Tradition Still Requires Interpretation

The Gospel Coalition ^ | 02/09/2011 | Kevin DeYoung

[RnMomof7]

One of the common Catholic objections to the Protestant doctrine of sola scriptura is that without the Church to offer authoritative interpretations we are all just left with our own personal readings of Scripture. So, the argument goes, evangelicals may talk a big game about the Bible being our ultimate authority, but actually the final authority rests with each individual interpretation of Scripture. In light of this chaotic free-for-all, consider how much better is the Catholic understanding of authoritative Tradition with a capital T.

There are a number of ways an evangelical could respond to this argument.

1. Illumination. We believe the Spirit opens the eyes of his people so that spiritual things can be spiritually discerned (1 Cor. 2:6-16). This illumination is not limited to church councils.

2. Perspictuity. We believe that the main things of the Bible–sin, salvation, Christ, man, God, faith–can be clearly understood. Our God speaks and knows how to speak. Jesus and the apostles quoted Scripture all the time as if they believed there was a meaning in the text that they could understand and others ought to have understood as well.

3. History. At our best, evangelicals do not confuse sola scriptura with solo scriptura, the latter entailing a complete rejection of theological tradition. Creeds and confessions matter. The historic Christian faith matters. All councils, catechisms, and theologians are fallible, but this doesn’t mean we ignore the communion of the saints that have gone before. Biblical interpretation must be informed by and rooted in tradition, just not controlled by it.

Those three points could be elaborated for a thousand pages, but I want to focus on one other response to the Catholic argument against sola scriptura.

Interpretations Need Not Apply?

I respect Catholic theology for its intellectual history, its commitment to doctrinal precision, and for the many places it promotes historic orthodoxy. But I do not see how an appeal to authoritative church tradition, in its practical outworking, makes the interpretation of Scripture any more settled. In my experience, what it does is push the boundaries of the debate away from Scripture out to papal encyclicals and the like. This is fine to do as a means for establishing what Catholics have believed about Christian doctrine (much like I don’t think it’s a waste of time for Presbyterians to discuss the Westminster Confession of Faith). But here’s my point: just because you have an authoritative tradition doesn’t mean you won’t argue over the interpretation of that tradition.

For example, take the immigration debate. How should Christians view the ethics of immigration? Two evangelicals might both turn to the Bible and come up with a difference response. I’m not saying one answer wouldn’t be more right than the other (we’re not relativists or hard postmodernists when it comes to texts), but they could very well disagree even though they both adhere to sola scriptura. So do Catholics have an easier time giving a definitive answer? Clearly not.

In May 2008, First Things printed an exchange between two Catholics on the issue of immigration. This was how the “conservative” author began (three paragraphs in):

Is there a Christian answer to these urgent question? For Catholics at least, there are relevant teachings in the Catechism: (1) The “more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able,” to welcome foreigners in search of security or a livelihood; (2) there should be not “unjust discrimination” in employment against immigrants, and (3) the immigrants themselves should “obey” the receiving country’s laws. (40)

The author on the “left” also began with an appeal to Catholic Social Teaching:

Deriving its understanding from revelation and reason, the Catholic Church teaches (1) that persons have right to emigrate in search of a better life when poverty, hunger, unemployment, unrest, and similar factors greatly hinder human flourishing; (2) that states have a right to limit immigration when the common good of society requires it in due consideration of such factors as national security and the domestic economy, but not out of inconvenience, selfishness, or minor cost; and (3) that “more prosperous nations are obliged, to the extent they are able, to welcome the foreigner in search of the security and the means of livelihood which he cannot find in his country of origin,” as the Catechism puts it. (44)

Both authors are obviously working with the same material, and both quote the part about prosperous nations being obliged to welcome immigrants. But you can already see they are going in different directions. The first author’s third point highlights the need for immigrants to obey the laws of the land, while the second author’s second point goes out of the way to say that nations cannot refuse immigrants out of selfishness. Same tradition, but still a debate.

Interestingly, both authors go on to interact with various Cardinals and Bishops, but neither quotes from Scripture. This doesn’t mean their arguments can’t be scriptural, it is simply to make the point that the debate centers on interpretations of interpretations.

A Tangled Mess Too

This leads to one last thought. Just because Protestants have a bazillion denominations and Catholics have, well, the Catholic Church, doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church is any less a mishmash of traditions. They have under a more formal unity just as many competing ideologies and theologies.

For example, here’s Russell Hittinger, Professor of Catholic Studies at the University of Tulsa, writing about the thought of Thomas Aquinas:

The past century and a half of papal teaching on modern times often seems like a tangle: any number of different strands–theology, Thomistic philosophy, social theory, economics–all snarled together. And yet a little historical analysis may help loosen the know.
In fact, a careful reading of papal documents reveals one of the main causes of the tangle.
Throughout Catholic thought over the past hundred and fifty years, they have run two quite different uses of Thomism–a combination of four threads weaving in and out of the Catholic Church’s response to the strangeness of modern times. (First Things June/July 2008, 33)

Later, as a case in point, Hittenger explains (in a sentence that will make sense to few Protestants):

The affirmations to be negated in Pius IX’s 1864 Syllabus became affirmation to be affirmed in Leo XIII’s famous 1892 encyclical Rerum Novarum–positive statements on Catholic teaching on modern social and political issues. (35)

In the end, the best arguments of sola scriptura come from the way Scripture views Scripture. I recognize I haven’t done much of that here. But clearing away counter-arguments is important too. And one of the most common is the charge that Protestantism got rid of one infallible Pope, just to put a million little popes in his place. Makes a good evangelical wince a little, doesn’t it? But before you take a step or two in the direction of Rome, remember that even one Pope has a million interpreters.

[paladinan]

Sorry about the delay; work schedules and busy-work needed to get handled, first.

[paladinan]
I think you missed my point.

{RnMomof7]
I think YOU miss the point.. your church claims its AUTHORITY from the bible. .but then dismisses everything they do not like

The Church claims its authority from its founding by Christ; and it cites the Bible as ONE of MANY evidences of that authority. She's not a "Church of the Book"; rather, She's a "Church of the Word [of God]"--i.e. Jesus Christ, Himself (cf. John 1:1).

