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.
So if you believe that Christ is in you what happens upon your death? Does He just abandon you at that point then?
LOL The accolades the CC gives him show they still venerate him. He doesn’t appear to have been denigrated too much.
Nice cut and paste with no attribution.
Just yesterday, I posted Isaiah 61:1-2, for your reading comprehension. I then posted Luke 4:18-21, for your comparing to Isa. and what was missing from Luke. It was a very important key to understanding that even Christ knew the times, and seasons, and ages of God's plan for mankind in Scripture. If you would read it, perhaps you could begin to understand what that simple verse that was stated in completion in Isa. 61:2, and in partial in Luke 4:19, meant. Obviously it means nothing to you. Christ just left the last part of the verse off. He just closed the book, sat down, and forgot to finish the verse.
This is the point of Bible study. Why didn't He finish it? Was there something about the first part that was DIFFERENT from the second part? Maybe that one verse showed TWO AGES, TWO TIMES. That would lead a person to find out if there are different ages in God's plan for mankind. Which would lead to "Time Past", "But Now" and "Ages to Come" in Ephesians.
Which SHOULD lead to when did TIme Past end so that But Now could begin. And when will But Now end so that the Ages to Come can begin. It's called studying the Bible, rightly divided. Into the times and ages that God has set for man.
Or not..maybe it's just a big misunderstanding. And Christ just didn't like the second part of that verse. And God has only one timetable for man:"NOW". So believe on Christ, or bring a lamb to slaughter once a year, or don't eat from the apple tree, or do build an ark, or do bring works meet for repentance, or don't trust in the finished work of Christ, or do keep the law, or do endure until the end, or do or don't beware of big fish, or don't eat pork, or do take a little wine for thine often stomach infirmities, or do or don't take up a snake and it shall or shall not harm thee...Whatever you believe God says for you to do. It's all "NOW" in your world. (Unless you don't care for what it says, then it's "NOT NOW". Funny how that works.
Mark - it would appear that those who profess to be experts on Catholicism still do not have a clue. They seem to believe that Catholic saints have live perfect lives modestly suffering on their knees in mystical prayer. For the record Catholics only recognize two persons to have ever been without sin. Sainthood is a recognition of persons by the Church for living extraordinary lives of who great charity and heroic virtues. They are as much to be emulated as venerated.
St. Hippopolytus was no exception. He did indeed permit himself to be elected as an opposing Bishop of Rome and openly challenged Pope Urban on issues of doctrine. His frequently cited writings came at this period of time which is this snippet from them have found favor among Protestants. It is completely lost on them that he confirms; "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." or that he was exiled and martyred by the Emperor Thrax and was reconciled with the Church before his death.
Though not nearly as appalling as the exclusion of actual Scripture to justify the Protestant heresy, ignoring the writings of the Early Church Fathers who gave their lives for the faith is pretty bad. When we look to what they had to say about St. Peter being the first Pope it is pretty convincing;
- St. Clement of Alexandria writes of "the blessed Peter, the chosen, the pre-eminent, the first of the disciples, for whom alone and Himself the Saviour paid tribute, [who] quickly seized and comprehended the saying" (Ch. 21), referring to Mk 10:28.
- Tertullian, wrote of Peter,; "Monogamist I am led to presume him by consideration of the Church, which, built upon him..." and "On Modesty", Tertullian wrote about the significance of Matthew 16:18-19, "On this rock I will build my Church" and similar, emphasizing the singular, not plural, right, and condemning "wholly changing the manifest intention of the Lord, conferring (as that intention did) this (gift) personally upon Peter" (Ch. 21).
- Origen wrote of "Peter, upon whom is built the Church of Christ" (Jurgens §479a). St.
- Cyprian of Carthage, wrote discussing Mt. 16:18-19, "On the Unity of the Church” - "On him He builds the Church, and to him He gives the command to feed the sheep; and although He assigns a like power to all the Apostles, yet He founded a single chair, and He established by His own authority a source and an intrinsic reason for that unity" (Jurgens §555-6).
