Posted on 03/08/2013 11:54:31 AM PST by NYer
I HAVE received a number of emails, some from Catholics who aren’t sure how to answer their “evangelical” family members, and others from fundamentalists who are certain the Catholic Church is neither biblical nor Christian. Several letters contained long explanations why they feel this Scripture means this and why they think this quote means that. After reading these letters, and considering the hours it would take to respond to them, I thought I would address instead the fundamental problem: just who exactly has the authority to interpret Scripture?
REALITY CHECK
But before I do, we as Catholics must admit something. From external appearances, and in reality in many churches, we do not appear to be a people alive in the Faith, burning with zeal for Christ and the salvation of souls, such as is often seen in many evangelical churches. As such, it can be difficult to convince a fundamentalist of the truth of Catholicism when the faith of Catholics so often appears dead, and our Church is bleeding from scandal after scandal. At Mass, prayers are often muttered, music is commonly bland if not corny, homilies are oftentimes uninspired, and liturgical abuses in many places have drained the Mass of all that is mystical. Worse, an outside observer might doubt that it is truly Jesus in the Eucharist, based on how Catholics file to Communion as though they were receiving a movie pass. The truth is, the Catholic Church is in a crisis. She needs to be re-evangelized, re-catechized, and renewed in the power of the Holy Spirit. And quite bluntly, she needs to be purified of the apostasy which has seeped into her ancient walls like the smoke of Satan.
But this does not mean she is a false Church. If anything, it is a sign of the enemy’s pointed and relentless attack upon the Barque of Peter.
ON WHOSE AUTHORITY?
The thought that continued to run through my mind as I read those emails was, “So, whose interpretation of the Bible is right?” With nearly 60, 000 denominations in the world and counting, all of them claiming that they have the monopoly on truth, who do you believe (the first letter I received, or the letter from the guy after that?) I mean, we could debate all day about whether this biblical text or that text means this or that. But how do we know at the end of the day what the proper interpretation is? Feelings? Tingling anointings?
Well, this is what the Bible has to say:
Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the Holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Pet 1:20-21)
Scripture as a whole is a prophetic word. No Scripture is a matter of personal interpretation. So, then, whose interpretation of it is correct? This answer has serious consequences, for Jesus said, “the truth will set you free.” In order to be free, I must know the truth so I can live and abide in it. If “church A” says, for example, that divorce is permitted, but “church B” says it is not, which church is living in freedom? If “church A” teaches that you can never lose your salvation, but “church B” says you can, which church is leading souls to freedom? These are real examples, with real and perhaps eternal consequences. Yet, the answer to these questions produces a plethora of interpretations from “bible-believing” Christians who usually mean well, but completely contradict one another.
Did Christ really build a Church this random, this chaotic, this contradictory?
WHAT THE BIBLE IS—AND ISN’T
Fundamentalists say the Bible is the only source of Christian truth. Yet, there is no Scripture to support such a notion. The Bible does say:
All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (2 Tim 3:16-17)
Still, this says nothing about it being the sole authority or foundation of truth, only that it is inspired, and is therefore true. Furthermore, this passage refers specifically to the Old Testament since there was no “New Testament” yet. That wasn’t fully compiled until the fourth century.
The Bible does have something to say, however, about what is the foundation of truth:
You should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth. (1 Tim 3:15)
The Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth. It is from the Church, then, that truth emerges, that is, the Word of God. “Aha!” says the fundamentalist. “So the Word of God is the truth.” Yes, absolutely. But the Word given to the Church was spoken, not written by Christ. Jesus never wrote down a single word (and nor were His words recorded in writing until years later). The Word of God is the unwritten Truth which Jesus passed on to the Apostles. Part of this Word was written down in letters and gospels, but not all of it. How do we know? For one, Scripture itself tells us that:
There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written. (John 21:25)
We know for a fact that the revelation of Jesus was communicated in both written form, and by word of mouth.
I have much to write to you, but I do not wish to write with pen and ink. Instead, I hope to see you soon, when we can talk face to face. (3 John 13-14)
This is what the Catholic Church calls Tradition: both written and oral truth. The word “tradition” comes from the Latin traditio which means “to hand down”. Oral tradition was a central part of Jewish culture and the way teachings were passed on from century to century. Of course, the fundamentalist cites Mark 7:9 or Col 2:8 to say that Scripture condemns Tradition, ignoring the fact that in those passages Jesus was condemning the numerous burdens placed on the people of Israel by the Pharisees, and not the God-given Tradition of the Old Testament. If those passages were condemning this authentic Tradition, the Bible would be contradicting itself:
Therefore, brothers, stand firm and hold fast to the traditions that you were taught, either by an oral statement or by a letter of ours. (2 Thess 2:15)
And again,
I praise you because you remember me in everything and hold fast to the traditions, just as I handed them on to you. (1 Cor 11:2). Note that the Protestant King James and New American Standard versions use the word “tradition” whereas the popular NIV renders the word “teachings” which is a poor translation from the original source, the Latin Vulgate.