It's also rather ironic for you to accuse Catholics of "dismissing everything they do not like" (I'll address that in a moment), when you (and those of like mind) dismiss the Eucharist (clearly taught in John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, and many other places), the distinction between mortal and venial sin (cf. 1 John 5:16-17), the Sacrament of Confession (cf. John 20:23), the founding of the Holy Church upon St. Peter (cf. Matthew 16:18-20), seven whole books of the very Bible you claim to hold as your highest authority (Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, Baruch, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees; and also parts of others, like Esther and Daniel), and more. Glass houses, friend...

The only INFALLIBLE history of the foundation of the church is found in the bible.

How do you come to that conclusion, without assuming it? In other words: how did you come to the conclusion that the Bible is the only infallible source of Divine Revelation? That (otherwise known as "sola scriptura") is what you're TRYING to prove; so it's rather strange that you're assuming it, in the first place, yes? See my reference abovem re: the circular reasoning fallacy.

and the bible is written in greek..so the greek has significance

The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek; and nowhere did I deny that the Greek had significance. I merely deny that your understanding and interpretations of that Hebrew/Greek text is correct.

The Holy Spirit made no allowance for a priesthood or papacy in the NT church

(*sigh*) Yes, I'm quite well aware of the fact that this is your view; you needn't repeat it again, thank you. Now: would you be so kind as to PROVE YOUR CASE, using something more substantial than "I don't see it on the face of the text of Scripture?" (Do you not see that, without first proving "sola Scriptura"--and good luck with that, by the way!--you have no basis for dismissing anything as "false" simply because you can't seem to find it in the Scriptural text (i.e. for "violating sola Scriptura")? You have some serious work to do, before that.)

BTW the Trinity (unlike a NT priesthood) IS taught in the scriptures ... from the OT to the NT.

Ah! Very good! So, please give me the book, chapter and verse of any occurrence of the word "Trinity" in the Bible, and I'll consider the matter thoroughly settled. Feel free to use a Greek term for it, if you like; I have access to several good Greek dictionaries, so I won't find it a problem.

While you work on that, here are some of my main points:

1) You insist on "sola Scriptura", and you chastise Catholics for violations of it; but you haven't yet proven that the "sola Scriptura" principle (i.e. "if it isn't in the Bible, don't believe it to be important for salvation and/or Divine Revelation) is TRUE! Until you do that, you're simply spinning your wheels.

2) Salvation wrote: The Catholic Church had a foundation in Holy Tradition long before the Bible was recorded (even the Old Testament.), and many people mocked that comment; but he was quite right. He did not say that the Catholic Church, per se, existed before the Old Testament; he said that the Church's foundation in Sacred Tradition reached back beyond the existence of the OT text, which is absolutely true. I realize that you despise the Catholic Church, and you believe it to be false, so this conclusion won't suit your personal tastes; but if the Catholic Church is truly the One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church founded by Jesus Christ, then it is organically connected to all of salvation history, from the Fall of our first parents, onward. You, yourself, rightly said that the NT fulfills the OT; St. Augustine said, "The OT is the NT concealed, and the NT is the OT revealed." You can't cut the Church off from its roots in the Old Covenant (remember that Christ GRAFTED us onto that Old Covenant tree? See Romans 11:17ff; He didn't grow us from a completely new root!), any more than you can cut the NT off from the OT, or any more than you can cut Scripture off from the Tradition which is intimately united to it.

As for the Church "dismissing what She does not like": that is sometimes true... though that isn't the reason why She dismisses them. I do not, for example, like the phrase "Jesus is not God"; but I do not reject it simply because I don't like it; I both dislike it and reject it because it is false! Just so, with the Church's approch to the ideas held by Protestantism; they are "dismissed" and hated when they are wrong (e.g. "sola scriptura", "sola fide", etc.), and they are retained and treasured when they are right (e.g. "Jesus is Our Saviour")... though the ideas which are right are already founding the Catholic Church and Her Tradition.

[paladinan]

editor-surveyor wrote, in reply to Salvation:

[Salvation]
The Bible Itself declares that it doesn’t contain everything.

[editor-surveyor]
Absolute falsehood!

That's rather a bold and brash statement to make, isn't it? You might want to check to see if it's true, before saying it, I'd think...

[John 21:25] speaks only of the acts and miracles that Jesus performed,

Here's your exchange with Salvation, simplified:

1) The Bible (in John 21:25) declares that it doesn't contain everything!
2) Nonsense! That's only speaking of acts and miracles of Jesus!

Could you explain to me how "acts and miracles of Jesus" are somehow not included in "everything"? I'm still waiting to see how his statement is "absolutely false". Could you explain?

Also: could you explain to me how you know, with such certainty, that John 21:25 doesn't include teachings of Jesus? Teaching is certainly something one "does", isn't it? (I do, at any rate.) And we have at least one example of a teaching of Jesus that wasn't recorded in the Gospels, but was transmitted to St. Paul ("It is more blessed to give than to receive": Acts 20:35), yes? Forgive me, but I think you're letting your enthusiasm outstrip your logic, here.

not the basis of salvation, nor any function of the body of Christ.

All right; we now have your opinion. Now, if you'd be so good as to work a proof of it into your next comments, that'd be very helpful.

All of that is not only in the Bible, but in it in numerous places.

(!!) Zounds! Not only in the Bible? Where, then? Sacred Tradition? :)

You don’t even have to have the New Testament to find Christ in the Bible.

(Oy, vey!) Do you not see that this is not guaranteed, without a right interpretation and understanding of the OT? I agree with your statement, so far as it goes... but it doesn't go nearly far enough! Jehovah's Witnesses (who believe that Jesus is "the highest of creatures, but not God) and Unitarian Pentecostals (who believe that there is only one person in One God, and that Jesus was merely a man "possessed/indwelt" by the Father) read the same Scriptures as you do--including the NT--and they don't see what you see, at all. (Seventh-Day Adventists, in fact, think that you're going to hell for worshipping on Sundays, rather than the "Saturday mandated by the Commandment to keep the SABBATH holy"; do you agree?) No... an infallible Scripture is impotent, without an infallible interpreter; surely you see that?