Pardon the typos - cold arthritic knuckles this morning......
As usual, we have a very different understanding of that passage.
Again, the word you have used is a misrepresentation of Peter’s role as leader among equals. It is not a question of Peter’s being “superior” to the others or of them being subservient to him.
Jesus here is talking about His Kingdom and the difference between it and that of the Gentile kingdoms where the kings or the authority exercise lordship, or “lords” over them.
The Apostles were to be servants to the body of Christ.
That is why the pope is called the “Servant of the servants of Christ.”
Remember, the Apostles and the other disciples thought that Jesus was going to reestablish an earthly kingdom and that they would be the ones in charge.
Peter is the leader in so many situations in the NT, but no one has said that he was superior to the others.
Certainly not in the council in Jerusalem. James was the leader of that. Certainly not in Rome. Paul didn’t even mention him when writing to the Romans. Certainly not the night prior to Christ being deceived. Jesus told him to “get thee behind me Satan”. Certainly not when they took Jesus. Peter denied Christ three times.
No amount of proof will ever be sufficient but don't stop rebuking. To use a military term, this is a hill Protestants are willing to die for. Once they admit that Peter was the first Pope and that Catholic Apostolic Succession is proven their fig leaf is removed and they will have to stand before the world and their maker as naked heretics.
"For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men." - 1 Peter 2:15
Why does Paul spend 15 days with Kephas, making it clear he had been only with Peter and had only seen James briefly?
It was important, because of who Paul had been, a persecutor of Christians, to show that he had been converted and taught by Jesus and not by men.
It was a matter of trust, not that Paul had received a different gospel.
Read further in Galatians and you find this....
Gal. 2:2] And I went up by revelation, and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which were of reputation, lest by any means I should run, or had run, in vain.
Gal 2:9[9] And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, perceived the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hands of fellowship; that we should go unto the heathen, and they unto the circumcision.
Paul was making sure that he was teaching and preaching the gospel correctly, confirming with the others that he was not in error. He sought out and received the approval of his message from the others, the “leaders”, first Peter(Kephas), then the others.
Christ did not spend three years teaching and preparing the Apostles to then reveal a different gospel to Paul.
We are all one, there is no Jew, no Gentile, no man nor woman, slave nor free in Christ Jesus and there is one Christ for us all and one message of grace and salvation.
Peter led that council, relating what the Holy Spirit had revealed to him in a dream, James merely agreed and affirmed what Peter told them had been revealed to him and him alone.
That is the same as now. The pope does not make pronouncements simply on his own, it is only after a meeting of the hierarchy of the Church.
When the pope speaks as the head of the church regarding something that is binding on the faithful, he does not do so without first conferring with the other bishops.
It is the office of the papacy that has infallibility, not the person so that a Catholic can trust that when a pope speaks from the chair of that office, it is a truth that has been revealed by the Holy Spirit.
When Jesus said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan” and when Peter denied Christ three times, it is not a rebuke of Peter in the sense that I think you take it.
Scripture is illustrating for us that Peter and the others cannot on their own and with human understanding and strength do what they will do and say what they will say. They have the authority and foundation of Christ behind them, the Holy Spirit leading them.
Yes, there are times when Peter is weak in his faith, but isn’t that just like God to choose the weakest, or the youngest or the least eloquent?
Didn’t Moses question God’s choosing of him to free the Jewish people? Moses asks, who am I that I should go to Pharoah and bring forth the children of Israel out of Egypt?
Moses did not see himself as a messenger of God or one with power to do such a thing.
Moses also worried that he did not speak well, and God reassure him that He, God, would give him what to say.
Ex 4:12: Now therefore go, and I will be with thy mouth, and teach thee what thou shalt say.
Wasn’t Jeremiah very young and thought no one would listen to him because he did not know how to speak? And God told him, “Get yourself ready” and God touched his mouth and gave him the words he would speak.
How about David? Was he not the youngest and not even presented to Samuel by his father? Yet, he slew Goliath with a stone.
