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.
It is a misunderstanding that a Catholic believes that it is through works that we have grace.
The true Catholic belief is that acts are grace working in us and that faith and grace increase as we do the work the Father has called us to do.
Jesus tells us what we must do to remain/abide in Him.
First comes grace, that which is freely given.
Second comes faith, upon hearing the truth.
Next comes works, that are the manifestation of the first two.
The Jewish community and the Hebrew Christians of the New Testament did not use or include the Apocrypha. Jesus nor the Apostles ever quoted the Apocrypha as divine authority. The Hebrew Bible doesn’t include them. Did early Jewish believers use anything other then the writings of the Apostles and the Old Testament? No.
The historian Josephus, who was Jewish, excludes the Apocrypha. “The Jews had only twenty-two books that deserved belief, but those which were written after the time of Artaxerxes (the Apocrypha) were not of equal credit with the rest, in which period they had no prophets at all” (Lib. 1, Con. Apion.).
The books in the Apocrypha even include things that have been proven historically inaccurate.
If I remember correctly the Apocrypha was not included until after Trent even in the RCC. It was at Trent that they wanted something to refute the reformation arguments so officially included them to bolster their “doctrinal” teachings so saying they aren’t used for doctrine is weak at best.
I would suggest that it was not the “same clergy” who decided to include them.
Who is the "they" you are referring to? The "they" I am referring to are those who do not perform any works.
I named no names and pointed no fingers. I stated that we can all agree that those who perform no works are void of Grace. Are you stating otherwise?
Use something that has been proven to be historically inaccurate? Oh please.
The cure for ignorance is education. Since these profoundly false assertions have been thoroughly refuted in these threads many times the persistent posting of them is obviously not rooted in ignorance. It is therefore willful telling of an untruth. In any other venue that would be called a lie.
It is through the Church that the world knows Jesus and thus has salvation.
It began with the Apostles and disciples and has spread throughout the world to all nations, just as Jesus said and commanded.
Jesus through the Holy Spirit guides and protects the Church and the Church guides, protects and proclaims the truth.
Those who believe in Jesus and have been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are members of the Church, even if imperfectly.
We remain in Jesus, even if imperfectly, when we continue in our faith, made perfect through our works, confessing our sins and asking for forgiveness.
We must not become comfortable in our sins thinking that we no longer need obey God since Jesus has paid the debt for our sins. We must not take Jesus’ love for ourselves without also giving that love to others.
Putting the RCC or even just the CC in place of the true church that Christ calls His “bride” is an error.
Look between the ()
I defined my they
What has that got to do with my post?
Absolutely not. I do deny however, that Paul is to be used to the exclusion of Jesus.
Paul was after all the Apostle to the Gentiles right?
Well, let us examine that. Who converted the first Gentile? Not Paul. Who spent most of his recorded journeys' time with the Jews? Paul. The problem is that Paul is identified as the Apostle to the Jews. Some idiots think that Paul was the super Apostle, the perfect one, because Jesus couldn't get the first 12 right. If you read Acts, Paul is an also. Not a primary.
All the gospels are used but the words of the Holy Spirit to Paul were specifically meant for us Gentiles were they not?
They were directed to the churches under Paul's jurisdiction, as a bishop of the Church, and not as a successor or an elevation of Christ.
Would you deny that by quoting Paul we are quoting the Holy Spirit?
I would say that the Gospels which quote Christ are elevated above Paul, which quote a bishop of Christ. One is superior to the other.
No, not at all. Peter and Paul were certainly familiar with Jewish and pagan priesthoods but they don't use the term “hiereus” (priest) to describe leaders in the Christian church except in their future role as heavenly kings and priests under the high priest, Christ.
And Paul chastised those who wanted to take up the role before then.
The terms bishop (overseer), deacon (servant or minister), presbyter (elder or older man) were descriptive of the work done and level of responsibility not titles anymore than apostle was a title, Apostle.
In deed other groups have priests and attach titles to their position, but that hardly fits the sense of what Jesus said about each Christian being a servant, a “diakonos” at Matt. 23:8-12.
However, right from the beginning, the Church confirmed the three roles. Would you say that the Apostles erred in the first few years after the Ascension?
The key word there is “required”. Protestants for the most part would use the word “expected”. Using the word “required” would demand the question “required for what”? Using the word “expected” would demand the question “expected because of what?
Very good. Required for salvation, according to the Gospels, and to Paul, by the way.
>>and that nothing matters except mere words attempting to excuse one.<<
Why would you presume to think that nothing “matters except mere words”? Making that presumption in an attempt to accuse of not taking seriously the exhortation to follow through with the fruits of salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit is rather spurious I would think.
I take the message of God and salvation very seriously, as do most of the Catholics that I know. It is Protestants who create their own theologies in defiance of the Church that I take lightly.
That would be correct. As long as you rely only on Jesus for salvation “to the end” you will inherit. If you stop believing that why would you think you would still “qualify”?
There is a large contingent of Calvinists and OSAS on FR.
I do not post to those who accuse me publicly of emailing them with trash, when in fact I have never emailed or PM'd them at any time. And refuse to admit it.
Mark, they throw out a verse like some kind of Harry Potter incantation believing that it will somehow change the context of Scripture, confuse the actual Christians and bend their faith to the will of anti-Catholicism. The irony is that it is obvious to all but them that they are the only ones who have succumbed to the conjuration.
Very good. Scripture to them is malleable, and it will conform to whatever it is that they happen to feel each morning.
You have been most eloquent in defense of the Faith. Thank you.
There you again projecting a preconceived notion or belief into what has been written.
>> Paul is an also. Not a primary.<<
There were no “primaries”. That notion was invented by the guys hoping to wear the pointy hat in Rome.
>> They were directed to the churches under Paul's jurisdiction<<
Jurisdiction? LOL We are no longer under the law. That language rings hollow to Spirit filled Christians.
Like I have said, Protestants pick and choose what THEY consider to be canonical. They could care less what the venerable Church Fathers took into consideration. Even the 1611 KJV had them included!
Very good. The whole result of the Reformation is the ability to create one's own theology each morning over cornflakes.
Putting any ruin of the Reformation in place of the true Church of Christ is absolutely in error. The handing down of the Faith goes back to what Jesus taught the Apostles. It does not include those who create their own faith by gazing at the content of their navels.
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.