[paladinan]

editor-surveyor wrote, in reply to my comment:

[paladinan, to RnMomof7]
Don’t you see the irony in what you’re saying? Your original post was about Catholic criticism of “sola Scriptura”... but now, you try to dismiss Catholic teachings *because* they’re apparently “not in the Bible” (i.e. they violate “sola Scriptura”). That’s what’s called a “circular argument”—assuming your own conclusion in order to prove it—and it simply won’t do. How do you justify defending sola Scriptura with sola Scriptura?

[editor-surveyor]
Now there is some circular reasoning!

(??) Er... friend... "circular reasoning" actually means something; it refers to a specific fallacy in which one assumes one's conclusion in order to try to prove it. Your comment here makes no sense at all, unless you can show me where I assume my own conclusion in order to try to prove it. Forgive me, but it really looks as if you saw the phrase ("circular argument"), thought to yourself: "Hey, that's a nice-sounding rebuke!", and proceeded to throw it back at me, without a clear idea of what it meant. Can you clarify?

What is wrong with most of catholic teaching isn’t just that they’re not in the Bible, but that they are in violation of what is in the Bible.

Such as...?

Capiche?

Potrei capire, se puoi spiegare cosa si intende. :)

[RnMomof7]

The Church claims its authority from its founding by Christ; and it cites the Bible as ONE of MANY evidences of that authority. She's not a "Church of the Book"; rather, She's a "Church of the Word [of God]"--i.e. Jesus Christ, Himself (cf. John 1:1).

How does your church teach that Peter is pope? That there is a need for confession? that there is transubstantiation ?

Where do you find that Jesus founded the Rc?

[paladinan]

RnMomof7 wrote, in reply to my comment:

If there was to be a priesthood in the NT the role would have been designated

How do you come to that conclusion? I understand that this is your firmly-held opinion, but you really need to prove your case, before anyone could accept it as "fact".

The role of a Priest was to sacrifice

Right.

...there were to be no further sacrifices for sin after Christ, the sacrifices were a type of Christ, the priest was a type of Christ.

Absolutely true.

all complete at the cross.

I agree wholeheartedly.

THAT is why there no longer a need for priests.

No need for priests of the Old Covenant, you mean. Are you somehow under the impression that preists of the New Covenant are "offering their own sacrifices"? That is not so; check out the Catechism of the Catholic Church for Catholic teaching on that point.

And... if I might be so bold: if you're going to presume to attack the Catholic Church, would you be so kind as to research what She actually TEACHES (rather than a double-handful of half-baked straw-man caricatures of what She teaches)? You really don't seem to know the first thing about what She teaches, or half of your questions would never be asked.

There was no one on one confessions in the NT church

Ah. And how do you know that? Chapter and verse, please.

the early church had a time for public confessions in their services

Chapter and verse, please?

but there is no record that Peter or any of the apostles ever "heard" a confession"

Perhaps you could explain, then, why Jesus would bother to give them the authority to forgive men their sins, if it's useless, pointless, and even indicative of "apostasy"? (cf. John 20:23)

in fact the NT tells us to go directly to the throne of God for mercy.

Of course... but in the manner that Christ WANTS us to go to that throne (i.e. through his priests, whom He empowered to forgive men their sins), not simply "making up our own ways". Heavens, even Martin Luther said that "a man should be happy to walk a hundred miles for Confession"!

Is there ANY record of Peter being called "Father "..... nope not a one.

Not in the plain text of Scripture, no; in Sacred Tradition, records abound. As an illustration of what I mean: Is there any record of Jesus being called "the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?" Is there any record of the Holy Spirit even being called "God"? If so, could you find them for me? Chapter and verse, please. Some truths are known by logical extrapolation from what we HAVE been told in Scripture, for example (such as the moral evil of abortion, human cloning, and torture)... even if the text doesn't make it explicit. And again: unless you prove "sola Scriptura", all appeals to "I can't see it in the Biblical text" fall flat.

Mat 23:9 And call no [man] your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Well... do you think you're forbidden to call your own male parent "father"? ("Honour your dad and your mother"?) Washington can no longer be called "the father of our country"? And I think the Bible itself has some problems with that interpretation of Matthew 23:

"Even if you had ten thousand guardians in Christ, you do not have many fathers, for in Christ Jesus I became your father through the gospel." (1 Corinthians 4:15, NIV)

"The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers..." (Acts 3:13, NIV)

"You spoke by the Holy Spirit through the mouth of your servant, our father David:" (Acts 4:25, NIV)

"To this [Stephen] replied: “Brothers and fathers, listen to me!" (Acts 7:2, NIV)

"Brothers and fathers, listen now to my defense." (Acts 22:1, NIV)

...and the list goes on, interminably. No... Matthew 23:9 cannot be interpreted in such a narrow, simplistic way as that.

Actually there is no clear line of the papacy if one is HONEST

(*sigh*) You know, I've been quite patient with you, madam... but I'm not sure I care for your suggestion that I'm being dishonest. Is that truly what you meant to say? As for your suggestion: perhaps you could explain why you think the succession of the papacy is not clear and well-known?

But even if there was a clear line of succession ..it means nothing

Ah. I see. Perhaps you could choose one position, or the other?

because there is no papacy in the scriptures.

Yes, there is... just as there is the Blessed Trinity in the Scriptures, and just as there is the Divinity of Christ in the Scriptures. They are implicit (but clearly deducible from Divine Revelation).

it is a man made institution

(*sigh*) Would you mind working a proof of your strongly-held opinions into a future post? I assure you, I'm well-enough aware of them, already; I just need you to prove them.

and one that can not even prove peter was ever the bishop of Rome

...not using the unbiblical standard of "sola Scriptura", no; but no logical and biblical-minded person dismisses the idea on that basis, anyway.

