Posted on 05/03/2008 4:38:34 PM PDT by NYer
Scripture, our Evangelical friends tell us, is the inerrant Word of God. Quite right, the Catholic replies; but how do you know this to be true?
It's not an easy question for Protestants, because, having jettisoned Tradition and the Church, they have no objective authority for the claims they make for Scripture. There is no list of canonical books anywhere in the Bible, nor does any book (with the exception of St. John's Apocalypse) claim to be inspired. So, how does a "Bible Christian" know the Bible is the Word of God?
If he wants to avoid a train of thought that will lead him into the Catholic Church, he has just one way of responding: With circular arguments pointing to himself (or Luther or the Jimmy Swaggart Ministries or some other party not mentioned in the Bible) as an infallible authority telling him that it is so. Such arguments would have perplexed a first or second century Christian, most of whom never saw a Bible.
Christ founded a teaching Church. So far as we know, he himself never wrote a word (except on sand). Nor did he commission the Apostles to write anything. In due course, some Apostles (and non-Apostles) composed the twenty-seven books which comprise the New Testament. Most of these documents are ad hoc; they are addressed to specific problems that arose in the early Church, and none claim to present the whole of Christian revelation. It's doubtful that St. Paul even suspected that his short letter to Philemon begging pardon for a renegade slave would some day be read as Holy Scripture.
Who, then, decided that it was Scripture? The Catholic Church. And it took several centuries to do so. It was not until the Council of Carthage (397) and a subsequent decree by Pope Innocent I that Christendom had a fixed New Testament canon. Prior to that date, scores of spurious gospels and "apostolic" writings were floating around the Mediterranean basin: the Gospel of Thomas, the "Shepherd" of Hermas, St. Paul's Letter to the Laodiceans, and so forth. Moreover, some texts later judged to be inspired, such as the Letter to the Hebrews, were controverted. It was the Magisterium, guided by the Holy Spirit, which separated the wheat from the chaff.
But, according to Protestants, the Catholic Church was corrupt and idolatrous by the fourth century and so had lost whatever authority it originally had. On what basis, then, do they accept the canon of the New Testament? Luther and Calvin were both fuzzy on the subject. Luther dropped seven books from the Old Testament, the so-called Apocrypha in the Protestant Bible; his pretext for doing so was that orthodox Jews had done it at the synod of Jamnia around 100 A. D.; but that synod was explicitly anti-Christian, and so its decisions about Scripture make an odd benchmark for Christians.
Luther's real motive was to get rid of Second Maccabees, which teaches the doctrine of Purgatory. He also wanted to drop the Letter of James, which he called "an epistle of straw," because it flatly contradicts the idea of salvation by "faith alone" apart from good works. He was restrained by more cautious Reformers. Instead, he mistranslated numerous New Testament passages, most notoriously Romans 3:28, to buttress his polemical position.
The Protestant teaching that the Bible is the sole spiritual authority--sola scriptura --is nowhere to be found in the Bible. St. Paul wrote to Timothy that Scripture is "useful" (which is an understatemtn), but neither he nor anyone else in the early Church taught sola scriptura. And, in fact, nobody believed it until the Reformation. Newman called the idea that God would let fifteen hundred years pass before revealing that the bible was the sole teaching authority for Christians an "intolerable paradox."
Newman also wrote: "It is antecedently unreasonable to Bsuppose that a book so complex, so unsystematic, in parts so obscure, the outcome of so many minds, times, and places, should be given us from above without the safeguard of some authority; as if it could possibly, from the nature of the case, interpret itself...." And, indeed, once they had set aside the teaching authority of the Church, the Reformers began to argue about key Scriptural passages. Luther and Zwingli, for example, disagreed vehemently about what Christ meant by the words, "This is my Body."
St. Augustine, usually Luther's guide and mentor, ought to have the last word about sola scriptura: "But for the authority of the Church, I would not believe the Gospel."
No, that was God.
Thank you then for pointing out the blasphemy of making a sinful human woman into deity. That’s exactly what I said.
I did not do that. You bear false witness.
Yo, I’m certainly not a Catholic, but “fake” is not what the article says, and Christopher is still a saint.
