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.
Living the Beatitudes is more than clothing the naked and feeding the hungry and visiting the sick.
What about living these parts of the Beatitudes?
Matthew 5:11-12 11 "Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
What happens when Catholics feel persecuted? They run whining to the RM.
Matthew 5:19-20 19 Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.
Is there a Catholic on this planet whose righteousness exceeds that of the Scribes and Pharisees?
Next......
Matthew 5:21-22 21 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.' 22But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, 'You fool!' will be liable to the hell of fire.
'Nuff said.....
Matthew 5:27-30 27 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' 28But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart. 29 If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. 30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.
Who do I see practicing this?
I didn't think so.....
Matthew 5: 31-32 "It was also said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.' 32 But I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
***cough*** annulments***cough***
Matthew 5:38-42 38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 40And if anyone would sue you and take your tunic, let him have your cloak as well. 41And if anyone forces you to go one mile, go with him two miles. 42 Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.
Any Catholic on this board do this? Because I sure never met any Catholics in real life who did.
Matthew 5:43-48 43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven. For he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47And if you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? 48 You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
I don't think exorcism prayers count.....
Hmmm, perfect to get into heaven. Any Catholics there yet?
Matthew 6:1-6 1"Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven.
2 "Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
5"And when you pray, you must not be like the hypocrites. For they love to stand and pray in the synagogues and at the street corners, that they may be seen by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. 6But when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.
Ooops......
Matthew 7:12 12"So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
No comment........
Matthew 7:21-23 21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many mighty works in your name?' 23 And then will I declare to them, 'I never knew you; depart from me, you workers of lawlessness.'
Ooo, look. Religious activity won't get you into heaven. Imagine that......
Can’t you just feel the unity.........
BB: You must understand that we are in schism from Rome, or they from us. (Depending on the point of view) With that being said, there is ongoing dialog regarding solving our differences, as we speak. Some major differences have been solved already. One of the biggest divides is over the issue of Papal Supremacy. The Bishop of Rome is still a part of the ancient Church. Even with that difference, we are still two parts of the Catholic faith, delivered to us, and sealed with the blood of the martyrs. And Protestants reject even the basic tenets of the Faith. Yes, I will defend my Roman Catholic Brethren, whenever there is no conflict.
How interesting. Not by the blood of Christ. I’m staying with the church sealed by the blood of Christ.
Yea. Sure. Like YOUR light is shining as a beacon of tolerance. You and MM, are about as hateful toward Catholics as I have seen in a long time. I even tried to extend an olive branch earlier, and I still got “smacked”.
Maybe a little kindness from the two of you could make me change my belief that Evangelical Protestants are bigoted and hateful. BUT .....I am quite sure you will have a snide remark.........
First, is Jesus the final authority or is Holy Scripture? Second, do you acknowledge the two "Words" are not identities, i.e., not the exact same thing?
Maybe if you read FOXES BOOK OF MARTYRS...a Protestant classic, by the way....
.you might understand that statement. But....I doubt it.
Some of our Bishops are hardliners. Some of theirs too. But what errors exist in the Church of Rome, are tiny, compared with what some Protestant sects profess.
WAIT A MINUTE...you tried to extend an olive branch earlier? Please give me that post number. I MUST have overlooked it. I’m not joking, either. Let me know which one it is and I surely will read it NOW.
I doubt it also. Since it’s not the martyrs who paid the price for our salvation. If they were truly following Christ they will have their reward. We might appreciate the fact that they lived their faith and died for it’s but with Christ’s blood we are saved and not the blood of martyrs. We are not the followers of men but followers of Christ.
I sure was hoping for a brand new back, free of sciatica, osteo-arthritis, bone spurs and scar tissue. I was hoping I could be rid of the spinal cord stimulator that I need 12 hours a day to be able to do anything. I can't imagine God wants us to spend eternity with the same old, fallen, corruptible, mortal human body. When he said "all things will become new". Like Paul told the Corinthians:
But some will say, "How are the dead raised up and with what body do they come?" Thou fool, that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die: And that which thou sowest, thou sowest not that body that shall be, but bare grain, it may chance be of wheat or of some other grain: But God giveth it a body as it pleased him, and to every seed his own body. (I Corinthians 15:35-38)
So also is the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption. It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory; It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body and there is a spiritual body. And so it is written, "The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam a quickening spirit." (I Cor. 15:42-45)
As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image os the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption. (I Cor. 15:48-50)
For this corruptible must put on incorruption and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible shall have put in incorruption and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is thy sting? O grave, where is thy victory? (I Cor. 15:53-55)
Post #2040.
I don’t think the human mind can even conceive of the happiness and that awaits. I, for one, look forward to dancing before the Lord like David did.
We are not spirits like the angels. Our souls are immortal, only our bodies die and therefore, it can only be the body that can be raised up again.
When we are told that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God” it is immediately followed by “corruption cannot inherit incorruption”.
This is merely saying that as sinful humans, we cannot inherit on our own, we need Jesus.
Was the Moses seen with Jesus only a spirit appearing as a human?
I don’t know, and Scripture doesn’t say.
Scripture does say though that we will be resurrected, as Jesus was resurrected and Jesus was resurrected in the body in which His soul lived.
Changed? Transformed? Perfected? All of those things, but different, no I don’t believe so.
Well, I went looking for that “olive branch” you tried to extend earlier, and I’ve gotta say, it’s just not there. Did you get “smacked”? Or was it you, in post 2578 that called me “Smack voice”? And “one step above Nestorious”? Is this the olive branch you attempted to extend, or assault me with? lol! You did no such thing as extend an olive branch. Please excuse me if I dismiss your claim of “reaching out”..
Well, first off, I don’t know if the Church teaches that Moses was assumed. It’s never come up. It is my own belief based on what I know of Scripture.
****I’m stunned to see a Catholic make that statement.***
Not nearly as stunned as I am to see a protestant something for which Catholics are excoriated.
Changed, transformed, perfected, but not different? Huh? If it’s changed, transformed and perfected it IS different.
2040 was an olive branch? Looked more like a general call for all to admit guilt to me.
I haven’t even read it yet. I was just shocked to see going back 600 posts! Let me read it. I’ll be back..
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.