The Tradition which the Church guards is called the “deposit of faith”: all that Christ taught and revealed to the Apostles. They were charged with teaching this Tradition and making sure that this Deposit was faithfully passed on from generation to generation. They did so by word of mouth, and occasionally by letter or epistle.
The Church also has customs, which correctly are also called traditions, much the way people have family traditions. This would include man-made laws such as abstaining from meat on Fridays, fasting on Ash Wednesday, and even priestly celibacy—all of which can be modified or even dispensed with by the Pope who was given the power to “bind and loose” (Matt 16:19). Sacred Tradition, however—the written and unwritten Word of God—cannot be changed. In fact, since Christ revealed His Word 2000 years ago, no Pope has ever changed this Tradition, an absolute testament to the power of the Holy Spirit and the promise of Christ’s protection to guard His Church from the gates of hell (see Matt 16:18).
APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION: BIBLICAL?
So we come closer to answering the fundamental problem: who, then, has the authority to interpret Scripture? The answer seems to present itself: if the Apostles were the ones who heard Christ preach, and then were charged with passing those teachings on, they should be the ones to judge whether or not any other teaching, whether oral or written, is in fact the truth. But what would happen after the Apostles died? How would truth be faithfully handed down to future generations?
We read that the Apostles charged other men to pass on this “living Tradition.” Catholics call these men the Apostle’s “successors.” But fundamentalists claim that apostolic succession was invented by men. That’s simply not what the Bible says.
After Christ ascended into Heaven, there was still a small following of disciples. In the upper room, a hundred and twenty of them gathered including the eleven remaining Apostles. Their first act was to replace Judas.
Then they gave lots to them, and the lot fell upon Matthias, and he was counted with the eleven apostles. (Acts 1:26)
Justus, who wasn’t chosen over Matthias, was still a follower. But Matthias was “counted with the eleven apostles.” But why? Why replace Judas if there were more than enough followers anyway? Because Judas, like the other eleven, was given special authority by Jesus, an office which no other disciples or believers had—including His mother.
He was numbered among us and was allotted a share in this ministry… May another take his office. (Acts 1:17, 20); Note that the New Jerusalem’s foundation stones in Revelation 21:14 are inscribed with the names of twelve apostles, not eleven. Judas, obviously, was not one of them, so therefore, Matthias must be the twelfth remaining stone, completing the foundation upon whom the rest of the Church is built (cf. Eph 2:20).
After the descent of the Holy Spirit, apostolic authority was passed on through the laying on of hands (see 1 Tim 4:14; 5:22; Acts 14:23). It was a practice firmly established, as we hear from Peter’s fourth successor who reigned during the time that the Apostle John was still living:
Through countryside and city [the apostles] preached, and they appointed their earliest converts, testing them by the Spirit, to be the bishops and deacons of future believers. Nor was this a novelty, for bishops and deacons had been written about a long time earlier. . . [see 1 Tim 3:1, 8; 5:17] Our apostles knew through our Lord Jesus Christ that there would be strife for the office of bishop. For this reason, therefore, having received perfect foreknowledge, they appointed those who have already been mentioned and afterwards added the further provision that, if they should die, other approved men should succeed to their ministry. —POPE ST. CLEMENT OF ROME (80 AD), Letter to the Corinthians 42:4–5, 44:1–3
A SUCCESSION OF AUTHORITY
Jesus gave these Apostles, and obviously their successors, His own authority.
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. (Matt 18:18)
And again,
Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained. (John 20:22)
Jesus even says:
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. (Luke 10:16)
Jesus says that whoever listens to these Apostles and their successors, is listening to Him! And we know that what these men teach us is the truth because Jesus promised to guide them. Addressing them privately at the Last Supper, He said:
…when he comes, the Spirit of truth, he will guide you to all truth. (John 16:12-13)
This charism of the Pope and bishops to teach the truth “infallibly” has always been understood in the Church from the earliest of times:
[I]t is incumbent to obey the presbyters who are in the Church—those who, as I have shown, possess the succession from the apostles; those who, together with the succession of the episcopate, have received the infallible charism of truth, according to the good pleasure of the Father. —St. Irenaeus of Lyons (189 AD), Against Heresies, 4:33:8 )
Let us note that the very tradition, teaching, and faith of the Catholic Church from the beginning, which the Lord gave, was preached by the Apostles, and was preserved by the Fathers. On this was the Church founded; and if anyone departs from this, he neither is nor any longer ought to be called a Christian… —St. Athanasius (360 AD), Four Letters to Serapion of Thmius 1, 28
THE FUNDAMENTAL ANSWER
The Bible was neither invented by man nor handed down by angels in a nice leatherbound edition. Through a process of intense discernment guided by the Holy Spirit, the successors of the Apostles determined in the fourth century which of the writings of their day were Sacred Tradition—the “Word of God”—and which were not inspired writings of the Church. Thus, the Gospel of Thomas, the Acts of St. John, the Assumption of Moses and several other books never made the cut. But 46 books of the Old Testament, and 27 for the New did comprise the “canon” of Scripture (although Protestants later dropped some books). The others were determined as not belonging to the Deposit of Faith. This was confirmed by the Bishops at the councils of Carthage (393, 397, 419 AD) and Hippo (393 AD). Ironic it is, then, that fundamentalists use the Bible, which is part of Catholic Tradition, to refute Catholicism.