In the early church those leading worship were called the clerk, not the priest

Do you not see that you're merely relaying your opinion, and that of some others? In my Bible, "presbyteros" is translated as "priest" (and the word "priest" is etymologically derived from presbyteros; you knew that, right?); and you disagree. How, using Scripture alone, could you prove that your exclusive (i.e. non-priest) interpretation of "presbyteros" is correct? You claim that the word refers only to a "clerk", "elder", or what-have-you; but how do you prove your case, without going beyond Scripture? I assure you, I have the same Greek words in front of me (in my Greek Bible)... and I don't think they mean what you think they mean. How do you prove your case?

the greek word for elder is different than the greek words for priest.

You've already made at least one unwarranted assumption: (1) that an "elder" cannot possible be a priest, simply because a different word is used. That doesn't logically follow, at all... and certainly not using "Scripture alone"!

archiereus which translates into "High Priest" and hiereus which translates one that OFFERS SACRIFICES.

All right. So... by your standards, what do we make of the fact that Scripture uses that word to refer to all believers (cf. 1 Peter 2:9: "basileion hierateuma" = "royal priesthood")? If "there were to be no further sacrifices for sin after Christ, the sacrifices were a type of Christ, the priest was a type of Christ.. all complete at the cross.. THAT is why there no longer a need for priests" (see your comments, above), then your comments seem to contradict one another. Do we still have a "sacrificial priesthood" (i.e. "hiereus", which you carefully distinguish from "presbyteros"), or is it abolished? And if it is not abolished, then what becomes of your distinction between words?

May I humbly suggest that you are mistaken, and that it's quite possible to be an "elder" and a "priest" at the same time?

The bible is written in greek

...and Hebrew...

there are a couple words for priest the holy Spirit could have used if that was Gods design.

Come, now! Don't you see how weak this argument is? If you'd said merely, "presbyteros and hiereus indicate distinct things", I would have agreed immediately. But when you go farther, and say (without logical warrant), "and it's impossible for presbyteros to refer to a priest who offers the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass", then I'm left scratching my head, wondering how you conjured that idea up! Are you unaware of the fact (referenced in the Catechism, above) that validly ordained priests offer--i.e. re-present--the One Sacrifice of Christ, on Calvary? If the idea bothers you, that's one thing... but please do not presume to suggest that faithful and well-informed priests of the Catholic Church are not fully aware of the fact that the Sacrifice of the Mass is not distinct from Calvary at all. The Mass perpetuates the Sacrifice of Christ through all ages, and it's done because Christ commanded that it be done (cf. 1 Corinthians 11).

You see the scriptural division in passages like this: Mark 15:1: And straightway in the morning the chief priests held a consultation with the elders and scribes and the whole council, and bound Jesus, and carried him away, and delivered him to Pilate.

Well... yes. But do you not see that this is still referring to priests of the Old Covenant? That's a completely different animal, if you'll forgive the expression.

Even the Douay-Rheims Bible does not translate that as priests.. Acts 4:5 And it came to pass on the morrow, that their princes, and ancients, and scribes, were gathered together in Jerusalem;

Right... and why should it?

A poor translation from the greek,

It's a translation from the Latin, by the way. But again: how do you get to the conclusion that it was a "bad translation", aside from the fact that you disagree with it?

[RnMomof7]

One more time..The Holy Spirit outlined the roles in the new church..there was no priesthood in the roles outlined because the OT Priest was a type of Christ. Christ fulfilled that type on the cross offering the final sacrifice for sin ..

The NT church had elders, deacons , teachers and preachers.. the role of priest did not emerge in the Roman church until about 350 AD ..

Is there ANY record of Peter being called "Father "..... nope not a one.

Not in the plain text of Scripture, no; in Sacred Tradition, records abound.

And in what year were those records written? Were they CONTEMPORARY TO PETERS MINISTRY?

As an illustration of what I mean: Is there any record of Jesus being called "the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?" Is there any record of the Holy Spirit even being called "God"? If so, could you find them for me? Chapter and verse, please. Some truths are known by logical extrapolation from what we HAVE been told in Scripture, for example (such as the moral evil of abortion, human cloning, and torture)... even if the text doesn't make it explicit.

If the apostles considered Peter the pope.. it would have been noted.. it NEVER WAS .. in fact if Peter was indeed the elder or bishop of Rome he was being disobedient to the call that Christ placed on him

Peter was to be the apostle to the JEWS

Where did you FALLIBLE church fathers look for their teachings? Where did they look to see communion? the papacy? etc? The early church looked to the scriptures for all things ...it is only as apostasy overtook Rome that men started to make stuff up or look to pagan practices and call it "sacred tradition "

All of the tradition taught in the early church that was God inspired found its way into the scriptures..

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:
"For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." (Lecture 4:17)

[paladinan]

How does your church teach that Peter is pope?

By three main ways:

1) Scripture attests to the fact. Christ renamed him "Peter" (Aramaic: "kepha" = rock), and said that on that "rock" (kepha) He would build His Church, and the gates of Hell would not stand against it. (The oft-used attempt to distinguish Peter's name "Petros" from the word for rock "petra" is--forgive me--a tired canard which ignores the fact that "petros" is simply "petra" with a masculine ending, as befitting Peter's masculinity; had Christ wished to refer to a "little stone", He could easily have used the word "lithos". I trust we need not waste time with that red herring?) Christ also gave to Peter (and to no one else) the "Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven". Again, compare this with the installation of Eliakim as the Prime Minister of the Kingdom (of the line) of David (cf. Isaiah 22), which God promised would last forever, through Jesus Christ. Jesus, the King of Kings, installs the prime minister (al bayyit) of His new and Eternal Kingdom--the Church--and uses nearly identical language ("what you open, no one will shut; what you shut, no one will open). At this, Jesus gives St. Peter the authority to act in His Name, with His Own authority... i.e. as a plenipotentiary prime minister. Other references abound, but that should be enough for starters.

2) Sacred Tradition affirms the fact; from the earliest ages, St. Peter has been revered as the Prince of the Apostles, with headship over them; and both Scripture and Tradition attest to the fact that such authority can, and must (by the command of Christ) and has been passed on to successors.

