complete. It is God's Word given to us. He left us His Church to gather in fellowship and worship His name. It is where we congregate together in worship and sustain one another in His fellowship. It is NOT a supplement.

It is a common theme of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church which have given the Faith to us all.

Not sure what you're stating here, but if it's that the "Doctors and Fathers" of the Church give us our faith you're sadly mistaken. Our faith comes through the Holy Spirit working in us. It cannot be given by man, nor can we attain it ourselves. God through his Holy Spirit must work in us.

Wait a minute. I thought that the Bible Believers (tm) teach that faith comes from God directly. Who said that the Protestant faith comes through the Gospel?

You're trying to be cute. It doesn't wash. What I was saying was that faith does not evolve through the Church but evolves through the Gospel, which acts on us by the Holy Spirit. The Church is a vehicle which assists our Christian life and helps sustain our belief. But from the Holy Spirit acting within us to read the Gospel of our Lord, our coming to love and worship Him and accept Him as our Savior, and our interaction with other Christian through the fellowship of the Church, we sustain our faith and continue to walk with Him. The Gospel is the inerrant Word of God. Whole and all we need outside of the fellowship the Church provides. But, the Church is also man's, and man is errant. We must always be alert to the chance that the Church itself errs from God's Holy promise.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lutheran-Roman_Catholic_dialogue

Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, designed to appease the PC in both groups.

[Mr Rogers]

There is no doubt Peter was a spokesman for the disciples. However, Peter wasn’t always listed first - see Galatians, where James is listed first.

And Peter drew back from ‘fear’ of the men sent by James - so Peter obviously didn’t feel very much like the Vicar of Christ, who had authority over the other Apostles.

In fact, Jesus very pointedly did NOT place any disciple above the others. He explicitly refused to name Peter as his ‘Vicar’.

“8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers. 9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” - Matthew 23

” 46 An argument arose among them as to which of them was the greatest. 47But Jesus, knowing the reasoning of their hearts, took a child and put him by his side 48and said to them, “Whoever receives this child in my name receives me, and whoever receives me receives him who sent me. For he who is least among you all is the one who is great.”” - Luke 9

“35 And James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came up to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” 36And he said to them, “What do you want me to do for you?” 37And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 38Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” 39And they said to him, “We are able.” And Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink, and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized, 40but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.” 41And when the ten heard it, they began to be indignant at James and John. 42 And Jesus called them to him and said to them, “You know that those who are considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them. 43But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.” Mark 10

Nor did the early church believe Rome was supreme. Decisions were made by council. Had your belief been true, they would merely need to ask Peter’s successor.

I don’t know if my interpretation is right, but I do believe the ‘keys’ were different from ‘bind and loose’. I believe it refers to Peter’s undisputed role on Pentecost, opening the kingdom to the Jews, and later in opening it to the Gentiles. No one disputes Peter’s role in either event.

Peter is named Apostle to the Jews, just as Paul was to the Gentiles - but he is NOT named Apostle over all.

The translation I usually use is the ESV.

Matthew 18.18-20:

“18Truly, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything they ask, it will be done for them by my Father in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I among them.” - ESV

“18”Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven. 19”Again I say to you, that if two of you agree on earth about anything that they may ask, it shall be done for them by My Father who is in heaven. 20”For where two or three have gathered together in My name, I am there in their midst.” - NASB

“18Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. 20For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” - KJV

“18 Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. 19 Again, (amen,) I say to you, if two of you agree on earth about anything for which they are to pray, it shall be granted to them by my heavenly Father.
20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them.” - New American Bible - Catholic

This comment comes from the study note in the Catholic Bible: “15 [18] Except for the plural of the verbs bind and loose, this verse is practically identical with Matthew 16:19b and many scholars understand it as granting to all the disciples what was previously given to Peter alone. For a different view, based on the different contexts of the two verses, see the note on Matthew 16:19.”

I know of no reason to think the ESV is inaccurate. It is generally considered one of the more literal translations.

[Cronos]

In the final analysis, I am mostly a Calvinist, although I believe in free will far more than in predestination. Although I do believe an omniscient God knows whether or not you will be saved.

yes, the latter bit "that God is omniscient and knows whether or not one will be saved" is Church belief too -- we also believe that God does not make mindless puppets, so you do have orthodox beliefs :)

[chesley]

Thank you. Hey the important thing is accepting the salvation that Christ offers. I think God left a lot of other things ambiguous, with room for interpretation. Possibly because they were of secondary or tertiary importance.

After all, if salvation were too complicated, no one could obtain it.

[Cronos]

So then you believe that Christ was created by God, that he was a creature or an adopted god.

[Mr Rogers]

I wrote:

chesley: As a saved Christian, Christ is the mediator between God and me

Chonos: Christ IS God. He is not a created being, not an “avatar”, not a “lesser god”.

God: “5For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” — 1 Timothy 2.5-6

---

I do not believe Jesus is a creature or an adopted god, or created by God. However, I do believe “...there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all...”

“24For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.” Hebrews 9

Feel free to note that just as there is ONE God, there is also ONE Mediator, and His name is Jesus. Not Mary. Not Saint So and so. Jesus.

[MarkBsnr]

***Jesus quite clearly states that He has left us His Church and the Holy Spirit. If the Gospel was complete in and of itself, there would not be these supplements, as it were.

