Posted on 01/03/2014 12:22:14 PM PST by redleghunter
As we established yesterday, the official Catholic position on Scripture is that Scripture does not and cannot speak for itself. It must be interpreted by the Church's teaching authority, and in light of "living tradition." De facto this says that Scripture has no inherent authority, but like all spiritual truth, it derives its authority from the Church. Only what the Church says is deemed the true Word of God, the "Sacred Scripture . . . written principally in the Church's heart rather than in documents and records."
This position obviously emasculates Scripture. That is why the Catholic stance against sola Scriptura has always posed a major problem for Roman Catholic apologists. On one hand faced with the task of defending Catholic doctrine, and on the other hand desiring to affirm what Scripture says about itself, they find themselves on the horns of a dilemma. They cannot affirm the authority of Scripture apart from the caveat that tradition is necessary to explain the Bible's true meaning. Quite plainly, that makes tradition a superior authority. Moreover, in effect it renders Scripture superfluous, for if Catholic tr adition inerrantly encompasses and explains all the truth of Scripture, then the Bible is simply redundant. Understandably, sola Scriptura has therefore always been a highly effective argument for defenders of the Reformation.
(Excerpt) Read more at gty.org ...
Welcome to Donatism.
Forget about the priest. The priest is nothing--just a pair of hands Christ is borrowing. It's Christ who transforms the elements. And why would He turn control over the confection of the Blessed Sacrament to Satan?
I’m sure you mean well.
No.
Salvation is by grace thorough faith in Christ.
Now, if you don't accept that Scripture alone is indeed all we need to know for salvation and sanctification, that will leave you open to deception, but that's a different issue.
“Your ancestors ate the manna in the desert, but they died;
this is the bread that comes down from heaven so that one may eat it and not die.
I am the living bread that came down from heaven; whoever eats this bread will live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh for the life of the world.”
The Jews quarreled among themselves, saying, “How can this man give us (his) flesh to eat?”
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you.
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day.
For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink
Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.
Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
This is the bread that came down from heaven. Unlike your ancestors who ate and still died, whoever eats this bread will live forever.”
These things he said while teaching in the synagogue in Capernaum
Then many of his disciples who were listening said, “This saying is hard; who can accept it?”
Since Jesus knew that his disciples were murmuring about this, he said to them, “Does this shock you?
What if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the spirit that gives life, while the flesh is of no avail. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you who do not believe.” Jesus knew from the beginning the ones who would not believe and the one who would betray him.
And he said, “For this reason I have told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by my Father.”
As a result of this, many (of) his disciples returned to their former way of life and no longer accompanied him
Jesus then said to the Twelve, “Do you also want to leave?”
Simon Peter answered him, “Master, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life.
We have come to believe and are convinced that you are the Holy One of God.”
Jesus answered them, “Did I not choose you twelve? Yet is not one of you a devil?”
He was referring to Judas, son of Simon the Iscariot; it was he who would betray him, one of the Twelve.” [John 6: 49-71]
See, I told you so.
“I could continue on with multiple additional quotes, but it won’t convince you of anything, so why bother”
Well of course you won’t convince me of anything, you’re still not proving the “Primacy of Rome.” Obviously, if any Eastern Orthodox or Presbyterian or Lutheran or Anglican saw your posts, they wouldn’t think about converting to Catholicism just because you managed to mutter something about Bishops and church authority.
Let me help demonstrate to you what kind of an argument you should be making, except my argument will be in the reverse, that is, against the Primacy of Rome:
In the case of the Papacy, one won’t find any theology on the Primacy of Rome in the early church. In fact, the testimony of the Fathers on where Peter even was and when is quite divided amongst them, and contradictory to the scripture account.
“We read in the Chronicle of Eusebius, at the year 43, that Peter, after founding the Church of Antioch, was sent to Rome, where he preached the Gospel for twenty-five years, and was Bishop of that city. But this part of the Chronicle does not exist in the Greek, nor in the Armenian, and it is supposed to have been one of the additions made by Jerome. Eusebius does not say the same in any other part of his writings, though he mentions St. Peter’s going to Rome in the reign of Claudius: but Jerome tells us that he came in the second year of this emperor, and held the See twenty-five years. On the other hand, Origen, who is quoted by Eusebius himself, says that Peter went to Rome towards the end of his life: and Lactantius places it in the reign of Nero, and adds that he suffered martyrdom not long after.”