3) the early Church was unanimous in recognizing the succession of the Bishop of Rome, the "mother See" of all local Churches who hep authority over all of them. See here, for one of many compiled lists of references to the papal authority by the Fathers of the Church.

(By the way: when, exactly, do you think that the "Roman Church" went "off the tracks"? And how do you define the "Church", if not the Church Who traces her existence and foundation back to Christ, Himself?)

That there is a need for confession?

Do you sin? I do... even on my best days. Have you ever sinned seriously? I have... more times than I care to remember. Jesus is always faithful to forgive... but we are not free to try to "snatch" that forgiveness on our own terms. He authorized his priests to forgive sins (cf. John 20:23--you remember my repeated references to that, yes?), and it is quite clear--both from Scripture and from Sacred Tradition--that Jesus wants our sins to be forgiven by coming to the priests whom He authorized for that purpose. The "me and Jesus" view of life ignores the fact that we are called to be "One Body", and that any sin of ours--even the tiniest and most "private" of them--wounds and weakens the Body of Christ (cf. 1 Corinthians 12:26). That is why God calls us to be healed of our sins through his priests, in the way that He established. We are also (unlike the angels) made of body, as well as a soul; we need physical things. We can hear "I love you", but an embrace says it so very much more strongly. We can pray, but singing and praying together (when we can hear the voices and see the faces of others) has a vividness that cannot be found elsewhere. We can pray for forgiveness, but God knows that our ears need to hear the words, "I absolve you of your sins, in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. Your sins are forgiven; go in peace!"

that there is transubstantiation?

Simply put: because Jesus said so! He did not say, "This is a symbol which represents My Body!" Rather, He said, "This is My Body; this is My Blood." The rest of Scripture is unanimous in supporting the fact that Jesus wasn't being poetic or hyperbolic, here.

"My Flesh is real food, and My Blood is real drink" (John 6:55)

"So then, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty of sinning against the body and blood of the Lord. Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink from the cup. For those who eat and drink without discerning the body of Christ eat and drink judgment on themselves. That is why many among you are weak and sick, and a number of you have fallen asleep." (1 Corinthians 11:27-30)

Perhaps I might ask: save for the fact that you don't see particular exact words in your Bible, why do you DOUBT that Confession and Christ's Real Presence in the Eucharist exist? Do you doubt the incarnation of Jesus Christ, on teh basis that "incarnation" is nowhere to be found in the text, for example?

Where do you find that Jesus founded the Rc?

Jesus founded one Church, not thirty-thousand. How many Protestant Churches can trace their pedigrees back even before 1400 A.D., to say nothing of going back to the time of Christ? Start there.

[RnMomof7]

How does your church teach that Peter is pope?

By three main ways:
1) Scripture attests to the fact.

Nope scripture says nothing of Peter being the Pope.. and you do not believe in Sola scriptura right?

2) Sacred Tradition affirms the fact; from the earliest ages, St. Peter has been revered as the Prince of the Apostles,

Prince of the apostles is not the POPE.. there is no evidence in scripture he had ANY HEADSHIP over the church after Pentecost.. He was A leader among the apostles..but not the leader OF the apostles

If one looks at the NT epistles one sees Peter returning to jewish tradition and needing to be rebuked by Paul..

the early Church was unanimous in recognizing the succession of the Bishop of Rome,

Lets DEFINE EARLY OK ...LOL There is no indication in the scripture that any of the gifts, given by Christ for the foundation of the church were transferable.. not ONE . There is not one wit of INSPIRED Infallible teaching that spiritual gifts or roles were the apostles to pass on as they wished..

that there is transubstantiation?

Simply put: because Jesus said so! He did not say, "This is a symbol which represents My Body!" Rather, He said, "This is My Body; this is My Blood." The rest of Scripture is unanimous in supporting the fact that Jesus wasn't being poetic or hyperbolic, here.
"My Flesh is real food, and My Blood is real drink" (John 6:55)

There you go again looking at the SCRIPTURES for authority ,.. If one denies the final authority of scripture it is hypocritical to claim its authority in ANYTHING

Where do you find that Jesus founded the Rc?

Jesus founded one Church, not thirty-thousand. How many Protestant Churches can trace their pedigrees back even before 1400 A.D., to say nothing of going back to the time of Christ? Start there

There was no ROMAN CATHOLIC church in the NT ..there was the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST not the church of Rome..

Constantine invented the church at Rome and the papacy and brought in the pagan doctrine to shore up his political power..

The NT church had no priests, no pope, no 7 sacraments, no statues, no assumption, no Mariology, no " ritual mass" what they had was the command to go and spread the Gospel..something that Catholics today can not even define

[paladinan]

Just as a warning: I probably won't have as much leisure to write, later; my "free writing time" usually consists of some hours on Saturday and Sunday. So, if I don't write much during the week, please don't think I'm trying to neglect your message!

One more time..The Holy Spirit outlined the roles in the new church.

Yes, of course. But your ideas of them are rather muddled. Do you not see the difference between "the actual roles in the New Covenant" and "your ideas of them"? So far, you've offered nothing but raw opinion to promote your case... and that simply won't do, at all.

there was no priesthood in the roles outlined because the OT Priest was a type of Christ.

And I'll repeat myself, yet again: the fact that the OT priesthood was fulfilled in the NT says nothing, whatsoever about the existence of NT priests. Nowhere did I deny that OT priests were types of Christ; what I deny is your further (opinion-based) view that "this implies a complete absence of priests in the NT"... which is nonsense. NT priests will have a different role (e.g. baptizing, offering Christ's One Sacrifice in the Holy Mass, forgiving sins, anointing the sick, etc.), certainly... but nowhere have you given any evidence for the idea that "a NT priesthood is impossible". If you want to argue that "no OT priesthood is possible in the NT", I'd certainly agree with you; but I never argued in favour of that idea, anyway.

Christ fulfilled that type on the cross offering the final sacrifice for sin

Did you miss the part, above, where I agreed with this?

The NT church had elders, deacons , teachers and preachers.

Yes... and the "elders" were bishops, who deputized priests to act with their authority. I can't fathom why you still see a contradiction (between your "list of roles" and the existence of priests and bishops), where non exists!

the role of priest did not emerge in the Roman church until about 350 AD

Forgive me, madam, but that's complete balderdash... and you have shown not a lick of proof for it.

