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.
The church is the help of our salvation, it is not the source of it.
When we believe and are baptized we belong to Christ and to His church.
Through the church we receive the grace to REMAIN in Him, through worship, prayer and reception of the Eucharist.
Jesus says quite clearly that when one eats His flesh and drinks His blood, He lives in them and they live in Him.
John 6:55 My flesh is true food and my blood is drink. 56 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood, live in me and I in them.
Would that be carnal flesh or spiritual flesh?
Yes. Each of these churches were part of the Holy Catholic Church. For example, a Holy Ecumenical Council was held in Ephesus.
They WERE not independent. Rome had a Bishop at the time, just like the other main churches, Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Constantinople.
I’m not talking about how Rome saw it. I’m talking about how Jesus saw it. Not one mention of the “church at Rome”. Not one time does Jesus or the Apostles give indication of a governing authority in Rome. The RCC has usurped the authority which is Christ.
How ironic. You posted the very argument against yourself. The Jesus did not institute a religion. Jesus is not a religion or system of religious rules and regulations.
He's a person who loved us and died for us that we might come TO HIM. He said, *I am the way, the truth, the life, no man comes to the Father BUT BY ME* (John 14:6); not but by the church.
Not through religion, sacraments, rituals regulations, priests, nothing. Rejecting Catholicism does not equate to rejecting Christ.
All true believers comprise the church and that true church is not a denomination or institution.
Catholic thinking is that we come to Christ THROUGH the church, which Jesus never taught. Scripture teaches that when we believe we BECOME the church, the Bride of Christ.
Nobody can come to Christ unless they see that it is HE who saves, not any church. Not the Catholic church any more than the Baptists, Methodists, Presbyterians, whatever. It is NOT a church which saves. Not baptism into it, nor membership within it.
Ephesians 2:8-10 8For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. 10For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.
John 6:37-40 37 All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never cast out. 38For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will but the will of him who sent me. 39And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day. 40For this is the will of my Father, that everyone who looks on the Son and believes in him should have eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day."
John 3:14-18 14And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up, 15that whoever believes in him may have eternal life.
16"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. 17For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.
Hebrews 12:1-2 1Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us also lay aside every weight, and sin which clings so closely, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, 2looking to Jesus, the founder and perfecter of our faith, who for the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is seated at the right hand of the throne of God.
I am beating a dead horse, and so are you. No point in continuing this, You are not going to be convinced, and you most certainly will not convince me. GOD BLESS you.
***And Jesus did not pay the penalty for ‘eternal separation from God,****
The wages of sin is death, which is eternal separation from God. Jesus paid our sin debt, therefore opening the gates of heaven and removing the separation from God.
***Joh 5:24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that HEARETH my word, and BELIEVETH on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and SHALL NOT come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. ***
Hearing and believing are ongoing actions of those who love God and accept Jesus and for those who do these things, there is no condemnation on the Last Day ant they SHALL have everlasting life.
*** Eph 2:6 And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places in Christ Jesus:***
Have you and I passed from this life to the next? Once this life is over and our fate is decided, we will live forever in heaven. So, no, once we have attained that for which Jesus is our hope, we have no fear of its loss.
***As Christians, we have already overcome***
1 Peter 1:3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who according to his great mercy hath regenerated us unto a lively hope, by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, 4 Unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that can not fade, reserved in heaven for you, 5 Who, by the power of God, are KEPT by faith unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time.
2 Peter 1:5 And you, employing all care, minister in your faith, virtue;
and in virtue, knowledge; 6 And in knowledge, abstinence;
and in abstinence, patience; and in patience, godliness;
7 And in godliness, love of brotherhood;
and in love of brotherhood, charity.
AND..
2 Peter 2:18 For, speaking proud words of vanity, they allure by the desires of fleshly riotousness, those who for a little while escape, such as converse in error: 19 Promising them liberty, whereas they themselves are the slaves of corruption. For by whom a man is OVERCOME, of the same also he is the slave. 20 For if, flying from the pollutions of the world, through the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they be again entangled in them and OVERCOME: their latter state is become unto them worse than the former. 21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of justice, than after they have known it, to turn back from that holy commandment which was delivered to them. 22 For, that of the true proverb has happened to them: The dog is returned to his vomit: and, The sow that was washed, to her wallowing in the mire.