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2010/07/did-eusebius-say-peter-was-bishop-of.html
Now it does not appear that either Peter or Paul founded the church in Rome at all, since all the Biblical evidence points to believers already being in Rome, without any mention of their founding pastor. If it were an Apostle who had founded the church in Rome, it is illogical that Paul would not have at least mentioned him or wrote to him if he were the head of all the churches. This is what the Roman Catholic Joseph Fitzmyer concedes here:
“…Paul never hints in Romans that he knows that Peter has worked in Rome or founded the Christian church there before his planned visit (cf. 15:20-23). If he refers indirectly to Peter as among the “superfine apostles” who worked in Corinth (2 Cor 11:4-5), he says nothing like that about Rome in this letter. Hence the beginnings of the Roman Christian community remain shrouded in mystery. Compare 1 Thess 3:2-5; 1 Cor 3:5-9; and Col 1:7 and 4:12-13 for more or less clear references to founding apostles of other locales. Hence there is no reason to think that Peter spent any major portion of time in Rome before Paul wrote his letter, or that he was the founder of the Roman church or the missionary who first brought Christianity to Rome. For it seems highly unlikely that Luke, if he knew that Peter had gone to Rome and evangelized that city, would have omitted all mention of it in Acts.” [Source: Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J., Romans, A New Translation with introduction and Commentary, The Anchor Bible Series (New York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 30].
If what Jerome wrote of Eusebius is correct, then Peter would have been in Rome when Paul had written the epistle to the Romans, which is reckoned to have been written around 58AD. When Paul does write to them, he writes only to the members of the church, some by name, but none about its reigning pastor who was supposedly the head of the church.
Not even the supposed successor of Peter, Clement (or the epistle that has his name) is any reference made either to the primacy of Peter (he is instead listed with the other Apostles as fellow workers) or to his own primacy as Pope over the church!
Ingatius, in his letter to Polycarp, writes to his fellow Bishop greeting him thus: “to Polycarp, Bishop of the Church of the Smyrnæans, or rather, who has, as his own bishop, God the Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ” (Ignatius, Epistle to Polycarp).
Now this cannot be so if the Pope is the “perpetual” head of the church, whom all local Bishops must submit to. In Ignatius’ letter to the Romans, he does not even write to or mention its Bishop, even though he had written to the Bishop of every church he had before written to.
In Irenaeus, deeper into the second century, builds the church of Rome on Peter and Paul, whom he writes ordained Bishops of their own, and not founded upon the authority of only one of them.
Even into the 6th or 7th centuries, when the idea of the Primacy of Peter was more developed, was it even defined in the same way that Rome does today.
According to the Catechism, the Roman Bishop is:
882 ... the perpetual and visible source and foundation of the unity both of the bishops and of the whole company of the faithful.”402 “For the Roman Pontiff, by reason of his office as Vicar of Christ, and as pastor of the entire Church has full, supreme, and universal power over the whole Church, a power which he can always exercise unhindered.”403
883 “The college or body of bishops has no authority unless united with the Roman Pontiff, Peter’s successor, as its head.” As such, this college has “supreme and full authority over the universal Church; but this power cannot be exercised without the agreement of the Roman Pontiff.”404
It was this same idea of “General Father” or a ‘Universal Bishop” that Gregory condemned in the then Bishop of Constantinople who had taken the title Universal Bishop:
“Consider, I pray you, that in this rash presumption the peace of the whole Church is disturbed, and that it is in contradiction to the grace that is poured out on all in common; in which grace doubtless you yourself wilt have power to grow so far as you determine with yourself to do so. And you will become by so much the greater as you restrain yourself from the usurpation of a proud and foolish title: and you will make advance in proportion as you are not bent on arrogation by derogation of your brethren. Wherefore, dearest brother, with all your heart love humility, through which the concord of all the brethren and the unity of the holy universal Church may be preserved. Certainly the apostle Paul, when he heard some say, I am of Paul, I of Apollos, but I of Christ 1 Corinthians 1:13, regarded with the utmost horror such dilaceration of the Lord’s body, whereby they were joining themselves, as it were, to other heads, and exclaimed, saying, Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul (ib.)? If then he shunned the subjecting of the members of Christ partially to certain heads, as if beside Christ, though this were to the apostles themselves, what will you say to Christ, who is the Head of the universal Church, in the scrutiny of the last judgment, having attempted to put all his members under yourself by the appellation of Universal? Who, I ask, is proposed for imitation in this wrongful title but he who, despising the legions of angels constituted socially with himself, attempted to start up to an eminence of singularity, that he might seem to be under none and to be alone above all? Who even said, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of heaven: I will sit upon the mount of the testament, in the sides of the North: I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High Isaiah 14:13.”