All this is to say that there was no Bible for the first four centuries of the Church. So where were the apostolic teaching and testimonies to be found in all those years? Early church historian, J. N. D. Kelly, a Protestant, writes:
The most obvious answer was that the apostles had committed it orally to the Church, where it had been handed down from generation to generation. — Early Christian Doctrines, 37
Thus, it is clear that the successors of the Apostles are the ones who have been given the authority to determine what has been handed on by Christ and what has not, based not upon their own personal judgment, but upon what they have received.
The pope isn’t an absolute sovereign, whose thoughts and desires are law. On the contrary, the ministry of the pope is the guarantor of the obedience toward Christ and his word. —POPE BENEDICT XVI, Homily of May 8, 2005; San Diego Union-Tribune
Along with the pope, the bishops also share in Christ’s teaching authority to “bind and loose” (Matt 18:18). We call this teaching authority the “magisterium”.
…this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, 86)
They alone have the authority to interpret the Bible through the filter of oral Tradition which they have received through apostolic succession. They alone ultimately determine whether or not Jesus literally meant that He was offering us His Body and Blood or just a mere symbol, or whether He meant that we should confess our sins to a priest. Their discernment, guided by the Holy Spirit, is based upon the Sacred Tradition which has been passed on from the beginning.
So what matters is not what you or I think a passage of Scripture means so much as what did Christ say to us? The answer is: we have to ask those to whom He said it. Scripture is not a matter of personal interpretation, but a part of the revelation of who Jesus is and what He taught and commanded us.
Pope Benedict spoke pointedly about the danger of self-anointed interpretation when he addressed the Ecumenical Meeting recently in New York:
Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions” that are based on a hermeneutic [method of interpreting] not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local options”. Somewhere in this process the need for… communion with the Church in every age is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23). —POPE BENEDICT XVI, St. Joseph’s Church, New York, April 18th, 2008
Perhaps we can learn something from the humility of St. John Henry Newman (1801-1890). He is a convert to the Catholic Church, who in teaching on the end times (a subject polluted with opinion), shows the proper course of interpretation:
The opinion of any one person, even if he were the most fit to form one, could hardly be of any authority, or be worth putting forward by itself; whereas the judgment and views of the early Church claim and attract our especial regard, because for what we know they may be in part derived from traditions of the Apostles, and because they are put forward far more consistently and unanimously than those of any other set of teachers.
Moses WROTE THEM DOWN. Is it your contention that Moses is not the author of the Torah?
It comes back to the person to trust. Christians trust Christ. FIRST, we must trust His example. THEN we see what was written. That is why catholics look to the works (of Jesus) then follow Him. A rabbi (teacher) shows his students what to do.
Indeed. His example comes down to us by way of the WRITTEN Word. His example was to destroy the tradition of the scribes and Pharisees, and to keep the Torah perfectly (and tell everyone else to try to do so too). A worthy example to follow, no doubt - But then, what has that to do with the teachings of the Roman church?
Then, tell me, if the Bible is not being downplayed by the expressed reliance on "oral tradition" on par with, or even ABOVE, Holy Scripture, then what would you call it? It's easy enough to insist that Catholicism reverences the Bible as the divine word of God, but, when so-called tradition along with the magesterium is given the same importance, it certainly sounds as if sacred Scripture is downplayed. What you have been doing on this thread - which, itself, is discussing a doctrine not found in Scripture - is placing the Church in the role of an authority OVER Scripture, going even so far as saying it is the "actions" of Jesus that are more important than his words written in Scripture. The RCC relies upon the notion that Jesus taught things not found in Scripture to which they, alone, were privy and who faithfully orally passed them down. It is certainly curious that such importance can be placed on doctrines that have nothing more to authenticate them than "truth is what we say it is".
I have complete assurance that Martin Luther is, right now, in heaven with Christ as he has been since the moment he left his earthly physical life. It is telling that you wish eternal damnation upon a man who sought to lead others to a genuine saving faith in Jesus Christ. It is also telling that you are under the false impression - disputed may times on the RF - that Luther corrupted the Bible by removing certain books from it. The truth is that he DID NOT remove any books at all! If you truly care about getting your facts correct, this is a good place to start: Martin Luther Did Not Remove Books From The Bible.
You mentioned I should study Jerome. Have you? Because had you done so, you would know that Jerome ALSO considered the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical books as non-inspired and placed them separately in his Latin translation. From the above link:
In 1532, Cajetan wrote his Commentary on All the Authentic Historical Books of the Old Testament. In this work, Cajetan leaves out the entirety of the Apocrypha since he did not consider it to be Canonical. Cajetan said,
I hope you have a good night and a blessed week.
“If individuals could correctly interpret Scripture, then all interpretations would be exactly the same as there can only be one Spiritual Truth for the plural of the word “truth” never appears in Scripture.”
