Posted on 10/28/2011 6:59:29 AM PDT by markomalley
October 31 is only three days away. For Protestants, it is Reformation Day, the date in 1517 on which Martin Luther nailed his Ninety-Five Theses to that famous door in Wittenberg, Germany. Since I returned to the Catholic Church in April 2007, each year the commemoration has become a time of reflection about my own journey and the puzzles that led me back to the Church of my youth.
One of those puzzles was the relationship between the Church, Tradition, and the canon of Scripture. As a Protestant, I claimed to reject the normative role that Tradition plays in the development of Christian doctrine. But at times I seemed to rely on it. For example, on the content of the biblical canon – whether the Old Testament includes the deuterocanonical books (or “Apocrypha”), as the Catholic Church holds and Protestantism rejects. I would appeal to the exclusion of these books as canonical by the Jewish Council of Jamnia (A.D. 90-100) as well as doubts about those books raised by St. Jerome, translator of the Latin Vulgate, and a few other Church Fathers.
My reasoning, however, was extra-biblical. For it appealed to an authoritative leadership that has the power to recognize and certify books as canonical that were subsequently recognized as such by certain Fathers embedded in a tradition that, as a Protestant, I thought more authoritative than the tradition that certified what has come to be known as the Catholic canon. This latter tradition, rejected by Protestants, includes St. Augustine as well as the Council of Hippo (A.D. 393), the Third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), the Fourth Council of Carthage (A.D. 419), and the Council of Florence (A.D. 1441).
But if, according to my Protestant self, a Jewish council and a few Church Fathers are the grounds on which I am justified in saying what is the proper scope of the Old Testament canon, then what of New Testament canonicity? So, ironically, given my Protestant understanding of ecclesiology, then the sort of authority and tradition that apparently provided me warrant to exclude the deuterocanonical books from Scripture – binding magisterial authority with historical continuity – is missing from the Church during the development of New Testament canonicity.
The Catholic Church, on the other hand, maintains that this magisterial authority was in fact present in the early Church and thus gave its leadership the power to recognize and fix the New Testament canon. So, ironically, the Protestant case for a deuterocanonical-absent Old Testament canon depends on Catholic intuitions about a tradition of magisterial authority.
This led to two other tensions. First, in defense of the Protestant Old Testament canon, I argued, as noted above, that although some of the Church’s leading theologians and several regional councils accepted what is known today as the Catholic canon, others disagreed and embraced what is known today as the Protestant canon. It soon became clear to me that this did not help my case, since by employing this argumentative strategy, I conceded the central point of Catholicism: the Church is logically prior to the Scriptures. That is, if the Church, until the Council of Florence’s ecumenical declaration in 1441, can live with a certain degree of ambiguity about the content of the Old Testament canon, that means that sola scriptura was never a fundamental principle of authentic Christianity.
After all, if Scripture alone applies to the Bible as a whole, then we cannot know to which particular collection of books this principle applies until the Bible’s content is settled. Thus, to concede an officially unsettled canon for Christianity’s first fifteen centuries seems to make the Catholic argument that sola scriptura was a sixteenth-century invention and, therefore, not an essential Christian doctrine.
Second, because the list of canonical books is itself not found in Scripture – as one can find the Ten Commandments or the names of Christ’s apostles – any such list, whether Protestant or Catholic, would be an item of extra-biblical theological knowledge. Take, for example, a portion of the revised and expanded Evangelical Theological Society statement of faith suggested (and eventually rejected by the membership) by two ETS members following my return to the Catholic Church. It states that, “this written word of God consists of the sixty-six books of the Old and New Testaments and is the supreme authority in all matters of belief and behavior.”
But the belief that the Bible consists only of sixty-six books is not a claim of Scripture, since one cannot find the list in it, but a claim about Scripture as a whole. That is, the whole has a property – i.e., “consisting of sixty-six books,” – that is not found in any of the parts. In other words, if the sixty-six books are the supreme authority on matters of belief, and the number of books is a belief, and one cannot find that belief in any of the books, then the belief that Scripture consists of sixty-six particular books is an extra-biblical belief, an item of theological knowledge that is prima facie non-biblical.
For the Catholic, this is not a problem, since the Bible is the book of the Church, and thus there is an organic unity between the fixing of the canon and the development of doctrine and Christian practice.
Although I am forever indebted to my Evangelical brethren for instilling and nurturing in me a deep love of Scripture, it was that love that eventually led me to the Church that had the authority to distinguish Scripture from other things.
Another matter is that even though they may be in error in some things, they are WAY CLOSER to the truth than Protestants, and their sacraments and apostolic succession are valid.
If you think that’s what relationship consists of I don’t guess I can change that. If that’s the type of relationship that you have with your priest I don’t suppose you have a base to understand what a relationship with Christ may be like.
No go. That is not what I consider the relationship between God and man to be. That is what your lot tells me that their relationship is with Jesus. We Catholics do not confuse the Creator and the created.
If the only view of a relationship is beer and barbeque then I’m not going to be able to relate on that subject.
Then pray enlighten me on how you as an individual view your relationship with God, as opposed to the myriad beliefs of the myriad churches of one that pop up out of the landscape like a giant sized whack-a-mole board.
Because scripture is meaningless to them...They must use it when and where they can to continue the deception...
2Co 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
2Co 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
2Co 11:15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
Rom. 11:6, "But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace."
Context, context. I understand that the basis of the Reformation and its illegitimate descendents is the ability to prooftext snippets of Scripture.
Paul is saying that man cannot work his way into heaven. But Paul waxes loquacious on the premise that even with grace, man can surely lose his salvation by his works, and that works are required, after grace. Without grace, works do not matter. You're welcome.
