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.
Requirements? As in laws and rules and rituals? Such as things that would earn man the right to stand before God and recite all the rules he kept thus deserving entrance into heaven?
Would you please quote me or point me to the post where I claimed or even intimated that my relationship with Christ would resemble a “buddy” relationship? Surely that wouldn’t have been a projection of your assumption on me would it?
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.
I suppose that this could be considered deflection. I have enquired about you personally, since you posted a legitimate query as to my incomplete perceptions of your actual beliefs and practices. So, what are they?
Requirements? As in laws and rules and rituals? Such as things that would earn man the right to stand before God and recite all the rules he kept thus deserving entrance into heaven?
As in the commandments of Christ. Do you have a list or incomplete list of them? Do you think that Jesus was kidding when He told us that we could only be His friends if we followed His commandments?
Would you please quote me or point me to the post where I claimed or even intimated that my relationship with Christ would resemble a “buddy” relationship? Surely that wouldn’t have been a projection of your assumption on me would it?
I am operating with certain unknowns as to your belief system and content. Pray fill me in.
Snort! Riiiiight. And the Queen of England lives in a little one room shanty in Buckingham Palace. That's rich.
[...]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.
Which is NOT the Roman Catholic Church.
Oh, by the way -- where exactly is "vicar of Christ" noted in the Scripture?
Hoss
They are all contained within scripture.
Hmmmm. Where exactly in Scripture is the sacrament of penance defined and stated as a sacrament? Or, how about the sacrament of confession? Odd that these "sacraments" aren't listed, yet they are somehow valid? The Sacrament of Baptism and the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper are the only sacraments I'm familiar with.
The other question is this: where exactly in Scripture is "Apostolic Succession" taught???
Hoss
Snort! Riiiiight. And the Queen of England lives in a little one room shanty in Buckingham Palace. That's rich.
That's ignorant.
[...]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.
Which is NOT the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible and history say that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Living God. By whose authority do you say it is not?
Oh, by the way -- where exactly is "vicar of Christ" noted in the Scripture?
By the giving of the keys of Heaven to Peter. The only keys to the kingdom were held by the monarch until he went away on a journey, and then the vicar or steward of the monarch would take the keys and look after the kingdom until the monarch returned.
They are all contained within scripture.
That is not an answer. Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs come from within Scripture. So do Pentecostals. So does Calvinism. And so on.
Every single heresy from the beginning of the Church can be justified by using snippets of Scripture.
No go, CB. You state that I don't understand your position. That is true. Your post does not do anything to clear it up.
When I stand before the Father I do so in Jesus name, covered with His blood. In that regard I appear before the Father as Jesus appears before the father. Perfect in every way.
Again, I ask: where in Scripture is the "Vicar of Christ" identified??
That's ignorant.
Must not be too ignorant if that's all the refutation you can muster. Look at the history of the papacy... power (and corruption) aplenty. The papacy has been more secular and sinful than apparently is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. But, history records the truth... much to the chagrin the the Roman Catholic Church.
The Bible and history say that the Catholic Church is the Church of the Living God. By whose authority do you say it is not?
The Bible and history say no such thing. Please refer me to scripture that names the Roman Catholic Church... or, for that matter, show me where the Roman Catholic Church existed in 1 AD. The Church,the catholic church, biblically, by the way, is the BODY OF BELIEVERS; not a church organized by man (Roman Catholic Church) and then named to be THE church! It just isn't so. Saying it all you want doesn't change it.
Hoss
Oh LORD, it’s hard to be humble...
>>>>>The papacy has been more secular and sinful than apparently is accepted by the Roman Catholic Church. But, history records the truth... much to the chagrin the the Roman Catholic Church.
I have no chagrin that my church is full of sinners. It isn’t the well who have need of a physician. Perhaps you, like CB, consider yourself identical to Jesus, perfect in every way. In that case, you don’t need saving grace either. Great! You still aren’t any kind of authority to me or anyone else, just an anonymous nobody preaching on the internet. Giddyup as the Mac Davis song says.
What’s really odd is that I have memories of priests who show up at people’s houses for BBQ and beer.
Being a priest never stopped any of them from drinking and socializing.
Matthew 23:1-12 1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 2 "The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3so practice and observe whatever they tell you— but not what they do. For they preach, but do not practice. 4 They tie up heavy burdens, hard to bear, and lay them on people’s shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to move them with their finger. 5 They do all their deeds to be seen by others. For they make their phylacteries broad and their fringes long, 6and they love the place of honor at feasts and the best seats in the synagogues 7and greetings in the marketplaces and being called rabbi by others. 8 But you are not to be called rabbi, for you have one teacher, and you are all brothers.
9 And call no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven. 10Neither be called instructors, for you have one instructor, the Christ. 11 The greatest among you shall be your servant. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.
These are never really arguments about what is or is not stated in Scripture, they are arguments over the interpretation of Scripture. No matter how many times Catholics post Scripture along with a fully Traditional interpretation of its meaning somebody is going to bitch, whine, insult and accuse because the Traditional interpretation is at odds with Protestant doctrine.
So when you read "Show me in Scripture" it really means "Show me in Scripture, interpreted as I interpret it". Catholics are expected to reject Catholic doctrine and to accept as valid every heretical musing as a precondition to every discussion. Those are conditions I cannot accept.
Jesus had a lot to say about tradition , none of it any good. Unless you can provide some Scripture where Jesus appeals to tradition instead of *It is written....*.
Each is responsible for his or her own response to the calling of the Holy Spirit. I am not responsible to those who follow the Catholic Church, the Jehovah’s witness or any other person or organization. Salvation is a personal thing not a collective thing.
Each person needs to stand before God, not before a preacher, priest, or any other man here on earth. I address error I see in teaching as it disagrees with or contradicts scripture.
I don’t presume to know what anyone believes on a personal level unless they tell me directly. I can and do read what organizations or individuals teach.
“believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved – you and your household” is what is needed for salvation. Adding to that simple gospel leads away from Christ and His perfect, final, finished sacrifice for all sins.
Jesus had a lot to say about tradition , none of it any good. Unless you can provide some Scripture where Jesus appeals to tradition instead of *It is written....*.
Ephesians 5:25-27 Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, 26that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
Ephesians 6:10-20 10Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. 12For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.
13Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. 14Stand therefore, having fastened on the belt of truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15and, as shoes for your feet, having put on the readiness given by the gospel of peace. 16In all circumstances take up the shield of faith, with which you can extinguish all the flaming darts of the evil one; 17and take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God, 18praying at all times in the Spirit, with all prayer and supplication.
To that end keep alert with all perseverance, making supplication for all the saints, 19and also for me, that words may be given to me in opening my mouth boldly to proclaim the mystery of the gospel, 20for which I am an ambassador in chains, that I may declare it boldly, as I ought to speak.
Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.
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.