That’s a silly statement. Just because people can do something doesn’t mean that all will do it. Most people misinterpret Scripture, not because they are incapable of understanding it, but because they don’t want to accept what the Scriptures say. Sinfulness leads to a lack of understanding, not a deficiency in the Scripture, nor in the abilities that God gave us to understand it.
If Scripture is truly as inscrutable as the Catholics around here like to claim, then it would have been completely pointless for God to give it to us. Yet, He gave us not just one book, but dozens, and commanded us to study them night and day. Yet, you seem to be saying that all that is an exercise in futility. If He didn’t want us to understand it, He could have just send us some Golden Plates written in an unknown language, and then made them disappear after His appointed keeper of the truth gave us the correct interpretation.
I never suggested that reading scripture is an exercise in futility. On the contrary, the Catholic Church, which compiled the canon of the bible, encourages its members to read scripture. Is the Bible to be taken literally - "word for word?" No. The Bible doesn't state anywhere that It should be taken literally. The Bible was written by different authors with different literary styles at different times in history and in different languages. Therefore, the writings should be interpreted with these circumstances in mind. The Bible is a religious book, not a scientific or a history "textbook." Can there be more than one interpretation of the Bible? No. Is private interpretation of the Bible condoned in the Bible Itself? No, it is not (2 Peter 1:20).
“I never suggested that reading scripture is an exercise in futility. On the contrary, the Catholic Church, which compiled the canon of the bible, encourages its members to read scripture.”
Why? According to you, they can’t figure it out, so why encourage them to butt their heads against a wall?
According to scripture, private interpretation of the Bible is not condoned. (2 Peter 1:20). For that reason, Christ gave us the Church.
What Church? Scripture reveals this Church to be the one Jesus Christ built upon the rock of Saint Peter (Matt. 16:18). By giving Peter the keys of authority (Matt. 16:19), Jesus appointed Peter as the chief steward over His earthly kingdom (cf. Isaiah. 22:19-22). Jesus also charged Peter to be the source of strength for the rest of the apostles (Luke 22:32) and the earthly shepherd of Jesus' flock (John 21:15-17). Jesus further gave Peter, and the apostles and elders in union with him, the power to bind and loose in heaven what they bound and loosed on earth. (Matt. 16:19; 18:18). This teaching authority did not die with Peter and the apostles, but was transferred to future bishops through the laying on of hands (e.g., Acts 1:20; 6:6; 13:3; 8:18; 9:17; 1 Tim. 4:14; 5:22; 2 Tim. 1:6).
By virtue of this divinely-appointed authority, the Catholic Church determined the canon of Scripture (what books belong in the Bible) at the end of the fourth century. We therefore believe in the Scriptures on the authority of the Catholic Church. Nothing in Scripture tells us what Scriptures are inspired, what books belong in the Bible, or that Scripture is the final authority on questions concerning the Christian faith. Instead, the Bible says that the Church, not the Scriptures, is the pinnacle and foundation of the truth (1 Tim. 3:15) and the final arbiter on questions of the Christian faith (Matt. 18:17). It is through the teaching authority and Apostolic Tradition (2 Thess. 2:15; 3:6; 1 Cor. 11:2) of this Church, who is guided by the Holy Spirit (John 14:16,26; 16:13), that we know of the divine inspiration of the Scriptures, and the manifold wisdom of God. (cf. Ephesians 3:10).
You didn’t really answer my question at all. Why are we commanded to study Scripture, when, according to you, we are unable to fathom it? Remember, you said that if we could interpret it correctly, then nobody would misinterpret it, so according to you, we can’t figure it out. So, why not just command us to listen to the church instead, and not bother with Scripture?
I wouldn’t command my children to study some high-level post graduate work which they couldn’t hope to understand, so why should I believe that God would engage in similar foolishness?
I have answered your question. Perhaps the issue is not the question but you avoiding the direct responses provided.
Why are we commanded to study Scripture, ...
No one commands you to study scripture. In Matt. 28:20, we are told to "observe ALL I have commanded," but, as we see in John 20:30; 21:25, not ALL Jesus taught is in Scripture. So there must be things outside of Scripture that we must observe. In Mark 16:15 - Jesus commands the apostles to "preach," not write, and only three apostles wrote. The others who did not write were not less faithful to Jesus, because Jesus gave them no directive to write. There is no evidence in the Bible or elsewhere that Jesus intended the Bible to be sole authority of the Christian faith. In 2 Thess 3:6, Paul instructs us to obey apostolic tradition. There is no instruction in the Scriptures about obeying the Bible alone.
On the contrary, we are told numerous times to both study and know the Scriptures. We are told to write them on our hearts and minds (Ex. 13:9; Deut. 11:18; Prov. 3:3; Prov. 7:3) so that we can avoid sinning against God. We are told to study them so that we are able to "give an answer to everyone that asks us of the hope that is in us" (II Tim. 2:15; Psalm 119:15). God's word is "perfect" (James 1:25) and we must know it if we are to obey and walk in it.