No, false witness is worshipping Mary. And your catechism does precisely that.
You are mistaken to claim that St. Christopher was “deemed a fake”. From the article you cited, (which should settle the matter, since it agrees fully with what I posted to you and Marysecretary earlier) “Christopher’s cult was not suppressed [unlike the aforementioned St. Ursula] but it is confined to local calendars (those for a diocese, country, or so forth). His name Christopher, means Christ-bearer. He died a martyr during the reign of Decius in the third century.”
For clarification: If St. Christopher was indeed “deemed a fake”, then any devotion to him would be forbidden, even on a local level. The article you found merely expounds on St. Christopher’s fragmentary history, further clarifying the reason his feast day was removed from the universal calendar. (because his history isn’t as complete as would be required for celebration on the universal calendar) However, no pagan origins were found for him, thus, his existence as a Saint isn’t questioned or belief in same isn’t forbidden. Also, (anticipating) the argument, “Well, wasn’t St. Ursula a saint at ONE time and then “deemed a fake’ in the 1960’s proof of the general concept that Catholics remove Saints at their whim?”: This is fallacious, as the point of the article you provided was that in the early Church, some saints weren’t subjected to the rigorous, UNIVERSAL standards we have today, and, when such UNIVERSAL standards are applied to some, it is discovered, they were NEVER SAINTS TO BEGIN WITH.
And BTW, one may find a mention of a “St. Ursula” in the records of Catholic Saints somewhere, but this is not surprising given the number (literally thousands) of Saints in the Church; it also doesn’t necessarily “prove” it’s the same St. Ursula who’s devotion to has been deemed pagan in origin since the 1960’s, also because of the number (literally thousands) of Saints in the Church today.
Now this does settle it, whether you want to admit it or not is not in my, or anyone else’s power to control. Thus, all future posts still claiming “St. Christopher is no longer a saint” will be ignored (at least by me) since such would be counterproductive to reasonable discourse.
We do not do that.
And your catechism does precisely that.
Ah yes, The Game.
Catholic: This is what I believe.
Catholic-hater: You do NOT believe that, you believe what I say.
Catholic: But I'm telling you what....
Catholic-hater: SILENCE FOUL BLASPHEMER!
Thank you for the information. M
You’re welcome. God bless.
I just read it. Thanks.
ROTFLOLOL!!! You'll "report Mary?!?"
FR has made it clear that it's impossible to enforce a "don't post to me" rule. Since most of us are adults, we should be able to read and respond (or not respond) with patience, purpose and clarity, according to the guidelines of the FR Religion Forum.
Those who require some kind of magisterium to adjudicate their posts perhaps shouldn't enter into these discussions in the first place. "But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" -- 1 Peter 3:15
Apparently, Mary, this is more difficult for some than for you.
"So likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do." -- Luke 17:10
Thanks, Iscool. M
Actually, the only 'authority' mentioned in the NT is James, the 1/2 brother of the Lord, who is acknowledged as the "Bishop of Jerusalem," and the only one that any apostle turned to for approval in their ministry.
Amen, gramma.
Ummmm your catechism clearly teaches that you do worship Mary unless you don’t understand the meaning of worship???? Or maybe you don’t believe your own catechism??? Or perhaps you’d like to explain why Mary if the focal point at the altar of a Catholic Church if SHE isn’t the one being worshipped?
But that’s okay. You go ahead and trust Mary for your salvation and the sacraments and ‘traditions’. Hope that works out for you.
I on the other hand will throw myself at the foot of the cross and trust Christ and Christ alone depending on His mercy through His atonement (not Mary’s). Sola Gratia, Sola Fide, Sola Christos, Sola Scriptura.
Nothing you've quoted so far says "worship" "Mary."
YOU say it. The Catechism does not.
Sola scriptura does not appear in Scripture. Luther famously tried to ADD sola fide to Scripture, but failed.
Ah, the usual running to the mods threat. I’ll try to remember but sometimes it’s hard.
At least as far as St. Christopher is concerned, not so.
Thanks, Dr. E. Reported AGAIN? I must be hitting a nerve here.
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.