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360205018.htm
It wasn’t until one of Gregory’s successors, Boniface III, that the Roman Bishop petitioned the emperor for the title of Universal that they enjoy today.
Some Catholics can read this letter and say that Gregory only condemned the title, but not the power they claim he still possessed. However, there are other instances where Gregory could have embraced his power as “universal” Bishop of the entire church. While at this time the idea of the “Primacy of Peter” was in vogue, yet this same primacy was not translated to a supremacy over the entire church. And, in fact, there wasn’t just one person who held the “throne” of Peter; according to Gregory, it was held by one Apostolic see ruled by divine authority by THREE separate Bishops, which is that of Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. Here is the letter in full, but first I am going to quote the RCC abuse of it:
The link to the whole letter first
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/360207040.htm
Now here are the Roman quotations of this letter, wherein they assert that Gregory is a champion of the Primacy of Rome. Take special note of the clever use of ellipses:
Pope Gregory I
“Your most sweet holiness, [Bishop Eulogius of Alexandria], has spoken much in your letter to me about the chair of Saint Peter, prince of the apostles, saying that he himself now sits on it in the persons of his successors. And indeed I acknowledge myself to be unworthy . . . I gladly accepted all that has been said, in that he has spoken to me about Peter’s chair, who occupies Peter’s chair. And, though special honor to myself in no wise delights me . . . who can be ignorant that holy Church has been made firm in the solidity of the prince of the apostles, who derived his name from the firmness of his mind, so as to be called Peter from petra. And to him it is said by the voice of the Truth, ‘To you I will give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’ [Matt. 16:19]. And again it is said to him, ‘And when you are converted, strengthen your brethren’ [Luke 22:32]. And once more, ‘Simon, son of John, do you love me? Feed my sheep’ [John 21:17]” (Letters 40 [A.D. 597]).
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/the-authority-of-the-pope-part-ii
“Who does not know that the holy Church is founded on the solidity of the Chief Apostle, whose name expressed his firmness, being called Peter from Petra (Rock)?...Though there were many Apostles, only the See of the Prince of the Apostles...received supreme authority in virtue of its very principate.” (Letter to the Patriarch Eulogius of Alexandria, Ep. 7)
http://credo.stormloader.com/Ecumenic/gregory.htm
I provide their versions of the quotations only to highlight for you the parts they omit. And, really, there is no reason for them to omit them. The lines they remove are small sentences, and then they continue quoting right after they finish. It’s quite an embarrassing display!
In this letter, Gregory is specifically attributing to the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch the “Chair of Peter” and its authority that they bestowed upon him. In the first quotation, the Romans omit the sentence which says: “And, though special honour to myself in no wise delights me, [they omit here] yet I greatly rejoiced because you, most holy ones, have given to yourselves what you have bestowed upon me. [They rebegin here]” After telling them about the “special honor” that is respectively given to both parties, Gregory immediately goes into a discussion on what that special honor is... which is the authority of Peter they all enjoy:
“Wherefore though there are many apostles, yet with regard to the principality itself the See of the Prince of the apostles alone has grown strong in authority, which in three places is the See of one. For he himself exalted the See in which he deigned even to rest and end the present life. He himself adorned the See to which he sent his disciple as evangelist. He himself established the See in which, though he was to leave it, he sat for seven years. Since then it is the See of one, and one See, over which by Divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you, this I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your merits, since we are one in Him Who says, That they all may be one, as You, Father, art in me, and I in you that they also may be one in us John 17:21.”
Notice how different this reads when one does not omit what the Romans omit! Gregory declares that the See of Peter is one see... but in THREE places, over which THREE Bishops preside, which is Rome, Antioch and Alexandria, the latter of which he was now writing to.
So while the Romans insist that the Primacy of Peter refers to the Bishop of Rome, Gregory applies the Primacy of Peter to ALL the major Bishops of the See. They are, in effect, ALL the Church of Peter, having received the succession from him and possess his chair and authority.
And Gregory, of course, isn’t alone in this. Theodoret references the same belief when he places the “throne of Peter” under the Bishop of Antioch:
“Dioscorus, however, refuses to abide by these decisions; he is turning the See of the blessed Mark upside down; and these things he does though he perfectly well knows that the Antiochene (of Antioch) metropolis possesses the throne of the great Peter, who was teacher of the blessed Mark, and first and coryphæus (head of the choir) of the chorus of the apostles.” Theodoret - Letter LXXXVI - To Flavianus, Bishop of Constantinople.