And in what year were those records [referring to Peter as Father] written? Were they CONTEMPORARY TO PETERS MINISTRY?

Probably not; why is that a problem? Can you, for example, point to any "apostolic-age" records referencing the Trinity? Many self-proclaimed Christians deny the Trinity on the basis that the idea was "invented in 325 A.D." by "Constantine, and the Council of Nicaea". How would you disprove their claim? I know of no clear references to the Trinity in apostolic times (i.e. before the death of St. John); do you? And yet, I doubt that you dismiss the Trinity, simply because of that...

[paladinan]
As an illustration of what I mean: Is there any record of Jesus being called "the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity?" Is there any record of the Holy Spirit even being called "God"? If so, could you find them for me? Chapter and verse, please. Some truths are known by logical extrapolation from what we HAVE been told in Scripture, for example (such as the moral evil of abortion, human cloning, and torture)... even if the text doesn't make it explicit.

[RnMomof7]
If the apostles considered Peter the pope.. it would have been noted.. it NEVER WAS

(??) Er... you didn't seem to address my point at all, here. I could just as easily (and mistakenly) say, "If the Apostles considered the Holy Spirit to be God, it would have been noted. It never was! Therefore, the Holy Spirit is not God." See my point? To say, "it wasn't mentioned, so it muct not be true" is called a "fallacious argument from silence", and it doesn't work.

in fact if Peter was indeed the elder or bishop of Rome he was being disobedient to the call that Christ placed on him

(??) How on earth do you figure that?

Peter was to be the apostle to the JEWS

Mainly, yes. But you'll note that St. Peter led Cornelius (a Roman, and a non-Jew) to Christ, in Acts 10, and ordered that Cornelius--along with a multitude of other Gentiles, be baptized? Was he being disobedient, there? If not, then you'll have to explain why you treat the "evangelizing the Gentiles" episodes so differently...

Where did you FALLIBLE church fathers look for their teachings?

From the infallible Church, of course... the same Church Who compiled the very Bible that you claim to use "alone". Had the Church not given you the Bible, you wouldn't have it to use against Her.

Where did they look to see communion? the papacy? etc?

See above.

The early church looked to the scriptures for all things

Of course they did... but not Scripture ALONE. That's the main problem with Protestant theology: they insert the word "alone" where it simply doesn't work, and doesn't belong. If only you could rid yourself of that meddlesome word "alone", when speaking of Faith and Scripture, you'd get along much more successfully!

it is only as apostasy overtook Rome that men started to make stuff up or look to pagan practices and call it "sacred tradition "

Forgive me, madam, but--at least on this particular point--you have no idea what you're talking about. You misunderstand "Sacred Tradition" almost completely, and you don't even know the origins (or the proper functioning) of the very Bible (and an expurgated and edited version, at that) that you use "alone"! All of the tradition taught in the early church that was God inspired found its way into the scriptures.

I'd love to see a proof of that, sometime...

Cyril of Jerusalem wrote:
"For concerning the divine and sacred Mysteries of the Faith, we ought not to deliver even the most casual remark without the Holy Scriptures: nor be drawn aside by mere probabilities and the artifices of argument. Do not then believe me because I tell thee these things, unless thou receive from the Holy Scriptures the proof of what is set forth: for this salvation, which is of our faith, is not by ingenious reasonings, but by proof from the Holy Scriptures." (Lecture 4:17)

Well... let's assume, just for a moment, that St. Cyril was definitely teaching "sola Scriptura" (which I flatly deny). In the same work, St. Cyril emphasizes the contents of Scripture: all 73 books, including the 7 books (and parts of others) which you, and other Protestants, jettison. He also insists on the infallible teaching authority of the Church (see especially section 23), the Holy Mass as Sacrifice, offered by the priest (see especially sections 6-8), and many other Catholic teachings that you flatly deny, such as the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (See 19:7; 21:3; 22:1-9), the efficacy of prayers for the dead (23:10), and more. If you were hoping to hold up St. Cyril as a champion of "sola Scriptura", I'm afraid you've missed the mark... unless, of course, you think that all of the above can be found in Scripture? (They can, actually... but they're contained implicitly in the Bible--the ENTIRE [73 book] Bible--not explicitly... which was precisely what St. Cyril meant, and believed.)

[RnMomof7]

Yes, of course. But your ideas of them are rather muddled. Do you not see the difference between "the actual roles in the New Covenant" and "your ideas of them"? So far, you've offered nothing but raw opinion to promote your case... and that simply won't do, at all.

Just show us were the role of priest is outlined for the new church ?

[paladinan]

[RnMomof7]
How does your church teach that Peter is pope?

[paladinan]
By three main ways:
1) Scripture attests to the fact.

Nope scripture says nothing of Peter being the Pope.. and you do not believe in Sola scriptura right?

(*sigh*) You do know what "SOLA" means, yes? I (along with any other faithful Catholic) have no problem with "Scriptura" (and I told you as much, already, yes?)--the same Scriptures which were compiled, written (in the case of the NT), and distinguished from false books by the Catholic Church. So let's get that quite clear: all Catholics, including the Pope, hold Scripture to be inerrant and authoritative, and we'll use it plentifully to demonstrate points about the Faith; we simply don't limit ourselves to Scripture >b>ALONE, since that idea is unscriptural, self-contradictory, and completely unworkable. Does that clarify? When you insist on "sola scriptura", you insist on something that's not found in the Bible, anywhere. How can you expect me to agree with your principle, if you won't even follow it, yourself?

[paladinan]
2) Sacred Tradition affirms the fact; from the earliest ages, St. Peter has been revered as the Prince of the Apostles,

Prince of the apostles is not the POPE

Why on earth do you say that?

there is no evidence in scripture he had ANY HEADSHIP over the church after Pentecost

No? Let's see... but let's look a bit before Pentecost, first:

In Luke 22:31, Jesus says, "Simon, Simon, Satan has asked to sift all of you as wheat. But I have prayed for you, Simon, that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned back, strengthen your brothers.” Don't you see a headship, here, which applies to a time AFTER St. Peter's denial and repentance? Why would Jesus confirm His apostles through Simon Peter, rather than directly? Jesus prays for Simon, specifically and individually; any idea as to why?

