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.
I do hope you realize that NOBODY will fall for this obvious attempt to smear me, personally. I have no idea what "groups like boatbums" you mean especially since I do not nor have I ever indicated a belief that Michael the archangel was an "avatar" for Jesus - hilarious! Maybe your group watches too much SciFi? Paul renamed the "unknown god" Jesus? Another joke? I am aware that certain FReepers in time zones on the other side of the world have nothing better to do than fabricate stories about others who disagree with SOME of their theology. Perhaps God would have them devote that idle time to prayer rather than "creative" vain imaginings?
But we are supposed to accept as completely credible and authoritative websites that allege Catholics follow ancient Babylonian religious practices but ignore the parts like Jesus is really the Archangel Michael that are a little too embarrassing for full public disclosure? And do it all without violating the prohibition against mind reading or using the "L" word? I don't think a case can be made that we are dealing with completely stable people here.
I think it’s similar to believing the parts of “Da Vinci Code” that trash the Church, but not the other parts...
Here’s the boatbums post aboug the really interesting site
_________________________________________________________
To: Natural Law; CynicalBear
Talk about plagiarizing! This interesting site goes into quite a lot of detail about the various signs and emblems “plagiarized” from really ancient sources.
945 posted on Sunday, November 06, 2011 1:31:41 AM by boatbums ( Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us. Titus 3:5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 930 | View Replies | Report Abuse]
___________________________________________________________
The same thing that smvoice does, refers to another site that links Catholics to non-Catholic or anti-Catholic stuff, then conveniently “forgets.” At least this time, the source is posted near boatbums denial.
"Whosoever" means you, too, Mark, if you'll only accept it.
Agreed. I accept it, and I accept the whole deal. As Paul was fond of saying, we will be Judged for our deeds (and by corollary things we did not do) and we must persevere until the end. Jesus told us of the seed that falls on rocky ground.
Really? We have an instance where Martin Luther added 'alone' to 'faith' and changed the whole meaning of the verse deliberately. Does that lead to hell? Look at some people who create whole theologies around that, which in many cases oppose traditional Christianity.
Take a gander at The Message Bible and you'll probably confirm to me how your salvation can only be accidental if you take this to heart.
Would you even pick up the New World Translation by the Jehovah's Witnesses?
The queen of heave?
Are you comparing the Virgin Mary to either a barfly or a sumo wrestler?
Not according to: http://www.ewtn.com/library/PAPALDOC/P12MUNIF.HTM
MUNIFICENTISSIMUS DEUS Pope Pius XII Apostolic Constitution defining "ex cathedra" (from the chair of Peter) the dogma of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin
There is a difference in definition between a dogma and a doctrine. Doctrines are required belief. Dogmas may be doctrines, but they also may be learned opinions of the Church teachers and not doctrine.
This says that the Assumption is required belief, not whether she died or not.
There was this cyberstalker lurkin who stole my n?
Everyone believes that they have a firm understanding of gravity because they grasp the affects of gravity, but if asked to explain and quantify gravity those without a functioning knowledge of physics and calculus are left speechless.
Similarly, those without any education in the richness of Catholic history, doctrines, dogmas, Tradition and practices find themselves unable to converse on the subject.
I suppose if I was an ignorant peasant with no ability to read or study or think for myself, that would fly.
But, as I am not, and have in fact, searched Scripture for truth which led me to the Church, then your assertion is a vain one.
Search the Scripture and Study God’s Word, rightly divided and come in to her while there is still time. :)
Marriage is instituted by God... not a man-made sacrament as it is in your church.
Hoss
As the Father has sent me, so I send you.
Do this.
Did Jesus not tell them to forgive sins?
Did Jesus not tell them to do for their brothers what He has done for them?
Do you realize that the word “sacrament” does not appear in Scripture and Jesus never declared any action as “sacrament”?
The Church has defined a sacrament as an outward sign of an inward grace and declared there to be seven such sacraments.
Protestants accept two of them even though Scripture never says this is a sacrament.
And that would be a cow potty reference.
The fact that there was a church in Rome is certainly mentioned. Linus, the Bishop of Rome is even mentioned. There is also mention of the Bishop of Jerusalem, James.
This is not Rome’s belief alone. The 60 million Orthodox Christians, and other Protestants like the Church of England also believe as well.
There are some, that will not hear the truth.
Martin Luther in his apparent “wisdom” (sarcasm), apparently threw the rest out. (This coming from a guy that had a revelation from God while sitting in the “water closet”! )
(HUMOR)!!
Again, there was only “The Church” not the RCC!
The book of Romans gave me a hint on that deal. Paul wrote to the Romans where he mentions many of the people there but not a word about Peter. Wonder why that was.
>> Linus, the Bishop of Rome is even mentioned.<<
Yep, first Bishop of Rome. No mention again of Peter ever being there.
>> This is not Rome’s belief alone.<<
After 200AD the whole thing began to go downhill and after 400AD there was a huge shift to the pagan side.
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.