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.
Nah, the Kirk of iscool (population 1) will remain a one-man non-Christian religion.
"The original image of Diana was supposed to have descended from heaven so long ago that no one knew its maker or the time it was made. It was to the interests of the priests of Diana to persuade the people that it fell from heaven. Several sacred things are supposed to have fallen from heaven, Euripides stated that the image of Diana of Tauri fell from heaven, Numa claimed that the sacred shields were from heaven. Italian papists claimed that the shrine of our lady of Loretto was a divine gift from above. The image of Minerva of Troy is supposed to have come from Jupiter. St. Isidore said that the heathen priests killed or banished the makers of these things so they could induce the people to believe that these things came from heaven. -Dakes Annotated Reference Bible.
Some things never change..just change the names and claim the "miracle"/
True. The sheer arrogance of these is amazing
They say 'we can interpret anyway we want, yet the Church fathers in the 3rd century can't" -- wow
No opinions of fallible men allowed.
And of course they think that they are not fallible, but have the special gift of solo interpretura — everyone for 2000 years before them was wrong....egotists
I don't think the 3rd century has anything to do with it. However, if you connect the dots you will see that they repeated make the claim that the Holy Spirit does not cooperate with any one with a formal education or with an IQ above 90.
And they think they can order the Holy Spirit to do what they wish to do...
LOL If you don’t understand the things going on in Acts 19 and then follow through to the council of Ephesus to watch what happened to appease the citizens of Ephesus by including their worship of the goddess Diana in Christian worship you need to study a little more. It was at the council of Ephesus where the “queen of heaven” was incorporated into Christian worship. Then read in Revelation where the church in Ephesus is still combining pagan worship with Christian.
The RCC folks keep throwing out that 2000 year meme but parts of their rituals and rights go back to the days of the Babylonians so why not claim closer to 5000 years? Wouldn’t that be more impressive?
In Acts 19 we learn that St. Paul spent three months teaching in Ephesus"
< "And he entered the synagogue and continued speaking out boldly for three months, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God." - Acts 19:8
Do you think Paul spent three months in a vain repetition of Scripture that had not yet been written or that all of what Paul had to say during these three months has been completely captured in Scripture?
For the record, the Council of Ephesus was held in 431 at the Church of Mary. It was convened to address the issue of the Nestorian heresy. Apparently some of our more extreme Protestant brothers and sisters re not content to attack Christianity with the heresies of the 16th century, they now want to destroy its roots by reopening the heresies already dealt with by the Early Church Fathers.
Well, I do believe you are beginning to grasp the point.
Oops... another post of a fallible man's opinion…
4Now there are varieties of gifts, but the same Spirit; 5and there are varieties of service, but the same Lord; 6and there are varieties of activities, but it is the same God who empowers them all in everyone. 7 To each is given the manifestation of the Spirit for the common good. 8For to one is given through the Spirit the utterance of wisdom, and to another the utterance of knowledge according to the same Spirit, 9to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by the one Spirit, 10to another the working of miracles, to another prophecy, to another the ability to distinguish between spirits, to another various kinds of tongues, to another the interpretation of tongues. 11All these are empowered by one and the same Spirit, who apportions to each one individually as he wills.
12For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. 13For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.
14For the body does not consist of one member but of many. 15If the foot should say, "Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 16And if the ear should say, "Because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body," that would not make it any less a part of the body. 17If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? 18But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose. 19If all were a single member, where would the body be? 20As it is, there are many parts, yet one body.
21The eye cannot say to the hand, "I have no need of you," nor again the head to the feet, "I have no need of you." 22On the contrary, the parts of the body that seem to be weaker are indispensable, 23and on those parts of the body that we think less honorable we bestow the greater honor, and our unpresentable parts are treated with greater modesty, 24which our more presentable parts do not require. But God has so composed the body, giving greater honor to the part that lacked it, 25that there may be no division in the body, but that the members may have the same care for one another. 26If one member suffers, all suffer together; if one member is honored, all rejoice together.
27Now you are the body of Christ and individually members of it. 28And God has appointed in the church first apostles, second prophets, third teachers, then miracles, then gifts of healing, helping, administrating, and various kinds of tongues. 29Are all apostles? Are all prophets? Are all teachers? Do all work miracles? 30Do all possess gifts of healing? Do all speak with tongues? Do all interpret? 31But earnestly desire the higher gifts.