Did Jonah not flee from God? And when on the ship, does he not admit that the great storm is because of him and tell the sailors to throw him overboard to calm the sea? But, God provided for him in such a way that Jonah did complete the mission for which he was chosen.
What about Joseph, the youngest of the twelve sons of Israel? Who, though sold into slavery, rises to a position of great power and it is through that power that he saves his brothers.
Over and over again we see God choosing the one least likely to be used for the purpose for which God calls them.
So, that Peter denied Christ, that he said things which were impetuous and foolish, that he was not perfect is not a disqualification of his position of leadership, it is almost a prerequisite.
My frustration with protestants is not that they claim as valid their interpretation of Scripture, relying on the promise to be led into all truth by the Holy Spirit as their authority.
It is that they make the same claim as the Church in that regard, yet ridicule and disparage our beliefs, which are supported by Scripture in every instance.
If a Catholic gives them verses to show that Scriptural support, we are told that our interpretation is wrong and again ridiculed as being ignorant or brainwashed or whatever derogatory term they think to use at the time.
I will not be discouraged from defending my faith by their derision, and in most cases find that I am strengthened by that very defense.
If I did not gain from these exchanges, I would not engage in them. God has made good for me a situation which can often leave me exasperated but enlivened further in my faith.
I have no need to prove anything to them, their conversion is a matter of the work of the Holy Spirit, I just can’t remain quiet in the face of false and misleading statements.
Us meant those on the thread. I was curious to see what other non–Catholic's response would be to the Dispensationalism you have been taught and teach: The religion started aroudn 63 A.D. consisting of Paul's gospel which you believe is different than Christ's ministry.
My post was at the time one seemed to support you and I asked her if she really did believe in the Dispensationalist teaching. I haven't seen a reply.
Your theology is comically absurd to me as I've posted before for the reasons i posted before. Your effort is wasted on me unless you desire more pointing to the absurdity if I wish to reply at all.
So: the us was others on the thread, particularly non Catholics. i asked you to try to convert them and see what their reaction was.
Not convert to your already shared anti – Catholicism, but to your whole dispense–with–Christ’s–ministry–and–Kingdom–of–Heaven teaching thing.
Yep, it's amazing that this has to even debated.
The second secret gospel theory is a bizarre teaching that I can hardly see being called 'Christianity' at all. 'Paulianity' or 'Darbyism' perhaps.
If by *dispensation* you mean the new covenant that Jesus instituted at the Last Supper, yeah, I believe it.
Under the new covenant of Jesus’ blood, God can deal with us as He wants to, with forgiveness and mercy. His blood was shed for a once and for all sacrifice for our sins and He, as the great high priest is now sitting at the right hand of the Father in heaven, having obtained eternal redemption for those who put their faith in Him.
Because Jesus completely fulfilled the Law, being sinless, when He died, He broke the power of death over us so that IN HIM we can appropriate what HE alone could accomplish.
Besides, salvation was never obtained by keeping the Law anyway. The intent of the Law was to lead us to Christ and come to God in faith in His promised redeemer.
In the OT the faith in the promised redeemer was looking forward to Jesus. After Jesus death, the faith looks back to what He did and we understand the mystery that God kept hidden for the ages, which is Christ in us, the hope of glory. (Colossians 1:27)
***Yep, it’s amazing that this has to even debated. ***
It does not amaze me that such things have to be debated. From the very beginning there was debate.
Peter had the revelation that Gentiles or the uncircumsized could receive the Good News of Christ Jesus, i.e. grace and salvation, and there was debate about that revelation with the others agreeing with him that his dream was Truth.
What is amazing is the belief that Christ, after having spent three years laying out the foundation of the Kingdom of God to the twelve would then negate all of that through Paul.
Or that Jesus who prayed that all would be one and who in John reveals that “16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”
There is no different dispensing of grace according to whether one was/is a Jew or a Gentile, though some can try to make the case for such a thing.
It is as silly as them claiming to be part of the universal catholic (small "c") church while maintaining 33,000+ doctrinally different denominations.
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.