8 For if these things be with you and abound, they will make you
to be neither empty nor unfruitful in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ.
9 For he that hath not these things with him, is blind, and groping,
having forgotten that he was purged from his old sins.
10 Wherefore, brethren, labour the more, that by good works
you may make sure your calling and election.
For doing these things, you shall not sin at any time.
11 For so an entrance shall be ministered to you abundantly
into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
2 Peter 3:14 Wherefore, dearly beloved, waiting for these things, be diligent that you may be found before him unspotted and blameless in peace.
2 Peter 3:17 You therefore, brethren, knowing these things before, take heed,
lest being led aside by the error of the unwise, you fall from your own steadfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.
****You can’t chose one verse over the other...You must reconcile all the scripture to understand it... ***
Good advice, you should take it.
Amen Metmom!
You are faced with a predicament that most of Protestantism has rejected from which you must choose the teachings of the Catholic Church or the path of heresy.
The Counsil of Ephesus was called to address the Nestorianism and to affirm the Nicene Creed as the cornerstone of Catholic Christianity. They declared the nature of Jesus to be both and simultaneously 100% man and 100% God. That Mary is the Mother of God was not a declaration but a logical conclusion. You would do well to read the The Twelve Anathemas of St. Cyril Against Nestorius (and apparently you).
1 If anyone will not confess that the Emmanuel is very God, and that therefore the Holy Virgin is the Mother of God (Θεοτόκος), inasmuch as in the flesh she bore the Word of God made flesh [as it is written, The Word was made flesh] let him be anathema.
2 If anyone shall not confess that the Word of God the Father is united hypostatically to flesh, and that with that flesh of his own, he is one only Christ both God and man at the same time: let him be anathema.
3 If anyone shall after the [hypostatic] union divide the hypostases in the one Christ, joining them by that connection alone, which happens according to worthiness, or even authority and power, and not rather by a coming together (συνόδῳ), which is made by natural union (ἕνωσιν φυσικὴν): let him be anathema.
4 If anyone shall divide between two persons or subsistences those expressions (φωνάς) which are contained in the Evangelical and Apostolical writings, or which have been said concerning Christ by the Saints, or by himself, and shall apply some to him as to a man separate from the Word of God, and shall apply others to the only Word of God the Father, on the ground that they are fit to be applied to God: let him be anathema.
5 If anyone shall dare to say that the Christ is a Theophorus [that is, God-bearing] man and not rather that he is very God, as an only Son through nature, because the Word was made flesh, and has a share in flesh and blood as we do: let him be anathema.
6 If anyone shall dare say that the Word of God the Father is the God of Christ or the Lord of Christ, and shall not rather confess him as at the same time both God and Man, since according to the Scriptures, The Word was made flesh: let him be anathema.
7 If anyone shall say that Jesus as man is only energized by the Word of God, and that the glory of the Only-begotten is attributed to him as something not properly his: let him be anathema.
8 If anyone shall dare to say that the assumed man (ἀναληφθέντα) ought to be worshipped together with God the Word, and glorified together with him, and recognised together with him as God, and yet as two different things, the one with the other (for this Together with is added [i.e., by the Nestorians] to convey this meaning); and shall not rather with one adoration worship the Emmanuel and pay to him one glorification, as [it is written] The Word was made flesh: let him be anathema.
9 If any man shall say that the one Lord Jesus Christ was glorified by the Holy Ghost, so that he used through him a power not his own and from him received power against unclean spirits and power to work miracles before men and shall not rather confess that it was his own Spirit through which he worked these divine signs; let him be anathema.
10 Whosoever shall say that it is not the divine Word himself, when he was made flesh and had become man as we are, but another than he, a man born of a woman, yet different from him (ἰδικῶς ἄνθρωπον), who has become our Great High Priest and Apostle; or if any man shall say that he offered himself in sacrifice for himself and not rather for us, whereas, being without sin, he had no need of offering or sacrifice: let him be anathema.
11 Whosoever shall not confess that the flesh of the Lord gives life and that it pertains to the Word of God the Father as his very own, but shall pretend that it belongs to another person who is united to him [i.e., the Word] only according to honour, and who has served as a dwelling for the divinity; and shall not rather confess, as we say, that that flesh gives life because it is that of the Word who gives life to all: let him be anathema.