Christ didn’t “leave” us the Holy Spirit. ***

At least you didn’t claim that Jesus didn’t leave us His Church. Now, as for the Holy Spirit... John 14:

16
And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Advocate 8 to be with you always,
17
the Spirit of truth, 9 which the world cannot accept, because it neither sees nor knows it. But you know it, because it remains with you, and will be in you.

Acts 2:
38
Peter (said) to them, “Repent and be baptized, 7 every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the holy Spirit.

I’ll call Jesus up and correct him for you.

***He left us His Church to gather in fellowship and worship His name. It is where we congregate together in worship and sustain one another in His fellowship. It is NOT a supplement.***

The Church is His Church, it is not the church of any man who wishes to create one. The only Church that was created by Jesus is the Catholic Church.

***It is a common theme of the Doctors and Fathers of the Church which have given the Faith to us all.

Not sure what you’re stating here, but if it’s that the “Doctors and Fathers” of the Church give us our faith you’re sadly mistaken. Our faith comes through the Holy Spirit working in us. It cannot be given by man, nor can we attain it ourselves. God through his Holy Spirit must work in us. ***

It’s an ‘and’. The Church presents the Faith to the world. The Holy Spirit enables each man to believe.

***Wait a minute. I thought that the Bible Believers (tm) teach that faith comes from God directly. Who said that the Protestant faith comes through the Gospel?

You’re trying to be cute.***

How do you know what I’m trying to be?

***What I was saying was that faith does not evolve through the Church but evolves through the Gospel, which acts on us by the Holy Spirit.***

I never said anything about evolution. Are you saying that until one hears the Gospel, one cannot have faith?

***The Church is a vehicle which assists our Christian life and helps sustain our belief.***

I take it that you are not Calvinist with that statement. It is easier to debate when knowing which of the various Protestant viewpoints you adhere to.

***But from the Holy Spirit acting within us to read the Gospel of our Lord, our coming to love and worship Him and accept Him as our Savior, and our interaction with other Christian through the fellowship of the Church, we sustain our faith and continue to walk with Him.***

So those who do not read the Gospel cannot be saved?

***The Gospel is the inerrant Word of God.***

Word of God? No. Jesus is the Word. The Gospels are the word. There is a difference.

Inerrant? Tell me then, what occurred on the Day of Resurrection, who was involved, in what order, and what did they see and experience?

***Whole and all we need outside of the fellowship the Church provides.***

Not just fellowship. The most important role of the Church is the teaching authority and the definition of the Faith.

***But, the Church is also man’s, and man is errant. We must always be alert to the chance that the Church itself errs from God’s Holy promise.***

The Catholic Church has God’s promise.

[MarkBsnr]

***Joint Declaration on the Doctrine of Justification, designed to appease the PC in both groups.***

I see what you mean. Not entirely good, yet I wonder what they are leading to.

[bcsco]

Most of what you post about the Holy Spirit is babble. I said the Holy Spirit is One in Trinity with the Father and the Son (Jesus Christ). Nothing of what you babble about disputes this so I take it you concur.

The only Church that was created by Jesus is the Catholic Church.

Sorry, but I disagree. Christ's Church is that body which faithfully follows His commandments, and God's plan as outlined in the bible. I do not believe that The Catholic Church fits that definition. Period, paragraph. We disagree on the Catholic Church having God's promise. Let's leave it at that and remain friends.

[MarkBsnr]

***Most of what you post about the Holy Spirit is babble.***

Interesting. I posted from John 14 and Acts 5 and 19 and you label them babble. May I ask your position on Scripture?

***The only Church that was created by Jesus is the Catholic Church.

Sorry, but I disagree.***

It doesn’t matter whether you agree or not. You may not agree that Ford Motor Company was started and run for many years by Henry Ford, but there is enough history to prove your disagreement irrelevant. Same with the Church. You may disagree to your heart’s content but Scripture and the Church Fathers show your disagreeement irrelevant as well.

***Christ’s Church is that body which faithfully follows His commandments, and God’s plan as outlined in the bible.***

But Christ commanded you to follow His Church, with Peter as his steward, which you apparantly do not. And what is God’s plan as outlined in the Bible, as interpreted by your denomination, self or other body to which you follow?

***We disagree on the Catholic Church having God’s promise.***

As I said earlier, Scripture is clear.

***Let’s leave it at that and remain friends.***

Why would you remain friends with a babbler? :)

[bcsco]

Interesting. I posted from John 14 and Acts 5 and 19 and you label them babble. May I ask your position on Scripture?

Look at your post and it's layout. It's quite confusing. If you can't lay out a proper Bible quote, then it's not worth following.

You may not agree that Ford Motor Company was started and run for many years by Henry Ford, but there is enough history to prove your disagreement irrelevant.

History from the viewpoint of the Catholic Church. That's where we part company.

But Christ commanded you to follow His Church, with Peter as his steward, which you apparantly do not.

I follow Christ's Church. I do NOT follow the Catholic Church as it's been shown to have deviated from Christ's true teaching. Your (and the Catholic Church's) saying it is the one true church does not make it so.

Why would you remain friends with a babbler? :)

Because I have no enmity. Goodbye.