Thus began the queen of heaven thing in 431 in Ephesus. God commanded to destroy the trappings of pagan worship, not adapt them.
Then you will not kneel in prayer. You will not pray. You do not wear a wedding ring. You will not display the cross or the fish-symbol of Christianity. You do not celebrate Christmas.
Shall I go on?
And the bodily assumption of Mary.
That has been with Christianity from the beginning. However, this is not doctrine, but rather, opinion w.r.t her death. We don't know nor are we required to believe it. It is not a condition of belief.
This is not a thread on the status and the presence of Mary and I am not going into that here.
I was horrified with John Calvin. Burning Michael Servetus at the stake gives a glimps into his theology. I couldn’t care less what John Calvin believed.
Very good. That confirms some of my opinions.
When did you confuse me with anyone defending any religion other than that which holds strictly to accepting Jesus as savior with no pagan trappings or views that contradict scripture?
Please understand that there are many different individuals out there who hold all kinds of different beliefs, and who waver and move from belief to belief. It is difficult keeping track of who believes in what heresy or apostacy.
I think not.
Saint Nicholas was not protestant. The historical Saint Nicholas is remembered and revered among Catholic and Orthodox Christians. [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Saint_Nicholas]
The idea of what Santa Claus has morphed into is thoroughly Protestant. To the Calvinists, Santa Claus delivers their salvation in an unexpected package that they magically open one day. To the OSAS crowd, Santa Claus delivers their salvation in a magical package that they receive after publically announcing that they believe in Santa Claus. The rest have a rather muddled version of what their salvation consists of, but they are sure that it is not Catholic.
Looks to me like we have our Catholic friends for coming up with Santa Clause. He would be a Catholic it would seem.
Where does St Nick / Santa Claus have the most history? Hint: look at the predominantly Protestant countries.
Ah, ah, ah. You've been thoroughly instructed on what purgatory is. This is just Catholic bashing.
The Blessed Virgin Mary was instrumental in bringing salvation, only in the fact that she was obedient to God, and gave birth to our Savior. If you read the Akathist I have posted, which was written in praise of the saving of the City of Constantinople, from the Persians.
Because he True Church holds Holy Tradition, to be AS valid as the Holy Bible. You Protestants chose to throw out what you don’t and cannot understand.
Don’t presume to think you can speak for the True Church.
“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29
So you do have a relationship. That of one between a creator and the created.
>>Then pray enlighten me on how you as an individual view your relationship with God<<
What part of “personal” relationship confuses you? I have my relationship with Christ you have yours.
Thank you for your permission.
but Jesus did teach us how to pray
Absolutely. Matthew 26:36-46 Then Jesus went with his disciples to a place called Gethsemane, and he said to them, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 He took Peter and the two sons of Zebedee along with him, and he began to be sorrowful and troubled. 38 Then he said to them, “My soul is overwhelmed with sorrow to the point of death. Stay here and keep watch with me.” 39 Going a little farther, he fell with his face to the ground and prayed, “My Father, if it is possible, may this cup be taken from me. Yet not as I will, but as you will.” 40
Luke 22:39-46 Jesus went out as usual to the Mount of Olives, and his disciples followed him. 40 On reaching the place, he said to them, “Pray that you will not fall into temptation.” 41 He withdrew about a stone’s throw beyond them, knelt down and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, take this cup from me; yet not my will, but yours be done.” 43 An angel from heaven appeared to him and strengthened him. 44 And being in anguish, he prayed more earnestly, and his sweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground. 45 When he rose from prayer and went back to the disciples, he found them asleep, exhausted from sorrow.
My point is that so many who prate the verse 'that every knee will bow' actually never do it. You give me the OT; I give you Jesus. It is a common exchange that I have observed with many of my Protestant colleagues. Of course I stand in prayer. And I pray a decade of the Rosary in the morning while driving to work, so I am sitting at that point.
How many Protestants speak about prayer and never actually do it other than rambling stream of consciousness prattle at some public or semi public affair?
“Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent.” John 6:28-29
Very good. What you have left out is the requirements that result from that belief.
I’ll use just the bolded excerpts from the prayer.
we cast ourselves into your arms
1 Peter 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. (When did we need to replace God with Mary?)
confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Hebrews 4:15-16 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (once again Catholics replacing Christ with Mary)
O crystal fountain of faith
Romans 12:3 according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. or "a measure of faith." (but Mary is the “fountain of faith” for Catholics)
Lily of all holiness
1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. (for Catholics however, “all holiness” is given to Mary)
Conqueress of evil and death
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (but Catholics claim it was Mary who conquered death)
Convert the wicked
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; (Catholics have even replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary)
Statement by catholic Bishop Liqouri “.......We often more quickly obtain what we ask by calling on the name of Mary than by invoking that of Jesus.....” She...is our Salvation, our Life, our Hope, our Counsel, our Refuge, our Help”
Need I go on? Catholics have replaced virtually every attribute and working of God and given that to Mary in their worship. And yes, that's worship.
So you do have a relationship. That of one between a creator and the created.
Correct. And it is not a casual Buddy Christ relationship.
>>Then pray enlighten me on how you as an individual view your relationship with God<<
What part of “personal” relationship confuses you? I have my relationship with Christ you have yours.
Again, because of the myriad beliefs and viewpoints of the results of the Reformation, I have little idea of what you as an individual Protestant believe other than what I can glean from your posts.
I have no idea nor does it affect me. I could suppose that it would be about the same as those who are Catholic that through simple rote recite some litany of words not knowing what they mean thinking somehow pure repetition does something.
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.