Again, you have stated the commonly offered excuse to viewing Scripture as able to make one "complete" and "thoroughly furnished unto all good works" by saying Jesus "taught" things not given in Scripture. NOWHERE in Scripture is that said. However, Scripture DOES say Jesus "did" many other things not written down and that if they could be, the world could not contain all that would be written. That is a far cry from pretending Jesus taught things secretly to certain people and they just happened to be omitted from Scripture BUT everyone must STILL obey it because the "Church" says so. That was the gist of Gnosticism, by the way. Something the early church, including the Apostles, battled against. I do not accept that they left out critical truths from the writings they left for believers.
Jesus DID say to observe all that he commanded and all that he commanded was written down in Scripture so that future believers would also know what Jesus commanded. Jesus told his disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to them so that they would be reminded of all that he had taught them. What makes anyone think these people would have forgotten to communicate those truths to others? What makes anyone think that, while they were writing their epistles to the churches springing up all over the known world, they would have skipped over any important parts?
You repeat the assertion that Jesus never told anyone to write, yet how else were they supposed to ensure all future generations of Christians knew the Gospel truth? Jesus didn't HAVE to tell them to write things down, he had the example of the sacred writings of the Old Testament already - and he used those writings numerous times in his teachings. How many times did Jesus, himself, say, "it is written"? How many times did Almighty God direct his prophets to write down what he told them? (for example, see Habakkuk 2:2; Deut. 27:8; Isaiah 8:1; Jer. 30:2; Jer. 36:2; Rev. 1:19) Paul clearly gave a precedent, when he said:
For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope. (Romans 15:4)
Do you suppose Paul forgot to mention all the oral traditions when he said this? Now, nobody is disrespecting ALL the traditions that have developed over the centuries since Christ, just that what makes up the "rule of faith" for Christians can be found in Scripture and, if it is not found anywhere in Scripture, then it is not binding upon a Christian to obey and follow and it is certainly not relevant to our salvation.
One of Jesus' chief complaints about the religious leaders of his day was how they nullified God's word with their traditions (Mark 7:13). He specifically reprimanded them because, "You abandon the commandment of God and hold to human tradition." (Mark 7:8) Now, how would anyone know what was the "commandment of God" unless they had the written word of God? How can anyone, even today, know the difference between what are God's commands and what are human traditions? Without the written word of God, the Bible, we wouldn't have that ability. That is why Jesus stressed the importance of Scripture and it is why the writers of the books of the New Testament did as well.
Meant to ping you to post #69.
You just contradicted your previous statement "Scripture DOES say Jesus "did" many other things not written down and that if they could be, the world could not contain all that would be written."
In Mark 13:31, he tells us that heaven and earth will pass away, but Jesus' Word will not pass away. But Jesus never says anything about His Word being entirely committed to a book. Also, it took 400 years to compile the Bible, and another 1,000 years to invent the printing press. How was the Word of God communicated? Orally, by the bishops of the Church, with the guidance and protection of the Holy Spirit. Mark further tells us in 3:14; 16:15 that Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write, and gives them no indication that the oral apostolic word he commanded them to communicate would later die in the fourth century. If Jesus wanted Christianity to be limited to a book (which would be finalized four centuries later), wouldn't He have said a word about it? The Evangelist Luke reinforces this oral Tradition in 10:15 - He who hears you (not "who reads your writings"), hears me. The oral word passes from Jesus to the apostles to their successors by the gracious gifts of the Holy Spirit. This succession has been preserved in the Holy Catholic Church.
That is a far cry from pretending Jesus taught things secretly to certain people and they just happened to be omitted from Scripture
There are no "secret" things taught by the Catholic Church. Everything comes from the deposit of faith entrusted to Peter upon whom our Lord built His Church.
That was the gist of Gnosticism, by the way. Something the early church, including the Apostles, battled against.
You're right in that the Apostles fought against the heresies that sprung up quickly, following the Resurrection. Notice that the Canon of Scripture, compiled by the Catholic Church, does not include any of the "gnostic gospels".
Jesus told his disciples that he would send the Holy Spirit to them so that they would be reminded of all that he had taught them.
We know from Acts 2:3-4 that the the Holy Spirit came to the apostles in the form of "tongues" of fire so that they would "speak" (not just write) the Word. Judas and Silas, successors to the apostles, were sent to bring God's infallible Word by "word of mouth." (Acts 15:27)
In Matt. 15:3. Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. This verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles. (Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.) The same is true for Mark 7:9.
Let's take a closer look at Oral Tradition. In Matt. 2:23, the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition. It is not found in the Old Testament. This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition. Matthew also tells us (Matt 23:2), that Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin). This is not recorded in the Old Testament. In Jude 9, he relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
"Christ the Lord, in whom the entire Revelation of the most high God is summed up, commanded the apostles to preach the Gospel, which had been promised beforehand by the prophets, and which he fulfilled in his own person and promulgated with his own lips. In preaching the Gospel, they were to communicate the gifts of God to all men. This Gospel was to be the source of all saving truth and moral discipline."32
In the apostolic preaching. . .