Everywhere in the Gospels, St. Peter is named first (and sometimes only he is named) of the Apostles; he speaks for the Apostles on occasions where the Twelve have a voice. Why?

All of the Apostles are given the power to "bind and loose" (cf. Matthew 18), but only St. Peter is given the Keys to the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Matthew 16:18-20); no one else is given the keys at all. Any idea why not?

Only St. Peter, out of all believers, is to be the rock on whom Christ builds His Church (to the extent that he's renamed "rock", for that purpose). Why?

On the occasion where Jesus is called upon to pay the temple tax, He miraculously provides a coin to pay His tax and St. Peter's tax, together.<

Even before Pentecost, Jesus Himself commands St. Peter in threefold fashion to "Feed His Sheep"Acts 3-4 portrays St. Peter as leader (who performs the first recorded post-Pentecost miracle) and spokesman who evangelizes at least 5000 more men (cf. Acts 4:4). Acts 5 shows St. Peter performing the first punishment (by miraculous means) in the deaths of Ananias and Sapphira. Acts 8 has St. Peter rebuking Simon Magus for daring to try to purchase holy power with money. Acts 9 has St. Peter raising a girl (Tabitha) from the dead. Acts 10 has God declaring, through St. Peter, that interactions with Gentiles are now permissible. The list goes on; read it for yourself.

As I say, the examples abound. If you presume to deny that St. Peter had authority in the early Church, then I'm afraid the burden of proof is on you... since, by your own standards (of argument from silence), no one said that St. Peter was NOT head of the Church... and the preponderance of evidence suggests that Jesus wanted St. Peter in that "headship" position.

He was A leader among the apostles..but not the leader OF the apostles

You'll need more than mere opinion to convince anyone of that, I think.

If one looks at the NT epistles one sees Peter returning to jewish tradition and needing to be rebuked by Paul.

In Galatians 2:12, we see an instance of St. Peter committing an error, and needing to be rebuked by St. Paul; but that was not a "return to Jewish tradition". Even St. Paul makes it quite clear that St. Peter did that "for fear of offending particular Jews", not because he'd changed his mind on the "Acts 11" matter. In short: St. Peter made an error in trying to "please people" (for fear of scaring them away from the Faith), and he was rightly rebuked by St. Paul (who made a great deal out of the extraordinary fact: "I opposed him to the very face, because he was wrong!").

If it helps your perspective: look at Acts 16:1-3, where St. Paul committed the very same error (in flat contradiction of his own comments in Galatians 5, ironically enough--the very letter in which he recounts his rebuke of St. Peter!); he had St. Timothy circumcised on account of the Jews who were in those parts! No... you can't condemn St. Peter, and give St. Paul a "free pass", here.

Lets DEFINE EARLY OK ...LOL There is no indication in the scripture that any of the gifts, given by Christ for the foundation of the church were transferable.. not ONE . There is not one wit of INSPIRED Infallible teaching that spiritual gifts or roles were the apostles to pass on as they wished..

Not "as they wished", as at a whim, no... but there is plenty of evidence that the apostolic authority could, and must, be passed on. First, did you read Acts 1:15, where St. Peter led the Apostles in choosing a successor for Judas Iscariot? "Let another take his office." (Acts 1:1:20) The KJV is even more striking in its translation: "and his bishoprick let another take." Apostolic authority, as in the case of the al bayyit (cf. Isaiah 22), was certainly passed on... as was the case when Eliakim replaced Shebna.

Beyond this: did you miss Acts 8:18, where Simon Magus saw that the Holy Spirit was bestowed by the laying on of hands (and subsequently tried to "buy" the power"? Unless you think that the bestowal of the Holy Spirit was "not for the foundation of the Church"...?

1 Timothy 4-5 describes St. Timothy's own ordination by St. Paul (4:14), and St. Timothy's own duties (as bishop of Ehpesus) to be wise, discerning and unhurried in ordaining priests (5:22).

Other examples are plentiful... but why do you set yourself against the entire early Church (who all saw Apostolic succession and ordination, as plainly as the nose on your face)? Your own objections to these things are less than 600 years old, and are found in the hearts and minds of Luther, Calvin, and those of like mind... and they were manufactured out of whole cloth.

[paladinan]
Simply put: [transubstantiation is a fact] because Jesus said so! He did not say, "This is a symbol which represents My Body!" Rather, He said, "This is My Body; this is My Blood." The rest of Scripture is unanimous in supporting the fact that Jesus wasn't being poetic or hyperbolic, here. "My Flesh is real food, and My Blood is real drink" (John 6:55)

[RnMomof7]
There you go again looking at the SCRIPTURES for authority ,.. If one denies the final authority of scripture it is hypocritical to claim its authority in ANYTHING

:) Er... top marks for humour, zero marks for logic, madam. That's known as a "dodge"; care to try again, now that you know I revere Scriptura without the "sola"?

There was no ROMAN CATHOLIC church in the NT ..there was the CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST not the church of Rome. The "Church of Rome", as you call it, is a contraction for "Roman Catholic Church", which is (in turn) a contraction of "Church of Jesus Christ, built on the foundation of St. Peter, who happened to become the first Bishop of Rome, and whose successors voluntarily bind themselves to Rome in honour of his bishopric and martyrdom". I really think we can be forgiven for saying "Roman Catholic Church" for brevity's sake, without needing to throw out all the qualifiers, don't you? The only difference between "Church of Jesus Christ" and "Roman Catholic Church" is entirely in your imagination.

Constantine invented the church at Rome and the papacy and brought in the pagan doctrine to shore up his political power..

(*sigh*) How did I know that Constantine was going to appear, in this litany of anti-Catholic canards...? All right: would you be so kind as to prove your statement, beyond all reasonable doubt?

