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.
Amazing, simply amazing.
De Rosa is simply a liar. His book gives no sources and has no footnotes. However, he does prove one important point, there will always be a market for anti-Catholic fiction.
You may have misunderstood my remark. That wasn’t a “pat yourself on the back” statement, that was a “shaking my head in amazement” statement.
Just because we don't have writings does not mean they were silent. We can see the "Oral traditions" later written of those like Cyprian that came to us through the Apostles
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
From Saint Cyprian
"the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built"-Cyprian, The Unity of the Church, 4-5 (A.D. 251-256).
Perhaps you should go into politics because you seem to spin clear statements into self serving fantasy.
I'm finished posting tonight-I wish you a Blessed evening!
Thanks,dear friend.That figures!
CB, again, you misunderstand.
From what you have excerpted from the Catechism, you seem to posit that the Catholic and Mormon beliefs regarding men becoming gods is the same. It is not.
It is not the teaching of the Church that there is more than one God, one Almighty, one Creator and that mere men can aspire to be God or attain God’s power and glory by acts of goodwill or piety.
The Mormon belief is “what man is, god once was, what god is, man may become. That belief couldn’t be further from the teaching of the Church. There is not a bit of commonality in the Catholic Catechism on that and what a Mormon believes.
Can’t go into it further now, but will try to later.
Biblically speaking, there is very little that Peter contributed to the church...Peter was the main speaker at Pentecost...And a couple other things...
Most things concerning the church were revealed to the Apostle Paul...And from Paul, revealed to us...Had Paul traveled with the others, it would be Paul who would have been claimed to have the primacy...
There is no reason to believe that the rest of the Apostles did not have as much primacy as Peter...Bible says tons of things happened but could not be written because of their scope...
And John says every thing was written that was need for us to learn how to be saved...And Paul taught us the ways of the church...
And all Apostles, bishops, elders and ministers were given the commission to feed the sheep...
If a man does not hold fast to this oneness of Peter, does he imagine that he still holds the faith?
Not faith in the Catholic religion...But that faith is meaningless...
If he deserts the Chair of Peter upon whom the Church was built, has he still confidence that he is in the Church?
Absolutely...First off, Peter didn't have a chair...You would never have found him sitting on a throne...
Peter is NOT the head of the Christian church...Jesus Christ is the head of the Christian church...Peter and the rest of the Apostles are part of the body, just as we Christians are part of the body...
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).
And this written by someone 220 year after Jesus was Crucified...This guy disagrees with clear scripture and you make him a father of your religion...Well, you gotta know where that puts your religion...
If we must, I will again show from the New Testament all of the places where Peter is set apart by Jesus. You will reject the Church’s and my understanding of those passages and the dance of denial will go on and on and on.
The point of my post was that as a FRequent Freeper in the RF and especially those threads concerned with Catholicism, to state that Catholics use ONE verse to support the primacy of Peter is a bit disingenuous on your part.
But, again, I am happy to dance with you as you are a respectful and engaging partner. :)
The Catholic Church says:
CCC 460 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."
It’s your source. Are you really suggesting that it is a coincidence that Peter was listed first and Paul last?
Quo vadis? is a Latin phrase meaning “Where are you going?” or “Whither goest thou?” The modern usage of the phrase refers to Christian tradition, related in the apocryphal Acts of Peter (Vercelli Acts XXXV), in which Saint Peter meets Jesus as Peter is fleeing from likely crucifixion in Rome. Peter asks Jesus the question “Quo vadis?” Jesus’s answer, “I am going to Rome to be crucified again” (Romam vado iterum crucifigi.), prompts Peter to gain the courage to continue his ministry and eventually become a martyr.
Big Difference between “traditions of men” and Traditions of the Holy Apostles.
The Bible was created for the Church, and the Church existed hundreds of years before the bible existed. Everything was passed down orally for the most part.
There was ONE Church until 1054 A.D. There was a split. The Western Half became the Roman Catholic Church. The Eastern Half is known as the Holy Orthodox Church of The East
Simon Peter and his brother Andrew were typically listed first simply because they were the first disciples Jesus chose at the sea shore. Even Matthew 10:2 lists them that way simply saying Simon Peter and his brother Andrew were the first disciples named by Jesus. No other indication is given that gave them more authority.
I would think that a sola scripturist would be quick to quote me, “because I am the least of the disciples, and unworthy to be called one because I persecuted His church.”
But then I’m not one of them, so what do I know?
As for Peter being first, was it also a coincidence that Peter was the one speaking when Christ said, that the gates of Hell would not prevail against his church?
Only due to the lack of written material because of the lack of easy duplication.
Jesus said, “Be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.”
Various translations say therefore in the place of even, some add righteous to the quote as in “be righteous and perfect.”
Only God is perfect and only God is righteous, yet Jesus says we are to be both.
St. Peter in his 2nd epistle says that we are partakers in the divinity of Christ and the NT tells us that we, Christians, are now sons and daughters of God, heirs to the kingdom.
The psalmist says in PS 82:[6] I say, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you; and that is what Jesus tells us in the NT.
Read John 17 for a little better understanding of the theology behind the Western teaching of theosis and the Eastern teaching of divinization.
Language is a very powerful thing and as was stated earlier in this thread, there is very different understandings of certain words and phrases between a Catholic and a Protestant.
It is misleading to take one quote of a revered saint of the Church without any context or understanding of the entire theological concept that saint is conveying.
Yes, the Catechism uses only the one line, but it is used in context with the entire teaching within the chapter and within the whole of Catholic theology.
The Church never has and never will claim that any created human can become God. On its face it is just silly to claim that is our belief.
It’s rather specifically stated and you may note the capitol G as well.
CCC 460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":78 "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."81
You will have a rather difficult time convincing people that what they say is not what they mean.
No...but the Gospel of Thomas states that Mary died, and was resurrected, and taken into Heaven.
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.