76 In keeping with the Lord's command, the Gospel was handed on in two ways:
- orally "by the apostles who handed on, by the spoken word of their preaching, by the example they gave, by the institutions they established, what they themselves had received - whether from the lips of Christ, from his way of life and his works, or whether they had learned it at the prompting of the Holy Spirit";33
- in writing "by those apostles and other men associated with the apostles who, under the inspiration of the same Holy Spirit, committed the message of salvation to writing".34
. . . continued in apostolic succession
"In order that the full and living Gospel might always be preserved in the Church the apostles left bishops as their successors. They gave them their own position of teaching authority."35 Indeed, "the apostolic preaching, which is expressed in a special way in the inspired books, was to be preserved in a continuous line of succession until the end of time."36
This living transmission, accomplished in the Holy Spirit, is called Tradition, since it is distinct from Sacred Scripture, though closely connected to it. Through Tradition, "the Church, in her doctrine, life and worship, perpetuates and transmits to every generation all that she herself is, all that she believes."37 "The sayings of the holy Fathers are a witness to the life-giving presence of this Tradition, showing how its riches are poured out in the practice and life of the Church, in her belief and her prayer."38
79 The Father's self-communication made through his Word in the Holy Spirit, remains present and active in the Church: "God, who spoke in the past, continues to converse with the Spouse of his beloved Son. And the Holy Spirit, through whom the living voice of the Gospel rings out in the Church - and through her in the world - leads believers to the full truth, and makes the Word of Christ dwell in them in all its richness."39 cont'd
No, actually I did no such thing. Wishful thinking? Can you understand that Jesus "did" and Jesus "said" do not mean the same thing? John said, Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written. (John 21:25). If what Jesus did would take up more than the entire world to write down, obviously, they were not written down for a reason. One day, we WILL know as we are known and nothing will be hidden from us and we will have the "mind of Christ" to be able to grasp what is the fullness of all things. The Apostles would not have left anything out of their writings to believers that mattered to our salvation and walk of life in Christ. That's why the Apostle John said, "Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book. But these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name." (John 20:30-31).
That really is the point, what HAS been written is so we would believe and be saved. Whatever the "Church" decided centuries later were part of those things Jesus "taught" that were not recorded for us in Scripture, both when he was here on earth or when he ascended to heaven and the Holy Spirit revealed to Paul, Peter, James, Jude and John when they wrote their epistles to the churches they ministered to, they left NOTHING out that made believers complete and thoroughly furnished for ALL good works. And God is able by His grace to equip you with everything good for doing his will, and may he work in us what is pleasing to him, through Jesus Christ, to whom be glory for ever and ever (Hebrews 13:21).
According to scripture, what is the pillar and foundation of truth?
“I have answered your question. Perhaps the issue is not the question but you avoiding the direct responses provided.”
I’m not avoiding them, just ignoring them, since they weren’t germane to the question that I asked.
“No one commands you to study scripture.”
Alright, this is a relevant answer at least. I have to say that I disagree, and I think anyone who has been studying Scripture well would state otherwise. I see boatbums has already posted some verses to that effect, as well as answering your other points, so I’ll see what your response to him is. I really don’t think this is a hill you are going to want to stand and defend.
I think it’s helpful to remember in all these debates, especially about this topic (”Who gets to interpret Scripture?”, a very important starting point by the way), that there is no way the original (human) authors of Scripture could have known how important their writings would become.
At the time, they were writing down what they thought were important points to remember. Their intent was not to make some collection of books that would forever and completely describe their faith.
It’s all too easy, IOW, at times like this, to forget that these are human beings we are talking about. Exactly like us in every way. So therefore, it’s very helpful to take a step back, and ask your self, “What would I do in such a situation? I met this incredible man who spoke to me like no other, who knew things about me I never knew myself, who suffered on a cross, died, and rose again on the third day after his death. He told me before going back up to Heaven he’d be with me always. He’s just incredible! I want to share his reality with the world. HOW do I do that?”
I don’t think it’s too unreasonable to imagine the Apostles and early disciples thought these things. Asked themselves, “How are we going to do this?”
If we keep this truth in mind, that while clearly holy, these men were no different than you or I, if we think about the entire claim of Christianity THAT way, then we start to realize certain things must be true, some things we find ourselves debating when we divorce our thoughts from the clear human component that was part of the early Church.
Specifically here, the original point of Scripture. Again, these were men (at the time inspired by God yes, but still men writing as men), not some automaton who, at a certain point, was somehow forced into a chair and started writing blindly, under the complete control of another, like some ancient ink jet printer.
No, they sat down and started writing what they thought was important, for the faith, so that the entirety of the faith could be more easily communicated. That’s the point of writing down anything. Especially back then, but even today. When a corporation is incorporated, for example, articles of incorporation are written down so the focus of the company won’t be lost. They serve as “notes” though, not the entire breadth or purpose of the company.
This is truly the best way to view Scripture. It is written down to preserve the faith, so that those who TEACH the faith can better, more easily remember the key points of the faith. That’s why it was written down.