In fact, what I have presented here are the principle arguments of the Eastern Orthodox, the other guys who claim to be the One true Holy and Apostolic church of God on Earth.
“Forget about the priest.”
No doubt I already have, as I am a Protestant, and do not view Priests as being instruments of God despite their own perversions.
” no more agree with Alex or Gamecock than with GPH, but there’s not the fundamental unpleasantness characterized in their posts...”
Remember though, you were the one who was flippant in your response to me, rather than taking it seriously and responding to any of it. You then responded, later, with a strawman, concluding with your ‘whatever’ comment, which I demonstrated was weak and off topic.
The unpleasantness of my posts is just the subject matter and the evidence therein, which undermine Catholicism. I, personally, am the least of your worries.
No one ever said that someone gets saved because they read the Bible. It's always through Jesus by faith. But it's through the Bible that we even know about Jesus and what He did. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God.
So sometimes someone reads the Bible and learns about Jesus and accepts Christ that way. Sometimes it's by hearing someone else tell us about Jesus and what He did.
Either way, salvation is through accepting Christ, regardless of the mechanism by which the message is heard.
What, exactly, does scripture say about itself that supports Sola Scriptura?
That's not all Calvinists. I no more agree with Alex or Gamecock than with GPH, but there's not the fundamental unpleasantness characterized in their posts...as a general rule (and I'm sure the same...saying "generally"...would apply to me as well, I hope)
(In fact, I try to ping them to satire pieces I post from time to time if I think they'd enjoy it; both of them ping me to satire they think I'd appreciate...and somehow I ended up on Gamecock's mega-church ping list...go figure)
Thank you for those kind words, markomalley. They were much needed tonight, you delivered, and God is in His Heaven. If you like, we can take up the topic of "fundamental unpleasantries" another day, but tonight I'll be over in the corner praising God for tender mercies experienced anew.
That's not all Calvinists. I no more agree with Alex or Gamecock than with GPH, but there's not the fundamental unpleasantness characterized in their posts...as a general rule (and I'm sure the same...saying "generally"...would apply to me as well, I hope)
Well said and exactly how I feel...
A far question respectfully asked by a RC, and sorry for the length of my reply, but some thinking is required to reason-able work this all thru.
It is true that in the light of divisions one can see the attraction of sola ecclesia (SE), with the church being the supreme authority, usually with a head or group which effectively or formally claims assured veracity. Which also means their own declaration of their assured veracity is assuredly true. And it is under this premise that the members have real assurance of truth.
And which discourages objective examination of the Scriptures in order to ascertain the veracity of its truth claims, but instead is foster and requires a very high level or implicit assent of faith in its leadership when teaching officially.
And which Rome basically does doctrinally, but is not the only one operating out of this basic premise, as elitists cults do also. And therein is the efficacy of SE to ensure practical unity most evident, in the clone-like adherence of its members such as the doctrine-intensive Watchtower Society (but which has the lowest retention rate).
Yet what an church really believes is not to be determined by official teachings, but, as faith is shown by works, by what they do, and overall effectually convey and foster. And in this Rome counts liberals as members in life and in death, and has much more actual diversity, regardless of what is professed on paper. For even what is infallible or not, and what level each teaching fall under, and what such may all means is subject to varying degrees of interpretation. Such as is seen even in RC Bible scholarship, and the application of canon law.
And while dissent is discouraged officially, unlike cults, there is officially some allowance for conscientious dissent in non-fallible teachings, which varies depending on which of the magisterial level the teaching is.
In addition, while offering the easiest means of unity, as individuals and their interpretations can have no authority apart from magisterial approval, yet under the SE model, in which its interpretation of Scripture, traditions and history is correct, then you end up with competing SE churches and groups.
The EOs, despite their high level communion with Rome exist in formal division, as they have significant disagreements with Rome, rejecting her purgatory and indulgences, universal papal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, the Immaculate Conception, the filioque, the Catholic charismatic movement, and more , based on interpretation of Scripture, traditions and history.
Then you have the schismatic sedevacantists, the SSPX sect, and other informal ones. Despite shared consent to core truths, the EOs and the others have key dissensions under SE. In addition you have SE groups such as the LDS (absurd, but that is according to reason, not the unchallengeable wisdom of interpreters under SE.)
Moreover, comparing one church with many is not a valid comparison, despite RC fondness for it, thus the comparison btwn SE and SS type churches. But what of the latter model? Certainly this genders divisions, but then you have evangelicalism which arose because of a share commitment to core truths which liberals, cults and Rome deny. And enjoy a remarkable fellowship within and across denomination lines, grounded in a shared personal conversion to Christ and Scripture-based relationship with their Lord, and assent to commonly held truths. And which testify to greater unity overall in core moral beliefs then those Rome counts as members.