12 Whosoever shall not recognize that the Word of God suffered in the flesh, that he was crucified in the flesh, and that likewise in that same flesh he tasted death and that he has become the first-begotten of the dead, for, as he is God, he is the life and it is he that gives life: let him be anathema.
First understand this. I couldn’t care less what the RCC calls anathema.
Now, with that said would you find one reference in scripture that says the complete understanding of the nature of Christ as regards the His being both God and man is necessary for salvation?
There is ample evidence in the NT that there was an organized church. The community of believers met together daily, devoting themselves to prayer, breaking of the bread, the teaching of the Apostles and fellowship.
Deacons were appointed to distribute the contributions of the faithful to the widows, the orphans and the poor.
In Galatians, St. Paul instructs them to have ready for him the collection taken on Sundays, donations which the believers have “set aside” for this reason.
The very fact that there was a council in Jerusalem, and letters to the church in different cities shows a conscience and concerted effort to maintain unity of belief and doctrine.
The fact that men were chosen to insure that the teachings would be unified and passed on after the deaths of the Apostles shows organization and thought for the future.
That is the Church and that is the means by which we learn of God’s grace or receive His grace.
All grace is from God, the grace of mercy which is His alone to give, and the grace of divine assistance which Jesus gives us by the Holy Spirit through the church.
Again, to a Catholic, faith is not a mere profession of words attesting to Jesus. Faith is a way of life, of living. Active not passive.
Jesus said of the coin, “Render unto Caesar, that which is Caesar’s.”
Well, we need to render to God that which is God’s. Faith and works(deeds, actions)are the two sides of what is God’s.
Faith is the beginning, the middle and the end of a Christian’s life and works are the results of that life.
At least we are making progress. Even if you remain a heretic you are now finally admitting that the Early Church Fathers were indeed Catholic.
However, now that there is conclusive proof of your heretical beliefs, because of the anathema that you have freely chosen, I, as a Catholic, am prohibited from communicating with you. This will be my last post or ping to you.
That would be the flesh of Jesus, God made Man(for the flesh of ordinary man could not redeem us), that was sacrificed on the cross at Calvary, died and was resurrected into glory.
No central governing authority there.
>>Deacons were appointed to distribute the contributions of the faithful to the widows, the orphans and the poor.<<
No central governing authority there.
>>In Galatians, St. Paul instructs them to have ready for him the collection taken on Sundays, donations which the believers have “set aside” for this reason.<<
No central governing authority there. Only facilitating distribution by those who do the traveling between churches.
>>The very fact that there was a council in Jerusalem, and letters to the church in different cities shows a conscience and concerted effort to maintain unity of belief and doctrine.<<
The letters were written by the Apostles from wherever they happened to be.
>>The fact that men were chosen to insure that the teachings would be unified and passed on after the deaths of the Apostles shows organization and thought for the future.<<
That’s why they wrote it all down to have a record so there would be no adding or taking away later in time. By their own admission the RCC has surely developed doctrine not in scripture.
>>by the Holy Spirit through the church.<<
Is the Holy Spirit the RCC claims to have more powerful then the Holy Spirit promised to each of us?
How awesome and great is our God, that He would choose to reveal to us the wonders He has wrought.
How mysterious are His ways, and how fortunate that we may know them.
How interesting that Mary should reside with John in the city of Ephesus and that it was there that God would reveal the true Queen Mother of Heaven.
If I believed in coincidences, I would be surprised by this.
But, as I know that God has made all things for Himself and makes good of all things for those who love Him, this comes as no surprise.
That’s true for all true Christians.
>> Well, we need to render to God that which is God’s. Faith and works(deeds, actions)are the two sides of what is God’s.<<
“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
>>Faith is the beginning, the middle and the end of a Christian’s life and works are the results of that life.<<
No disagreement there. It is faith in Jesus alone however. Not faith in a church.
I did no such thing. Do all Catholics use a lot of assumptions?
>>This will be my last post or ping to you.<<
ROFL You said that a long time ago yet here you are. I will count being called a heretic by the RCC a badge of honor.
Interesting. Jesus said “this is my flesh” while still in His earthly flesh.
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.