The NT church had no priests

Yes, She did.

no pope

Yes, she did.

no 7 sacraments

(*sigh*) Yes, madam, She did.

no statues

Could you work in an explanation of your hatred for statues, sometime? I don't know why you'd object to them. Is it the old error about "no graven images, no representation of anything in the heavens, on earth, or under the earth"? But surely you know that God Himself mandated the building of the bronze serpent (Numbers 21:8-9), and mandated the decoration of His Own temple with cherubim and trees (1 Kings 6:23-29 and 7:25-45), and mandated the decoration of His Holy Ark with cherubim (Exodus 25:18-19)?

no assumption

What's your objection to that, may I ask?

no Mariology

:) Horrors! What, exactly, is your definition of "Mariology"? (Or did you mean to use the anti-Catholic epithet, "Mariolatry"?)

no " ritual mass"

No? Acts 2:42, etc., along with the unanimous early Church (as opposed to the objections of Luther, et al., 1500 years later), certainly seems to suggest otherwise.

what they had was the command to go and spread the Gospel

And you see the spread of the Gospel as incompatible with all that? It never occurred to you that there might be a certain WAY that the Gospel might need to be spread?

..something that Catholics today can not even define

Come, now. This is nonsense, and you know it.

Perhaps we might advance things by bringing some original questions back to the fore:

1) Can you prove "sola Scriptura"? Your case seems to rest completely on it, after all.
2) Can you reply to the Scriptures which teach the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist (e.g. John 6, 1 Corinthians 11, etc.)? You didn't address them, before.
3) Can you tell me where the Bible came from, and how we arrived at its current contents?

Any of the earlier questions which weren't answered yet, are also welcome.

[RnMomof7]

Show me the apostles playing the role of priests in acts;.

[paladinan]

Just show us were the role of priest is outlined for the new church?

Er... show you *where*? From Scripture alone? You haven't proven that "Scripture alone" is valid yet; remember?

If you like, I can show you evidences from Scripture; just don't confuse them for an airtight proof, or for any suggestion that "sola Scriptura" is anything but unscriptural nonsense:

1) A priest is to offer the Holy Sacrifice, and confect the Holy Eucharist, as Jesus commanded (cf. 1 Corinthians 11).

2) A priest is to forgive sins (cf. John 20:23).

3) A priest is to baptize in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (cf. Matthew 28:18-20).

4) A priest is to anoint the sick with oil, pray for them, and lay hands on them, that they might recover (spiritually, physically, or both, in keeping with God's specific will for that person), and that their sins might be forgiven (cf. James 5:13-15).

5) A priest, if he is a bishop, is to confirm the baptized through the laying on of hands, by which they receive a fuller share in the Holy Spirit (cf. Acts 19:1-7, etc.).

6) A priest, if he is a bishop, is to ordain priests and deacons for the sake of perpetuating the ministry of the Church (i.e. the spread of the Gospel, and the salvation of souls), that "all nations" may be made disciples, in accord with the command of Christ (cf. Matthew 28:18-20, 1 Timothy 3-5, Titus 1:5-16, etc.).

7) A priest is to serve as the Church's official witness to holy marriages, that unlawful marriages are not permitted (though marriage is possible without a priest, in time of need).

Will that do, for starters?

[paladinan]

Sorry, milady; I think I’ve answered far more of your questions than you have, of mine. Fair’s fair: if you’d like further answers from me on that particular point, would you please prove the truth of “sola Scriptura” (i.e. “if it isn’t in the Bible, then don’t trust it as salvific truth”), and show me where the Bible teaches it?

[RnMomof7]

LOL make up your mind,, are you going to cherry pick scripture when it suits you and ignore it when it does not?

Acts is the OFFICIAL record of the new church , it stands without error.. and there is NO record of a priesthood with the accompanying sacrifices that define the role of a priest.. There is no mention in any of the didactical letters of a priesthood.. there is no role for a priesthood outlined in the NT ...

If you look into the celebration of the Lords table in the early church the celebrant was commonly called the "clerk"

One more time

Greg Dues has written Catholic Customs & Traditions, a popular guide (New London: Twenty Third Publications, 2007). On page 166 he states,

"Priesthood as we know it in the Catholic church was unheard of during the first generation of Christianity, because at that time priesthood was still associated with animal sacrifices in both the Jewish and pagan religions."

"A clearly defined local leadership in the form of elders, or presbyteroi, became still more important when the original apostles and disciples of Jesus died. The chief elder in each community was often called the episkopos (Greek, 'overseer'). In English this came to be translated as 'bishop' (Latin, episcopus). Ordinarily he presided over the community's Eucharistic assembly."

"When the Eucharist came to be regarded as a sacrifice, the role of the bishop took on a priestly dimension. By the third century bishops were considered priests. Presbyters or elders sometimes substituted for the bishop at the Eucharist. By the end of the third century people all over were using the title 'priest' (hierus in Greek and sacerdos in Latin) for whoever presided at the Eucharist."

[RnMomof7]

Quitting???

[paladinan]

Er... are you actually *reading* what I wrote?

Let’s try this again: can you prove “sola Scriptura”, or can you not?

[RnMomof7]

Do you know what sola scriptura means?

[paladinan]

Yes, I do: “Scripture alone”—i.e. the Bible alone is to be trusted as the source of Divine Revelation and salvific truth. Your particular version seems to say that “if it isn’t in Scripture, don’t believe it”.

So... please tell me where “sola scriptura” is taught in the Bible, and why it’s true?

[RnMomof7]

Yes, I do: “Scripture alone”—i.e. the Bible alone is to be trusted as the source of Divine Revelation and salvific truth. Your particular version seems to say that “if it isn’t in Scripture, don’t believe it”.

Scripture is to be the final authority on any matter of Faith ..

“We are not content simply because this is the tradition of the Fathers. What is important is that the Fathers followed the meaning of the Scripture.”
- Basil the Great (ca.329–379) On the Holy Spirit, 7.16

“Let the inspired Scriptures then be our umpire, and the vote of truth will be given to those whose dogmas are found to agree with the Divine words.”
- Gregory of Nyssa (d.ca, 395) “On the Holy Trinity”, NPNF, p. 327