Again, since these events occured so long ago, it’s all too easy to romanticize them, and disassociate the human condition from early Christianity, as if the early followers were all these mighty figures who were super duper holy, not really human at all, and so we think we can’t apply our own rationale, our own reason, to understand the order and nature of the early Church. But this is false, of course they were human as much as we, with the same faults, AND with the same kind of ways and strategies for saving what they knew to be important.
Just as today, we don’t go around writing every last detail of an important concept or teaching, they didn’t back then. So the Bible is a collection of what is MOST important in the faith of Christianity, and so, who would be more qualified to tell us what these “ important notes” mean than the people who wrote them down (or the people that knew them, or knew them who knew them, et cetera)?
Put another way, if you wanted to know all about Moby Dick, everything you could possibly know, naturally who is the first person to ask? Herman Mellville of course. But he’s dead, so who would you ask now? Maybe a relative of his. Or maybe someone who studied him extensively.
The point is, you would naturally seek out an authority. This is the human condition. This is how God made us. So it’s perfectly natural to “believe” (actually REASON) that the way God would choose to most effectively communicate His presence, His way, would be in the same, human way.
That is, it’s clear God has chosen throughout history to communicate to man on man’s level, that is, through reality. So why would He stop doing that at the greatest point, which is His Son’s death, burial and Ressurection, ie, the Gospel and the transmission thereof?
It’s not that difficult to see or accept, if we are willing to remember a very simple concept: the early Christians were just as human as us today. Much of our present day confusion results from the ignorance of this simple fact. We often let ourselves get scandalized by this, insisting “There must be some other way, some way that doesn’t involve my ‘dirty’ humanity”
The short answer? There’s not. This is the way God has always chosen to interact with man: through reality. It’s really, the only way we could ever know Him.
In order to answer that question, you must first determine what the words "pillar" and "foundation" mean. Since I believe I know what your definition and, therefore, intention is for asking that question, why don't we go to Scripture. The verse is:
(Douay-Rheims) But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. (I Timothy 3:15)
And in the English Standard Version:
if I delay, you may know how one ought to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, a pillar and buttress of the truth.
We can then turn to a Bible commentary for a fuller explanation. I like Barnes' Notes on the Bible:
In the house of God - This does not mean in a place of public worship, nor does it refer to propriety of deportment there. It refers rather to the church as a body of believers, and to converse with them. The church is called the "house of God," because it is that in which he dwells. Formerly, his unique residence was in the temple at Jerusalem; now that the temple is destroyed, it is the church of Christ, among his people.
Which is the church of the living God - This seems to have been added to impress the mind of Timothy with the solemn nature of the duty which he was to perform. What he did pertained to the honor and welfare of the church of the living God, and hence he should feel the importance of a correct deportment, and of a right administration of its affairs.
The pillar and ground of the truth - There has been no little diversity of opinion among critics whether this phrase is to be taken in connection with the preceding, meaning that "the church" is the pillar and ground of the truth; or whether it is to be taken in connection with what follows, meaning that the principal support of the truth was the doctrine there referred to - that God was manifest in the flesh. Bloomfield remarks on this: "It is surprising that any who have any knowledge or experience in Greek literature could tolerate so harsh a construction as that which arises from the latter method." The more natural interpretation certainly is, to refer it to the former; and this is supported by the consideration that it would then fall in with the object of the apostle. His design here seems to be, to impress Timothy with a deep sense of the importance of correct conduct in relation to the church; of the responsibility of those who presided over it; and of the necessity of care and caution in the selection of proper officers.
To do this, he reminded him that the truth of God - that revealed truth which he had given to save the world - was entrusted to the church; that it was designed to preserve it pure, to defend it, and to transmit it to future times; and that, therefore, every one to whom the administration of the affairs of the church was entrusted, should engage in this duty with a deep conviction of his responsibility. On the construction of the passage, Bloomfield Rosenmuller, and Clarke, may be consulted. The word "pillar" means a column, such as that by which a building is supported, and then any firm prop or support; Galatians 2:9; Revelation 3:12. If it refers to the church here, it means that that is the support of the truth, as a pillar is of a building. It sustains it amidst the war of elements, the natural tendency to fall, and the assaults which may be made on it, and preserves it when it would otherwise tumble into ruin.
Thus it is with the church. It is entrusted with the business of maintaining the truth, of defending it from the assaults of error, and of transmitting it to future times. The truth is, in fact, upheld in the world by the church. The people of the world feel no interest in defending it, and it is to the church of Christ that it is owing that it is preserved and transmitted from age to age. The word rendered "ground" - ἑδραίωμα hedraioÌ„ma - means, properly, a basis, or foundation. The figure here is evidently taken from architecture, as the use of the word pillar is. The proper meaning of the one expression would be, that truth is supported by the church as an edifice is by a pillar; of the other, that the truth rests "on" the church, as a house does on its foundation. It is that which makes it fixed, stable, permanent; that on which it securely stands amidst storms and tempests; that which renders it firm when systems of error are swept away as a house that is built on the sand; compare notes on Matthew 7:24-27.