Thus they have been treated by both liberals and Rome as their greatest threat to their domination. If they did not have such unity than they could not manifest a shared contention against error, and be such a threat to those who promote it.
Therefore under both SE and SS type models you have competing churches and individuals, the differences being a matter of degrees. Yet while comprehensive doctrinal unity may not be realized, yet shared assent to and practical contention for core truths can be and is realized under both, if not universally.
And note here the issue is not btwn having a magisterium versus every man being a pope, as under SS the teaching office is affirmed and has authority, but not as assuredly infallible. The RC solution is to assert an assuredly infallible interpreter and definer (when speaking according to her criteria for such) is necessary, and that she is it, and under this premise her members have assurance. The arguments for this seem to be based on her claim to being the inheritor or Divine promises of God's presence and preservation, and her historical descent. Which makes her the steward of Scripture and thus its infallible interpreter and definer of Truth.
As i hold Scriptural substantiation to be the basis for determining truth, the question i have for you is, is the Roman model Scriptural, as being the basis upon which the church began?
Rome does believe it is changed regardless of the faith of the receive, if the priest has the right intent. And which they must take on faith, while the effects of this supposedly "superstantial bread," whether liberalism or cultic devotion to a church, are such that it should be a determent to those who wish to follow Christ.
And both concurred no one could come to Christ unless the Father drew him, and gave them grace to repent and believe on the Divine Son of God, Jesus Christ to save them on His blood expense and righteousness. Which is all a soul needs to believe, if even understanding Jn. 6:44, to be saved. But as for contentions on reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom, as if this was solved in Rome, did you ever hear of Congregatio de Auxiliis ?
....after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated on 5 September 1607 to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, could maintain their respective theories,
And a truce can be in order in such deep areas of theology.
So let us asked you the question which thus far has been ignored this week. Consistent with the literalism of your interpretation, you must conclude that those who do not believe in the Real Presence" are not of the Body, and do not have eternal life. Correct, and if not, why? And try to use words.
And where is Jn. 6:53, 54 infallibly defined as meaning what you say?
A logical line of thought. Which concludes “is scripture sufficient?” Scripture answers in the affirmative.
No, the goalposts are exactly settled: there’s an old and a new testament. The Jews preserved what came before Christ, and most of it became what we now recognize as the old/BC scripture. What came after Christ was selected and preserved by the Jews and other than the Jews. For argument’s sake, let’s say it was selected and preserved, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, by the early Christians. Or is there a problem with that? The early Christians, to most believers, was “the Church.” That church, loosely the church of Christendom, lasted (despite challenges in heresies and apostasies) until various opponents to various beliefs separated themselves from it—Luther, Calvin, Wycliffe, Knox, Henry VIII, etc., etc.—and formed splinter churches based on their arguments with the original church. If the Church (again, meaning Roman Catholic Church) wasn’t what preserved the entire Bible, who WAS performing that function up until the Reformation? From whom did the protestants wish to separate themselves? Surely not the so-called early Christians who hadn’t been around for quite some time. They broke from the only Christian church they (the Europeans, and later others) knew at the time.
I share your belief that the Bible is right and complete, inspired and protected by God; but it’s also immensely ambiguous and poetic. Americans and even modern Brits barely understand Shakespeare’s language, and they’re expected to understand the Bible’s? Call me naive or stupid, but I like to have experts help me through it, the Cliff Notes AND the footnotes, if you like. And that’s just ONE of the reasons for the at-least equal significance of the Church.
Unfortunately, John (and the other evangelists and epistle-writers) didn’t quite say (to paraphrase another John) “all you need is scripture.” What John said was, “These are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in his name” (20:31). Paul added, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be equipped, prepared for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16–17). If the Bible’s all that’s necessary, why baptize? WHO baptizes, if not some representative of church? Does tithing come from the NT? If so, who collects it, to whom does it go? How does one keep holy the Sabbath—does a personal reading of scripture fulfill that obligation? And of course, there’s the Luther issue: are good works necessary for salvation, or can we skate through life simply by reading and interpreting the Bible as we choose? What about those who can’t read? The list could go on . . .
The Bible’s absolutely necessary, but it simply cannot be exclusively necessary, for salvation.
Instead of a number, I think Luke 24 has a suitable answer to your question. That being what Jesus Christ opened to not only the apostles but other disciples as well.
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.