Seems like some Catholics are incapable of understanding the unity of the Spirit within the diversity of the body.
If God wanted cookie cutter Christians, he would have made us all the same.
Diversity will always insure that there's a remnant which holds to the truth. If we were all indeed one church then the entire body could be led astray by error. But as a reading of Revelation shows, having different churches is a benefit. Even if one is lost, not all are.
Seems that there's quite a disparity between what Paul says the church should look like and what the Roman Catholic church looks like.
As opposed to the guy in Rome with the pointy hat with all the symbols of ancient pagan religions?
I guess some don't know that the Patriarch Abraham was a Babylonian. Most don't know that the Jewish Lunar Calendar and many of its celebrations had their origins there.
Nope...I've plenty enough English to read and understand the words in the Holy Bible...
Middle English sacrement, sacrament, from Anglo-French & Late Latin; Anglo-French, from Late Latin sacramentum, from Latin, oath of allegiance, obligation, from sacrare to consecrate
****Do you believe that the sacraments are necessary for salvation?****
I believe that sacraments are gifts from God, given by Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, to His Church and thus, to us, as instruments of grace to aid us in our walk of faith.
Sacraments of Initiation
Baptism(Consecrate): “Baptizing all nations, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit” Jesus in Matthew
Eucharist(Sacred, Oath of allegiance, Obligation):
“Do this in memory of me” Jesus at the Last Supper
“For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do shew the Lord’s death till he come.” St. Paul in Corinthians
“For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. “ St. Paul in Corinthians
Confirmation: (Consecration, Oath of Allegiance)
Acts 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Acts 1:14 14 These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication,
Acts 2:1 And when the day of Pentecost was fully come, they were all with one accord in one place.
2: And suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting.
3: And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.
4: And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost,
Sacraments of Healing
Confession(Obligation)
Matthew 9:6
But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.
Luke 17:4
And if he trespass against thee seven times in a day, and seven times in a day turn again to thee, saying, I repent; thou shalt forgive him.
1 John 1:9
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
19Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20And when he had so said, he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad, when they saw the LORD.
21Then said Jesus to them again, Peace be unto you: as my Father hath sent me, even so send I you.
22And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Receive ye the Holy Ghost:
23Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained.
2 Corinthians 5: 18And all things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation;
19To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.
20Now then we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us: we pray you in Christ’s stead, be ye reconciled to God.
21For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.
Acts 3:29 Repent ye therefore, and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord;
Anointing of the Sick
Matthew 10:8 Heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, raise the dead, cast out devils: freely ye have received, freely give.
James 5:14 Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:
Sacraments of Vocation
Matrimony (Sacred, Oath of Allegiance, Consecration)
Mark 10:6-7
5And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
6But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
7For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
Holy Orders (Consecration, Oath of Allegiance, Sacred)
Luke 6:13 And when it was day, he called unto him his disciples: and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles;
2 Corinthians 3:5 As for us we would not dare consider that something comes from us: our ability comes from God. 6 He has even enabled us to be ministers of a new covenant no longer depending on a written text but on the Spirit. The written text kills, but the Spirit gives life.
2 Tim 1:[6] Wherefore I put thee in remembrance that thou stir up the gift of God, which is in thee by the putting on of my hands.
[7] For God hath not given us the spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.
[8] Be not thou therefore ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner: but be thou partaker of the afflictions of the gospel according to the power of God;
[9] Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
[10] But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel:
[11] Whereunto I am appointed a preacher, and an apostle, and a teacher of the Gentiles.
1 Tim 4:14 Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given thee by prophecy, with the laying on of the hands of the presbytery.
Are you disputing that fact that they then declared Mary to indeed be “the mother of God”? Surely you understand what the dispute with Nestorian was. Trying to hide that fact that the declaration was part of the result of that dispute seems evident an attempt to hide that fact that Mary was declared the “mother of God” and “queen of heaven” in the same city and society that already understood the queen of heaven concept having worshiped Diana the queen of heaven. Can you say adapting pagan understanding and practices to entice locals to Christianity?
Naw...We say we read and believe what it says, without the detriment of private interpretation that your religion foists upon its unsuspecting mobs...
That's how we know the scriptures condemn your religion...We believe God...
I think you are not telling the truth, again...
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.