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 why don’t you?...
Wait, I thought Catholics put faith in what the church fathers said.
"Concerning the time, place, and manner of his death, we have little certainty. It is commonly believed that, when a general persecution was raised against the Christians by Nero, about A.D. 64, under pretence that they had set Rome on fire, both St. Paul and St. Peter then sealed the truth with their blood; the latter being crucified with his head downward; the former being beheaded, either in A.D. 64 or 65, and buried in the Via Ostiensis. EUSEBIUS, Hist, Eccles. lib. ii. cap. 25. [http://www.biblestudy.org/question/sauldie.html]
Isn’t Eusebius a church father?
Do you believe our earthly bodies will be EXACTLY the same as now? What we have now in the body of our flesh will be what we have in our glorified bodies?
Well, I’ll answer that now then. You’re once again “assuming”. It seems so much of the Catholic faith is based on assumptions or “it doesn’t say it didn’t happen” so we can make something up because it fits with our feel good rituals and rules.
Because I’m s sinner in need of Christ’s mercy. What’s your excuse?
BTW, once again you have become a near occasion of sin. See you later, heretic.
Yes, I do remember those things that Jesus could do after His resurrection.
There were things Jesus could do before He died too.
Like fasting for forty days and forty nights.
Like appearing on the water during the storm when the Apostles had gone ahead of Him.
Or moving out of crowd of people desiring to stone Him or throw Him off a cliff.
Or feeling the slightest touch of the hem of His robe.
He calmed the sea.
He gave sight to the blind, made the crippled walk, opened the ears of the deaf, healed the servant with just His words and raised Jairus’ daughter and Lazarus.
And fed thousands with just a couple loaves and fish.
Jesus Christ will be my final judge, so of course not.
My question was do you realize, recognize Jesus is not the same as, identical to Holy Scripture. I don't see in your reply a yes or no, or an answer.
Try again?
Matthew 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
We do! If someone sees us believing something that is not condoned in scripture we would definitely want someone to show us.
There is no point arguing with those who consistently say we don't mean what we say we mean and don't believe what we say we believe because they lack a willingness to comprehend.
English, even King James English, is an incredibly poor language to express Catholic theological concepts largely because its modern version was developed in an arena completely hostile to Catholicism.
It is said that Eskimos have over 20 different words for snow because snow is such a very major part of their lives. Similarly, Catholics have many different words for the expressing reverence. Dulia, hyperdulia and latria are but three with latria being reserved for adoration and a reverence directed only to the Holy Trinity. It was written about as early as St. Augustine of Hippo.
Rather than defend what the anti-Catholics claim are the Church's excesses we should require them to defend the deficiencies in their forms of Protestantism. Most notable are Beatitude, Love, Worship and Celebration. Absent these Christianity is not a gift, but a gray, humorless, loveless existence to be endured while our souls face to black.
The point dear, CB, is that the martyr’s death that Paul suffered is a Catholic tradition recorded only by the historians of the Catholic church.
Non Catholics like to call such things myths, we call it our history.
Bobbing and weaving with white gloves and pearls. Truth to some is a near occassion of sin. It forces them to face something they would rather not. It’s easier to make a pious pot of soup and pretend compassion for others. *SOME* “others”.
****First, are you looking for a way not to believe God’s Word - Jesus - is The Final Authority?****
When Catholics reject the protestant interpretation of some of the Scriptures, we are not rejecting the “Final Authority” of God’s word, or the authority of Scripture itself. We are rejecting the “Final Authority” of the protestant.
It's done every day on our side. It's called the "love of the truth". :)
Matthew 17:19 Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why could not we cast him out? 20 And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you. 21 Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.
Luke 17:6 And the Lord said, If ye had faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye might say unto this sycamine tree, Be thou plucked up by the root, and be thou planted in the sea; and it should obey you.
John 14:12 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father.
Good point.
And, I believe, in this case we will also see great difficult in seeing or acknowledging that Jesus and Holy Scripture are not exactly the same thing.
If your point is that we can/should/will be like Jesus, then it is one I can agree with.:)
Jesus’ body was glorified but it was the same body which still bore the marks of His crucifixion.
The point is that we do not get different bodies, not that the body we have is different than it was before.
Here’s your statement.
>>There is no historical or Biblical record of Paul’s death.<<
I showed you where the CC “historians” told of Paul’s death. And then you say.
>>The point dear, CB, is that the martyr’s death that Paul suffered is a Catholic tradition recorded only by the historians of the Catholic church.<<
First there is no “historical or Biblical record” then there is? Huh?
****And, I believe, in this case we will also see great difficult in seeing or acknowledging that Jesus and Holy Scripture are not exactly the same thing.****
Well, that is something you can take to the bank, lol.
Not just great difficulty, but an impossibility.
The reason is that when we dispute what they tell us Scripture is and means, they can then post in all caps that we don’t believe Jesus, God’s Word is the final authority.
It boggles my mind that even when presented with the Scripture by John that not all that Jesus said and did is recorded in Scripture, they still dispute that there was more to know about Him and about us as His followers.
Scripture never claims that ALL of Truth is contained within itself. Instead, Scripture says that ALL that is Scripture is true and beneficial for our salvation.
This is their “rock” and if the claim of being led by the Holy Spirit is their only defense. For, if all that is needed is the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture, then why is so much time devoted to explaining the various Greek and Hebrew words and culture used in the originals.
That of course leads to the new argument, which version and interpretation is the “FINAL AUTHORITY”?
The discourse here is never going to be anything more than a recycling and rehash of prior discussions and if one thinks it can be anything more, then one is at the very least, naive and at the most, delusional.
My own faith grows stronger with all the discussion and study and that is why I enjoy it here. When that ends, so will my time here.
Should have qualified the “historical” with secular.
I think it’s says somthing interesting about you, that you and metmom appear to think it’s an object of ridicule to spend my money, time, and labor on feeding the poor in my community.
Corporal works of mercy are a gift I offer to my beloved, Christ Jesus. I do not think that the average protestant, some of whom eat the meals we give, find the food ridiculous. Indeed, they often bring older relatives and pre-school children with them. I consider it an honor to expend my best effort. Who knows? Someday I may be poor.
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.