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.
Luke 3:21-4:13
King James Version (KJV)
21Now when all the people were baptized, it came to pass, that Jesus also being baptized, and praying, the heaven was opened,
22And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.
23And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
24Which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi, which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Janna, which was the son of Joseph,
25Which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Amos, which was the son of Naum, which was the son of Esli, which was the son of Nagge,
26Which was the son of Maath, which was the son of Mattathias, which was the son of Semei, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Juda,
27Which was the son of Joanna, which was the son of Rhesa, which was the son of Zorobabel, which was the son of Salathiel, which was the son of Neri,
28Which was the son of Melchi, which was the son of Addi, which was the son of Cosam, which was the son of Elmodam, which was the son of Er,
29Which was the son of Jose, which was the son of Eliezer, which was the son of Jorim, which was the son of Matthat, which was the son of Levi,
30Which was the son of Simeon, which was the son of Juda, which was the son of Joseph, which was the son of Jonan, which was the son of Eliakim,
31Which was the son of Melea, which was the son of Menan, which was the son of Mattatha, which was the son of Nathan, which was the son of David,
32Which was the son of Jesse, which was the son of Obed, which was the son of Booz, which was the son of Salmon, which was the son of Naasson,
33Which was the son of Aminadab, which was the son of Aram, which was the son of Esrom, which was the son of Phares, which was the son of Juda,
34Which was the son of Jacob, which was the son of Isaac, which was the son of Abraham, which was the son of Thara, which was the son of Nachor,
35Which was the son of Saruch, which was the son of Ragau, which was the son of Phalec, which was the son of Heber, which was the son of Sala,
36Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
I guess I missed Mary in that list. Where is she mentioned?
I will look for your response tomorrow as I am leaving FR for the night.
A pleasure as always:)
smvoice has been putting the writings of anti-Catholic bigots on FR for some time now. Dave Hunt, whose books are listed for sale by He Who Must Not be Named, is one notorious so-called writer “The Woman Who Rides the Beast” ie the Catholic Church.
If you look up De Rosa’s stuff, you will find even worse here;
http://www.adishakti.org/_/peter_de_rosa_vicars_of_christ_the_dark_side_of_the_papacy.htm
It’s listed as Editor’s Choice. I encourage every Catholic poster to take a goof look snd decide for themselves what kind of trash smvoice is promoting.
The last time I brought this up, it was smvoice’s contention that I was the one hanging around hate sites. I don’t make these things up, anti-Catholic bigots do, and present them as some kind of indictment of the Church, when in fact they are filthy screed not worthy of the FR RF. Jut so all of you know exactly who you are dealing with here, I am giving everyone this information, so all can make up their oen minds about this trash.
No, Nestorius taught that there was no union between the divine and human nature. I believe there was a union between the two. Jesus got His human nature from Mary in order to fulfill prophesy and take on the sins of man but He was also truly God. Don’t throw around names unless you know what you are talking about or don’t make accusations assuming you know what I believe.
God can have no mother or He would have had a beginning. Are you denying the existence of Jesus, the Word from all eternity?
If it ain’t in there it ain’t needed.
And by claiming that Mary is the mother of God they would have to believe that God had a beginning.
plwase see post 282. Thanks.
“Protestant principle of the Bible alone-” I stopped reading right there. Doesn’t anyone understand the difference between Sola Scriptura and Solo Scriptura? Or are they just trying to obfuscate thinking people are too stupid to know the difference?
Until you study and understand the difference it’s a waste of my time discussing it with you.
It’s just one of the many which show that scripture is able, without someone else’s words.
2 Timothy 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
You really have a problem with those who have come out of your Church, don't you? It's like they may be saying things that the RCC doesn't want told...Ex-priests, ex-nuns, ex-members, they all tell the same stories. And it ain't pretty. SO, who to believe? The RCC whose history is filled with forged, false documents in which RCC doctrine still exists to this day, papal intrigue, concordats with EVIL, torture of "heretics", anathemas issued but never rescinded to those who do not bend their knees to Rome, pagan rites, rituals, prayers to the dead, another Jesus, another gospel, deceit, threats of excommunication, twisting of Scripture, adding to and taking from Scripture, hiding truth and destroying those who dare to speak it, and just general deception of epic proportion. OR, people who have left, whether it be because they were actually searching for the truth, or because they dared to question authority and were similarily dismissed. Gee, which sounds more believeable? God's Word answers that question.
But please, keep posting your outrage at those who dare to tell. It just gives more post time to explain what it is they are telling. And WHY it is so important, especially at this time. They are whistleblowers for these days of deceit and deceivers. Come out of her while there is still time.
That rank falsehood has been addressed many many times on the open threads. I am suprised you brring it up yet agaom, although all things considered, I shouldn’t be.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
What else would you expect from anti-catholic bigots? You are not going to get honest dialog or even a fair exchange of ideas when even legitimate sources are edited and mischaracterized.
There are honest Protestants who are able to articulate their docrtrinal differences with the Church and explore these differences and even admit their misconceptions but the anti-Catholics have so polluted these threads they rarely show up anymore. We don't have to engage or respond to them. Absent a foil they will go away or turn on each other. When we lay down with dogs we really can't complain when we get fleas.
>>>>>>But please, keep posting your outrage at those who dare to tell. It just gives more post time to explain what it is they are telling. And WHY it is so important, especially at this time. They are whistleblowers for these days of deceit and deceivers. Come out of her while there is still time.
One sentence from Vicars pf Christ: “Promiscuity was rife in monasteries and convents. The great Ivo of Chartres (1040-1115) tells of whole convents with inmates who were nuns only in name. They had often been abandoned by their families and were really prostitutes.”
And wehre did you copy and paste this paragraph from?:
>>>> It’s like they may be saying things that the RCC doesn’t want told...Ex-priests, ex-nuns, ex-members, they all tell the same stories. And it ain’t pretty. SO, who to believe? The RCC whose history is filled with forged, false documents in which RCC doctrine still exists to this day, papal intrigue, concordats with EVIL, torture of “heretics”, anathemas issued but never rescinded to those who do not bend their knees to Rome, pagan rites, rituals, prayers to the dead, another Jesus, another gospel, deceit, threats of excommunication, twisting of Scripture, adding to and taking from Scripture, hiding truth and destroying those who dare to speak it, and just general deception of epic proportion. OR, people who have left, whether it be because they were actually searching for the truth, or because they dared to question authority and were similarily dismissed. Gee, which sounds more believeable? God’s Word answers that question.
Good point.
Discuss the issues all you want, but do not make it personal.
1 Chron. 17:11 And it shall come to pass, when thy days be expired that thou must go to be with thy fathers, that I will raise up thy seed after thee, which shall be of thy sons; and I will establish his kingdom. 12 He shall build me an house, and I will stablish his throne for ever. 13 I will be his father, and he shall be my son: and I will not take my mercy away from him, as I took it from him that was before thee: 14 But I will settle him in mine house and in my kingdom for ever: and his throne shall be established for evermore.
Joseph was also of the lineage of David.
Luke 2:4 And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David:)
Jesus was a blood relative of Mary’s, and therefore of the house of David. When Joseph married Mary, Jesus became his legal son and therefore entered the Royal line. Now He was of the house and lineage of David. But since He and Joseph were not biologically related, He escaped the blood curse. Thus Jesus became the only man since 600 BC qualified to become the King of Israel and sit on David’s throne, something Gabriel had promised to Mary (Luke 1:32-33) and that will be fulfilled in the Millennium.
See post 297
It would have been better to say “Do you have a problem with those who have come out of your church?”
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.