The meaning then is, that the stability of the truth on earth is dependent on the church. It is owing to the fact that the church is itself founded on a rock, that the gates of hell cannot prevail against it, that no storms of persecution can overthrow it, that the truth is preserved from age to age. Other systems of religion are swept away; other opinions change; other forms of doctrine vanish; but the knowledge of the great system of redemption is preserved on earth unshaken, because the church is preserved, and because its foundations cannot be moved. This does not refer, I suppose, to creeds and confessions, or to the decisions of synods and councils; but to the living spirit of truth and piety "in" the church itself. As certainly as the church continues to live, so certain it will be that the truth of God will be perpetuated among people.
The church then, as the body of Christ is - In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord (Eph. 2:21) - is given the responsibility to uphold and support the truth. It is NOT a blanket approval to confect the truth or decide what is or isn't divinely revealed truth, but to preserve it as it was revealed by God. Therefore, if ANY assembly that calls itself the church of Christ perverts the truth or veers away from what IS the truth, they obviously cannot BE a true church of Christ. We have been given the sacred writings so that we CAN know truth from error. Like Paul said, "I have written so that you will know how people ought to act in God's household." It's really as simple as that!
So, are you saying Holy Scripture is nothing more than a few dudes’ diary entries? Ancient Crib notes?
“the early Christians were just as human as us today”
Yes, and no. They were human, of course, but the Apostles were imbued with the full gifts of the Holy Spirit, whereas I don’t think any legitimate Christian, even the Pope, can truly make that claim today.
Sure, the Popes are happy to claim the authority of an Apostle, but none of them can display the gifts of the Apostles, to prophesy, heal the sick, speak in languages they do not understand, raise the dead, etc. So, I am quite sure, if the Holy Spirit gave the Apostles those gifts in order to further their ministry, that the Holy Spirit also oversaw the composition of the New Testament, and the fact that we include their works alongside the Old Testament is witness to that fact. So, even if you can argue that the Apostles were not aware of how we would come to rely on their writings, the Holy Spirit certainly was aware of it.
Prove it (you can't). The 'fundamental problem' with succession is that it means *nothing* unless a perfect pedigree can be produced. One can take any old nag and claim it was sired by Seattle Slew, but without the paper to back it up, even one questionable separation, bupkis.
Mark further tells us in 3:14; 16:15 that Jesus commands the apostles to preach (not write) the gospel to the world. Jesus gives no commandment to the apostles to write
Then His disciples have disobeyed Him directly. That is a serious charge. Why then was Yeshua anointed by Mary the Magdalene? It would be an interesting study for you to inquire upon.
There are no "secret" things taught by the Catholic Church. Everything comes from the deposit of faith entrusted to Peter upon whom our Lord built His Church.
LOL! YahRight. Then your Jesus is not the Messiah.
Notice that the Canon of Scripture [...]
Wait a minnit... I thought writing was forbidden?
In Matt. 15:3. Jesus condemns human traditions that void God's word. This verse has nothing to do with the tradition we must obey that was handed down to us from the apostles.
So if the Apostles said it, it can void the Word of YHWH? REALLY?
(Here, the Pharisees, in their human tradition, gave goods to the temple to avoid taking care of their parents, and this voids God's law of honoring one's father and mother.)
No, That is the SECOND example, and follows his admonition of them. What Yeshua was replying to is found in 15:2. Try and find that one in the Law. Not only did they 'take away from', They 'added to' as well. Both are represented by specific example in his exhortation. That should hold some meaning.
'Human Tradition'... You mean of course, their 'Oral Tradition', right? You see, the Pharisees claim there were TWO Torahs passed down from Mt Sinai... One which Moses wrote down, and the other, which was necessarily passed down orally among the priesthood.
Their oral tradition contains the 'law' on which they base their claim that they have the power to supersede the written Word as passed down by Moses... Nay, even change the laws of heaven, and YHWH must endorse it... They claimed the interpretive ability to take a bit here and a verse there (even down to a half sentence, no kidding) from the Torah and coax new meaning in order to introduce novelty... Is any of this sounding familiar?
Let's take a closer look at Oral Tradition. In Matt. 2:23, the prophecy "He shall be a Nazarene" is oral tradition.
No it is not.
It is not found in the Old Testament.
Yes it is. Perhaps you should look at the ancient name of Nazareth and research the word 'netzer'. Not only the name, but the meaning and type thereof. The Branch is certainly mentioned BY NAME in the Torah and the prophets.
This demonstrates that the apostles relied upon oral tradition and taught by oral tradition.
No, it really does not.
Matthew also tells us (Matt 23:2), that Jesus relies on the oral tradition of acknowledging Moses' seat of authority (which passed from Moses to Joshua to the Sanhedrin).
No, He acknowledged Moses, not his seat. Look up ma'asim and takanot, and then study the passage.
In Jude 9, he relies on the oral tradition of the Archangel Michael's dispute with satan over Moses' body. This is not found in the Old Testament.
'The Assumption of Moses' is a reference without source. The source is lost. One may speculate upon it's origin, but it cannot be proven... So it is disingenuous to assign it to oral tradition.
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
Thanks, but 'traditions of men'...
Why? How could I possibly top that? ; )
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.