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.
I don’t think that term was used then.
You don’t have to do anything.
You can just keep barking instead of simply providing your link.
I’m just suggesting a simpler way than posting all this huff. Should you wish to take it of course.
You’re not supposed to post links to banned sites, Judith Anne. Don’t you KNOW that?
Are you serious? That was first published in 1871 or thereabouts. Do you have the original?
At least it’s apparent where you get your trash. Sifting through garbage to find some anti-Catholic screed is really disgusting.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe your position is that that’s not a problem in your case.
>>>>You’re not supposed to post links to banned sites, Judith Anne. Don’t you KNOW that?
A proper little internet posting policewoman would report me to the RM, now, wouldn’t she? Unless she was the one lifting the garbage from someone else’s trashcan.
Not many people would. Even most of the other religions in the world, past and present, have what they call "Sacred" writings. It's as though nobody DOES trust what gets handed down "verbally" especially if it spans centuries. That's not to say, of course, that all those "other" writings are anywhere near the same league as the Bible, but I think something tells us not to trust other people's musings. Satan tries to use this tendency to his advantage, of course, as he does anything else that is truly from God, and he perverts and counterfeits what God has established. That is especially why God has provided us with the Bible so that we have an infallible and authoritative source for the truth of the Christian faith. He does not leave us at the whim of men to verbally tell us what God tells us, but establishes his word that does not fail nor pass away.
That is actually true - for LDS, Raelites and Scientology.
Only to Catholics.
I think most pagan religions rely on what’s been handed down by the select few. The rituals and secret rites and mystical chants are closely guarded.
***came to fulfill the written word***
And here I thought the written word prophesied the Word.
****You didn’t note it but you are quoting from Deuteronomy which is OT.****
Just cut and pasted what was written to me. As you were the poster I thought you were already aware of what you posted and where it was from. My bad.
****that the Jewish people didn’t have their own scrolls - they were in the temple? Or are you implying your church still has God’s Word chained up? *****
Copies of Sacred Scripture were usually possessed only by the Church or in the Jewish people’s case, the temple. The writings were difficult to copy by hand and so were very costly in both time and money. Few could afford them and the Church protected them for the entire congregation by seeing they could not be stolen.
***HIM is numbero uno in my life***
I can only imagine how little time one who spends so much of it here has for Him.
****You obviously are pushing an agenda that makes for a weak watered-down faith. ****
Considering what a Catholic must face here, it is not a faith for weaklings. It is also not a watered down faith. It is a faith that takes seriously the sacrifice of Jesus and responds to His commands. It is not a faith for the do nothing crowd. As the priest said today when speaking of on the words of the Gospel when Jesus warns what will happen when one does not do for the least of His brothers,
“If hearing the Word of God and believing in Jesus and receiving the Holy Spirit does not move you to action then all your prayers and piety is in vain.” Here, here, padre!
****Your faith is in a church that they will properly minister to you and not in Jesus Himself through His
Spirit. ****
My faith is in God, my salvation is from Jesus and the Holy Spirit has guided me to His Church where I receive Him in the Eucharist, as He commanded at the Last Supper. And I am blessed, blessed, blessed just like He tells me I am.
****Enjoy your deception, you bought the lie and now own it. *****
In all things I am content, because I trust in the Lord, who works all things to the good for those who love Him.
I own nothing, all I have belongs to Jesus, HE owns me and I am grateful for it.
***Now you are pushing others towards deception with your The people needed only to HEAR what was written, they did not all read it for themselves.****
I can hardly respond to such drivel as this. It is deceptive to say that not all Christians read (past/present) Scripture for themselves? I posted on this before so I won’t repeat myself. Of course, no protestant had the nerve to answer that post.
****Why don’t you have someone read to you what your spouse, friend, parent or child wants to say to you and see how anyone would believe you really love that person. Love letters are cherished and read and meditated on - over and over again - by the one that loves.****
What if I am blind and cannot read it for myself? What if I am old or ill or too young? What if I do not know how to read? What more can I say to yet more drivel?
****What you consider love is foreign to me, especially, for Someone who died for you so you can have eternal life***
Thank God I have only Jesus as my judge. He does know my heart and my faith and I will trust in Him who knows me personally and intimately.
I am asking you to PLEASE handle this. If I were going to websites for information, I would give the link. It’s what I keep TRYING to say: I am NOT going to websites. The only *link* I could give is the link to the Bible study classes I attend. Except they don’t have a *website*. I could give the names, phone numbers and addresses of all who attend the Bible study classes, I could give the name and address of my Church, but they don’t have a website to LINK TO. I give the information that I get: the author, the name of his work, the chapters, the page numbers, whatever I get. I am very tired of being accused of visiting nefarious websites when I don’t even KNOW WHO they are, or WHO THEY LINK TO. How can I control something that I don’t even go to? The only website I visit is Williams-Sonoma.com. And the only “biblical” items they sale are wine decanters. Either let me set Judith Anne straight once and for all, or ban me. But I cannot be responsible for places I do NOT visit. This happens time after time around here with Judith Anne. I don’t have time for it, you don’t have time for it, but I think she does. And takes pleasure in the continuing accusations against me. Please give me some kind of way to end this continual lie she posts about me. Thanks, smvoice
The why don’t you qualify it with an “I” or in my “Bible Study Group” and give the name of the series???
I think that is what Judith Anne is asking you. Just provide something so that we might know it is legit.
Yes, I know I’m busting into the middle of a conversation, but somehow I am able to qualify all my posts with a link. Why couldn’t you do the same, voice?
So your Bible study classes have websites and links? Well, aren’t you the lucky one. Mine do not. Mine have acknowledgments of the sources that are used for Bible study. Do I need a Notary? Would that solve Judith Anne’s “problem”? I didn’t think so...
It’s already been demonstrated that the information can be gathered from a wide variety of sources in the internet.
To choose to accuse someone of posting it from one specific source with no certainty of fact is just dishonest.
All we keep hearing from Catholics on this forum is about the love of Christ that they display and all the good works they do, yada, yada, yada,....
And this is how it’s displayed? False accusations that have no basis for them at all because they are not based on actual knowledge of actions or events.
Would not the Christ like thing to do be to rather give the person the benefit of the doubt and presume the BEST from the other instead of the worst?
If that’s what Catholics consider love in action, they are shooting themselves in the foot.
****The whole attitude smacks of the thinking that God is somehow going to botch the whole thing and lose souls because he can’t handle it Himself.****
God chose a young girl to bear His son. He could have just raised up a body for Himself, but He did not did He?
Jesus chose 12 Apostles to carry His gospel to the world. He could have just appeared to all the world as He promises to do when He comes again, but He did not did He?
God chose to found a Church upon the good news of Jesus so that the good news could be spread to all the corners of the world. He left this mission, this task to men who operated without anything written. That’s right, the Apostles had no NT to present to the people and leave with them after they moved on.
The NT is written by believers TO believers who still needed instruction and encouragement in the faith. It was 1500 years before it was possible for all believers to have the written word at their personal disposal.
Millions of Christians died as members of the Catholic Church. If that Church was not the one Jesus promised to send the Holy Spirit to guide, then the gates of hell prevailed against all of them.
For if the Church is not that which Jesus founded then the God I know as merciful and loving allowed them all to be condemned for a lie which they had no means to contend against.
If the Church is not that of Jesus, then He allowed the growth of a wolf among His sheep. That is not the Good Shepherd of the Gospel.
The Code of Canon Law and Catholic World Magazine are part of your Bible Study Classes? That’s where the snippets in the post came from?
Okie doke..
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.