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.
Of course not. No proof.
I’ve lost my place so if this is a duplicate forgive me.
CHRISTUS VINCIT
Christ King of Glory
Acclamations VIII Cent.
Ambrosian Chant (Variant)
Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
Exaudi, Christe. Ecclesiae Sanctae Dei salus perpetua. Redemptor mundi, Tu illam
adjuva!
Christ Lord of glory, Christ Prince of nations, Christ our King of kings! Christ Jesus,
hear us. Perpetual safety and welfare to the Church of God. Redeemer, Savior. Assist
and strengthen her.
1. Sancta Maria: Tu illam adjuva!
O Mary blessed Mother. Assist and strengthen her.
2. Sancte Joseph: Tu illam adjuva!
Joseph holy guardian. Assist and strengthen her.
3. Sancte Michael Tu illam adjuva!
Blessed Michael patron Assist and strengthen her.
Optional (Sancte Patricii: Tu illam adjuva!)
Blessed Saint Patrick: Assist and strengthen her.
All repeat: Christus vincit! Christus regnat! Christus imperat!
Exaudi, Christe. Pio summo Pontifici et universali Papae vita! Salvator mundi, Tu illum
adjuva!
Christ Jesus hear us. Life and health and blessings to Pope Pius our Holy Father.
Redeemer Savior, Assist and strengthen him.
1. Sancte Petre, Tu illum adjuva! 1. Rex regum!
Blessed Peter, Assist and strengthen him. King of kings.
2. Sancte Paule, Tu illum adjuva! 2. Rex noster!
Blessed Paul, assist and strengthen him. Christ our King
3. Spes nostra!
Christ our hope.
Repeat: Christus Vincit! etc.
Gloria nostra, Misericordia nostra! Auxilium nostrum! Fortitudo nostra, Ar ma nostra
invictissima! Murus noster inexpugnabilis! Defensio et exaltatio nostra!
Lux, Via, et Vita nostra! Ipsi soli imperium, Laus et jubilatio per infinita saecula
saeculorum. Amen.
Jesus our glory, Fountain of grace and all mercy. Source of all our blessing. Defender
in battle, Strong arm of our God invincible. Our stronghold and our exaltation. Our
captain leader who has won our salvation.
Christ Jesus, our life and light eternal. To Him only is victory all praise and jubilation.
Through all the endless ages of eternity. Amen.
Tempora bona veniant! Pax Christi veniat! Redemptis Sanguine Christi: Feliciter!
Regnum Christi veniat! Deo Gratias! Amen.
Abundance of good things be ours. The peace of Christ be ours. Redeemed by the blood
of Jesus. Proclaim our joy. May His holy kingdom come. Praise be to our God Amen.
Provided courtesy of:
Eternal Word Television Network
5817 Old Leeds Road
Irondale, AL 35210
www.ewtn.com
You snore at an argument of silence about who you claim to be the most important Apostle who was head of the “church” who completely goes unmentioned yet you use a happenstance position on a list as evidence of superiority? Seriously?
You're in over your head with the Church Fathers,dear CB. You would do better to stick with your modernists!
Lets see what Church Fathers said..
by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre- eminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the apostolical tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere." Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2 (A.D. 180). http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103103.htm
"And he says to him again after the resurrection, 'Feed my sheep.' It is on him that he builds the Church, and to him that he entrusts the sheep to feed. And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles, yet he founded a single Chair, thus establishing by his own authority the source and hallmark of the (Church's) oneness. No doubt the others were all that Peter was, but a primacy is given to Peter, and it is (thus) made clear that there is but one flock which is to be fed by all the apostles in common accord. If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith? If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church? This unity firmly should we hold and maintain, especially we bishops, presiding in the Church, in order that we may approve the episcopate itself to be the one and undivided." Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).
That list that you cited, is extremely good historical evidence in favor of an established church in existance in antiquity.
It lists the apostles, (the 12), and then the Seventy. It gives an account for what they have done, and where they have served. It asserts that there were bishops all over the ancient world, and gives their pedigree.
So no, your only ‘retort’ is to argue, “well that’s not your church”? That’s not a very good argument there. That is, however, evidence of an organised and well developed church in the first 40 years of it’s existence.
So yeah, seriously. Your source actually confirms the teaching that Peter has primacy over the other apostles, and such primacy was known and understood by people at the time of hippolytus.
I think he means venereal, “of Venus”. :)
Not sure how that changes anything. Would that put you more closely correct or less then the RCC in your opinion.
>> Holy Tradition states that Peter was the first Bishop of Rome.<<
Pagans use “tradition” also. So that doesn’t impress me. We have been warned about the “traditions of men”. The problem is that there is no written record.
Well, lets see em.
"Pope Pelagius (556-60) talks of heretics separating themselves from the Apostolic Sees, that is, Rome, Jerusalem, Alexandria, plus Constantinople. In all the early writings of the hierarchy there is no mention of a special role for the Bishop of Rome, nor yet the special name of 'Pope'....Of the eighty of so heresies in the first six centuries, not one refers to the authority of the Bishop of Rome, not one is settled by the Bishop of Rome...No one attacks the [supreme] authority of the Roman pontiff, BECAUSE NO ONE HAS HEARD OF IT." -Peter de Rosa,Vicars of Christ: The Dark Side of the Papacy (Crown Publishers, 1988), pp.205-06.
Saint Malachy, Prophecies about 112 popes until the end of the world, the last five Popes
RATZINGER APPEARS TO FULFILL MALACHY PROPHECY [De Gloria Olivae]
Papal Prophecies - End of Days: Prophecies of SAINT MALACHY
Prophecy of St Malachy (with list of Popes)
The Prophecies of St. Malachy
Not sure why you send me that other than for you it means something special. And why you include the Latin is totally beyond me other than it seems you may think it’s somehow more “religious” or something. The oft repeated “chants” are mentioned in scripture also.
“Interesting. I wonder if the “Church Fathers” ever read THIS:”
Who wants to take this one? :)
That’s the type of stuff I find also. It seems the whole of the RCC hangs on tenuous threads of erroneously interpreted scripture and tortured attempts to read into something that isn’t there.
Of course it doesn’t matter because it would contradict your earlier statement and we cannot have that, can we?
"But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do; for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking." Mat. 6:7.
To my knowledge there is nothing that authenticates this writing from Pope Pelagius, but if he said such a thing it means he was ignorant of Church History.
So what we have here is a poorly educated in church history POPE?
What can I say that could possibly top that statement.
And that doesn't mean Peter was ever in Rome...
Peter was commissioned to preach to Jews...Paul was commissioned to preach to Gentiles...
Paul was directed by Jesus specifically to go to Rome...Peter was not...
Peter was headed East...Perhaps he got lost and woke up in Rome???
The Holy words of God speak a great deal about Paul being in Rome...And not one peep about your supposed first pope being there...
The roughly 200 years late there may be some indication that an idea had begun to take shape? Isn’t unanimous consent beginning to fall apart here? Still, even Cyprian keeps inserting phrases like “And although he assigns a like power to all the apostles” and “No doubt the others were all that Peter was” which certainly doesn’t give a definitive statement of leadership or headship does it. Cyprian’s point here seems to be more the unity of the church. His attempt to do that by injecting a rather weak supposition that Peter was leader certainly couldn’t be taken as conclusive or used as proof.
“”What can I say that could possibly top that statement.””
Before you go patting yourself on the back you should realize that many Pope’s never made a single infallible teaching on faith and morals.
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.