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.
Matthew 4:19 And he saith unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.
Did you notice there that it says “follow me” and not “follow the church”?
1 Corinthians 11:1 Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.
And who was it that wrote Corinthians? Are you now saying you are a follower of Paul?
>>2 Peter 2:1-3 describes every church of men and the next passage describes those who make it all up as they go along,<<
Yep, that would be what the Catholic Church does. Not strictly stay with scripture. The bodily assumption of Mary would be a good example. Also the “queen of heaven” nonsense.
2 Peter 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
Denying that Christ is our only advocate and inserting Mary between Christ and man would be another classic example.
That is so lame it doesn’t deserve comment other than to call it nonsense.
Hmm, those who amassed the Bible and canonized Scripture and the rest of the Church Fathers didn't find it lame.
The Greek word charitoó is used by Catholics to try to point to Mary being “full of grace” or “highly favored. The word charitoo according to Greek concordances is: From charis; to grace, i.e. Indue with special honor -- make accepted, be highly favoured. [http://concordances.org/greek/5487.htm]
Luke 1:28 - the phrase "full of grace" is translated from the Greek word "kecharitomene." This is a unique title given to Mary, and suggests a perfection of grace from a past event. Mary is not just "highly favored." She has been perfected in grace by God. "Full of grace" is only used to describe one other person - Jesus Christ in John 1:14.
from http://www.scripturecatholic.com/blessed_virgin_mary.html
It’s not only weak it’s adding to scripture.
The Reformation is a conflation of issues, theologies and doctrines intended to distract and dupe a pious population for the financial benefit of an oligarchy. Qui Bono? The German princes and the royal factions who converted Church property to their own across Europe and Britain in an effort to match the wealth pouring into Catholic Spain, Portugal and France from the New World and into Italy from Mediterranean trade. It was a brilliant effort that even Saul Alinsky would be proud of.
To be successful it had to undermine the authority of the Catholic Church and achieved this by eliminating Scripture that supported Apostolic Tradition and "rightly dividing" and redefining what remained.
In the end a central Church teaching authority was replaced with a collection of pretenders and individuals all chasing their doctrinal pet theories in tens of thousands of directions. It served the princes that they were so easily divided then and it serves Satan that they remain so today.
Just keep posting the Truth, the whole Truth and nothing but the Truth.
So you're retracting all "I am the Church." statements?
Actually, an inheritance is the child's by right.
Negative. An inheritance is bequeathed by an individual to another upon death. If I have $100, I may decide to leave $10 each to my children and the remaining $40 to my wife. Or I may decide to change that and divvy it up other ways. Or take it away from #3 and give it to my alma mater.
Nevertheless, while one may be able to reject a proffered gift as an act of one's will, once that gift is accepted, one does not have to pay to earn it or keep it.
That has nothing to do with the discussion.
It becomes the legal property of the recipient, no strings attached.
And if they sell it, or refuse it, they no longer have it.
I didn’t say they wrote the letter in different languages. I said they quoted the text above Jesus in the language of each. Each inscription would have meant something a little different to each group. The inscription which include the home of Nazareth especially.
Where in Scripture does it say what you claim? If they quoted in another language other than Greek, then they wrote in that language for the inscription. Where does it say that they wrote which inscription in which language?
Nowhere. You are making this up.
I know that I am in Christ. Therefore, I am part of the body of Christ, the church.
It is not within my power to do so. I can recognize that if they are trusting Christ also, they are also part of the body of Christ, because GOD says so, not because of any decision of mine.
I cannot keep anyone out nor admit them.
Very good. Paul is writing to the church in Corinth - to those already in the church and reminding them of the hierarchy and offices within it.
1 Timothy 3:1 denotes the office of bishop. This is an office with authority over his churches.
Titus 1:5 shows that Paul, who has ordained Titus, has given Titus authority to ordain priests.
All churches who are not from the line of succession are not within the body of Christ.
The Great White Throne judgment is the judgment of unbelievers in which they are judged according to their works and sentenced to everlasting punishment in the lake of fire. It has nothing to do with those who are saved. It’s also after the Millenium which Catholics don’t understand I don’t believe. At that time He also opens the “book of life” which list those who have been saved and they are rewarded according to what they have done for Christ.
I am just showing you that your statements that only the pure are Judged are wrong.
Always with me. In my watch pocket. It's a tiny book.
Is it in Esperanto, or perhaps in Klingon?
"And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of: And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make MERCHANDISE OF YOU: whose judgement now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not." 2 Pet. 2:2,3.
"Make merchandise of you..." : In order to get money to spend on their own LUSTS, they FABRICATE COUNTERFEIT DOCTRINES, FALSE THEORIES, and PRETEND MIRACLES TO DECEIVE. And destroy multitudes.
Thus the proof that Catholics have put Jesus and Mary as equals. The contortions that the RCC has used to inject life long sinlessness of Mary into the meaning of kecharitomene is astonishing. Yet when they read the use of charitoó to denote the grace given to us all they would scoff at the contention that God views those who are under that grace as sinless in that they have been forgiven of those sins. What a complete and utter double standard.
If that makes you feel better. Keep your contention that scripture contradicts itself then.
You do see the difference between this and "I am the Church." Yes?
Me too. It says "Inspected by #33".
I think i have the newer version. #34.
The sad thing is that when these guys criticize the Magisterium it is not on principle because they all employ some cheap imitation of a Magisterium. Whether it is some undigested recitation of the Baltimore Catechism, an unholy nugget collected from an anti-Catholic website, a sermon given by their favorite preacher or a thesis written by a Reformer it is all only a rival authority. Even those who endlessly claim that their inspiration is only Scripture and the indwelling Holy Spirit to direct them offer up an unending stream of dubious sources and conflicting mystically arrived at opinions as "proof".
How many of these same people believe that educated opinions and advice are not necessary in constitutional law, architecture, transportation and aviation, legal defenses, tax strategy, medical necessity or even Information Technology? Their approach to theology is akin to "hey ya'll, watch this".
Either “tradition” only applies to Church Tradition or we have some incredible theologians on here who came up with Calvinism, 3 Solas, Dispensationalism, etc, etc. all on their own.
The anti-Catholics insist that there was no Tradition and no organized Church. They even insist that where the Gospel uses the word Church (Ecclesia) it really meant a loose collection of believers and not a functioning institution. They wrongly presume that everyone is as ignorant and gullible as they are and lash out when educated Catholics do not agree with them out of some sort of public obligation to "play nice". The word Ecclesia predates Christianity by over 500 years and in Greek society was a governing body that had the final decision on all legislation, the power to declare war and and sue for peace, and had the right to call magistrates to account after their year of office. It was the Ecclesia that ordered the suicide of Socrates.
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.