Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
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.
Well if you can show me the phrase, “scripture alone” anywhere in the NT, again, I’ll happily concede the point.
What do you make of Christ’s promise that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church?
Iscool, it’s really simple.
Show me where scripture alone appears in the NT, and I’ll concede the point.
The problem is that it isn’t there. You are relying upon the tradition of men who are willing to tear out entire books yet faithfully proclaim sola scriptura! This is hardly so. Me alone, perhaps but certainly not scripture alone.
He said “the body, the church”, small c. There is no Roman Catholic in there.
Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.
Ephesians 3:14 For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15 Of whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named, (notice it’s not named after Rome)
16 That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man; (notice it’s not through the RCC)
17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, (notice the personal relationship)
18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; (notice we don’t need some magisterium)
19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God. (notice once again, we are not filled with the “knowledge” of the RCC)
20 Now unto him that is able to do exceeding abundantly above all that we ask or think, according to the power that worketh in us, (notice where that power is? It’s not in some guy in Rome)
21 Unto him be glory in the church by Christ Jesus throughout all ages, world without end. Amen. (No glory for the RCC there)
Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic List:
Please ping me to note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of general interest.
Did I say Roman Catholic church? No.
“He said “the body, the church”, small c. There is no Roman Catholic in there.”
He says EKKLESIA, which is “church” in Greek.
“Col 1:18 And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence.”
Ephesians says that Christ is the head of the church, just as a husband is the head of his wife. This means that there’s just one of them.
As for it being the RCC, the RCC along with the Orthodox Church are the only ones who go back that far. If it is true that Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against his Church, then none of the protestant bodies can be his Church, because they were not in existence.
It has to be either the Catholic church or the Orthodox church because only they go back that far. And when, God willing, the Body is undivided between us and them, then you will have a choice to make yourselves.
Christ is the head of His Church. There is just one of them, not many, because Christ will not be made an adulterer. We are not meant to be divided. We are meant to be together. Our division does not proclaim Christ, but rather, denies him.
FYI, Jesus ascended, Mary was assumed.
Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, had the power to lay down His life and to raise it again and to ascend to the Father from whence He came.
Mary did not and thus was assumed by Jesus, Her Son.
There is no contradiction with Scripture with the doctrine of her assumption.
Surely you’re not trying to tell me that Christ started the church in Rome are you? Actually wasn’t the RCC started in 1054 when they broke with the previous universal Church, sometimes known today as the Catholic-Orthodox Church?
Not only that, but there seems to be a problem with the line of succession espoused by the RCC.
From the Anti Nicene Fathers.
"Now concerning those bishops which have been ordained in our lifetime, we let you know that they are these:--James the bishop of Jerusalem, the brother of our Lord; upon whose death the second was Simeon the son of Cleopas; after whom the third was Judas the son of James. Of Caesarea of Palestine, the first was Zacchaeus, who was once a publican; after whom was Cornelius, and the third Theophilus. Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter; and Ignatius by Paul. Of Alexandria, Annianus was the first, ordained by Mark the evangelist; the second Avilius by Luke, who was also an evangelist. Of the church of Rome, Linus the son of Claudia was the first, ordained by Paul [Anti Nicene Fathers, Volume VII, Book VI, Sec. IV, XLVI)Roberts, Alexander and Donaldson, James, Ante-Nicene Fathers: Volume VII:]
Papal succession occurrs after a pope's death right? Also, if Linus ordained by Paul, not Peter was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.
Somethings not right with what the RCC is teaching you.
“Surely you’re not trying to tell me that Christ started the church in Rome are you?”
Did the Catholic church begin in Rome?
“Actually wasn’t the RCC started in 1054 when they broke with the previous universal Church, sometimes known today as the Catholic-Orthodox Church?”
Depends on who you talk to. This is the present Orthodox position, but both Catholics and Orthodox have at present, existing bishops with apostolic succession going back to the earliest days of the Church. This is why it’s better to just refer to it as the Church, because back then that’s how people understood it.
So your choice is one or the other. Or, hopefully as the case will be, one, when we come together again.
“Not only that, but there seems to be a problem with the line of succession espoused by the RCC.”
Oh? Then you might want to inform the Orthodox. Because their line of succession is exactly the same until the schism.
“Papal succession occurrs after a pope’s death right? Also, if Linus ordained by Paul, not Peter was bishop of Rome while Peter was alive, that would mean that Linus, not even an Apostle, had Papal supremacy over both Peter and Paul - two living Apostles.”
You’re mixing up two, very different concepts. One, it is unusual for one pope to have ordained a priest who becomes a future pope. For one, most popes don’t do that many ordinations (usually ordinations are done by the presiding bishops).
Two, in the early days of the Church, we would expect the Apostles to ordain people as they came into the Church. That Paul ordained Linus isn’t surprising, nor does it mean that Linus became Pope while Peter was living. All it means is that Linus became a priest (that’s what ordination means), when Paul baptized him.
What is important is that Linus, who eventually became Bishop of Rome, on the death of Peter, was ordained by Paul, that is Apostolic succession. It goes from Apostle to pope, not from Pope to pope.
See post 361
>>What is important is that Linus, who eventually became Bishop of Rome, on the death of Peter, was ordained by Paul, that is Apostolic succession. It goes from Apostle to pope, not from Pope to pope.<<
So by all accounts Linus was the first pope and not Peter like Catholics would have us believe and Christ really didn’t make Peter the first pope.
Catholics really need to put their ducks in a row and rewrite what the church fathers wrote to make things more consistent.
Or begin to understand that the RCC is totally evil and deceitful like the rest of us have.
“So by all accounts Linus was the first pope and not Peter like Catholics would have us believe and Christ really didn’t make Peter the first pope.
Catholics really need to put their ducks in a row and rewrite what the church fathers wrote to make things more consistent.”
You’ve misunderstood.
Linus was ordained by Paul. Ordination isn’t the same as elevation to the Papacy. That’s what your source says.
Ordination simply means that he was appointed to be a priest by Paul. Popal succession is not the same as Apostolic Succession, because Popes do not usually ordain one another.
So you’re saying that the RCC doesn’t claim Peter was ever a pope? According to the list Peter wasn’t even a Bishop let alone pope.
“Of Antioch, Euodius, ordained by me Peter”
You miss this? :) The statement was written by Peter. Linus was the first, AFTER PETER. :D
1. James the Lord's brother, bishop of Jerusalem.
2. Cleopas, bishop of Jerusalem.
3. Matthias, who supplied the vacant place in the number of the twelve apostles.
4. Thaddeus, who conveyed the epistle to Augarus.
5. Ananias, who baptized Paul, and was bishop of Damascus.
6. Stephen, the first martyr.
7. Philip, who baptized the eunuch.
8. Prochorus, bishop of Nicomedia, who also was the first that departed, believing together with his daughters.
9. Nicanor died when Stephen was martyred.
10. Timon, bishop of Bostra.
11. Parmenas, bishop of Soli.
12. Nicolaus, bishop of Samaria.
13. Barnabas, bishop of Milan.
14. Mark the evangelist, bishop of Alexandria.
15. Luke the evangelist.
These two belonged to the seventy disciples who were scattered by the offence of the word which Christ spoke, "Except a man eat my flesh, and drink my blood, he is not worthy of me." But the one being induced to return to the Lord by Peter's instrumentality, and the other by Paul's, they were honoured to preach that Gospel on account of which they also suffered martyrdom, the one being burned, and the other being crucified on an olive tree.
16. Silas, bishop of Corinth.
17. Silvanus, bishop of Thessalonica.
18. Crisces (Crescens), bishop of Carchedon in Gaul.
19. Epaenetus, bishop of Carthage.
20. Andronicus, bishop of Pannonia.
21. Amplias, bishop of Odyssus.
22. Urban, bishop of Macedonia.
23. Stachys, bishop of Byzantium.
24. Barnabas, bishop of Heraclea.
25. Phygellus, bishop of Ephesus. He was of the party also of Simon.
26. Hermogenes. He, too, was of the same mind with the former.
27. Demas, who also became a priest of idols.
28. Apelles, bishop of Smyrna.
29. Aristobulus, bishop of Britain.
30. Narcissus, bishop of Athens.
31. Herodion, bishop of Tarsus.
32. Agabus the prophet.
33. Rufus, bishop of Thebes.
34. Asyncritus, bishop of Hyrcania.
35. Phlegon, bishop of Marathon.
36. Hermes, bishop of Dalmatia.
37. Patrobulus, bishop of Puteoli.
38. Hermas, bishop of Philippi.
39. Linus, bishop of Rome.
40. Caius, bishop of Ephesus.
41. Philologus, bishop of Sinope.
(Hippolytus, Book XLIV; ON The Twelve Apostles Where Each OF Them Preached, And Where HE Met His End.)
“1. Peter preached the Gospel in Pontus, and Galatia, and Cappadocia, and Betania, and Italy, and Asia, and was afterwards crucified by Nero in Rome with his head downward, as he had himself desired to suffer in that manner.”
http://www.synaxis.org/cf/volume05/ECF05HIPPOLYTUS_ON_THE_TWELVE_APOSTLE.htm
Gee, I guess selective and dishonest citation isn’t helping you here.
God decided what of His word would “not pass away” not the RCC or any other earthly entity. It was by God’s authority.
The Church makes no other claim than that which is made here.
An answer for Protestants concerning “Sola Scriptura”
http://orthodoxinfo.com/inquirers/tca_solascriptura.aspx
“One cannot have God as his Father, who does not have the Holy Catholic Church as his Mother!”
St. Cyprian of Carthage
No one is contending that Peter didn’t preach various places. Why the obfuscation? The RCC contends that Peter was the first Pope but it’s been proven otherwise.
Peter was first, Bishop of Antioch. Later on he was Bishop of Rome.
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.