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.
Amen. Because to leave it, is to be cursed by it. Unless you realize it’s all smoke and mirrors. And empty threats. Praise God!
aoh, it’s okay. I’m not bothered by your references. I just think Catholics should take note.
Actually the book of Enoch was used widely by early Christians as I understand it. It and many other books became discredited after the Council of Laodicea in about 363–364. Why it was discredited I don’t know. And being banned by the authorities, it gradually passed out of circulation. It was lost for centuries but copies were found in 1773 by James Bruce and the dead see scrolls also had copies of it. I know the reformers were very interested in it. It can actually be read online now.
http://www.heaven.net.nz/writings/thebookofenoch.htm
I expected nothing better from the likes of him
wonderful!
The problem is that a LOT of non-Catholic theology au fond is based on a forced choice, zero-sum, either/or paradigm that clouds discourse and obscures truth.
The clue is the ready recourse to argumentum ad hominem. They say things like [NOT an exact quote], "Among those who love the TRUTH," these quotes should be sufficient." This kind of attack makes it clear that, in their minds, to hold an opinion differing from theirs or to construe these texts in a manner contrary to theirs is to put oneself under suspicion of a profound spiritual defect.
There are bullies on both sides, but for one side, bullying is part and parcel of the dialectical approach.
IN what sense are you using "subject"?
I read that "ho tou Theou anthropos" is the subject of a subordinate clause introduced by "ina"="in order that".
(May I interject here that discussing on FR has helped revive my Greek better than 100 courses could?)
The 'construction' question seems to be does "pasa graphe" (I think it's REALLY interesting that Paul uses the singular) contribute to the equipping or alone supply it? I see nothing in the text either way.
BTW, if one looks at verse 15 one SEEMS to find that Paul is referring to "ta heira grammata" (loosely - "the sacred letters") which Timothy has known 'apo Brephous' - "since a child," which might inform the question about which scripture(s) Paul was referring to.
Gotta go; it's time for my brephous. :-)
To rightly divide" this fact, one ha to understand a little how the Catholic Church works. And this usually involves shedding the notion of a top-down organization where the top churns out doctrinal precepts and those down the line salute and say, "Yessir, uh, Father, sir."
Whatever you think of the Marian dogmata, it's important to get that one was 'defined' in the middle of the 19th century and the other in the middle of the 20th. Yet they had been discussed and argued and believed by many for centuries before their "definition."
It was only when the Holy See perceived a clamor that it turned the theologians loose with a mandate to come up with some direction. In other words, a with Acts 15, Nicea, Ephesus, Chalcedon, Nicea II, and many other councils, an "official" declaration was made in response to conflict or (in the case of the Marian dogmata) loud appeals.
So the delay in closing the OT canon was because there wasn't a pressing need until a whole bunch of people closed it themselves.
Come to think of it, the closing of the NT canon, as I was taught in my not-Catholic seminary, was similarly brought about. Marcion did his own 'sua sponte' closing, so the rest of the Church said, more or less, "Oh Darn, now we're going to have to resolve this somehow."
It's not like there wasn't an opinion, it's just that we don't like to get all official and stuff unless we have to.
I think not. When a statement is made by the CCC and it’s put up as evidence we are told that what was said in that statement isn’t what that statement means. We are told that we need to go read two pages of text to try to understand what that statement says. When we go read those two pages we get an obscure runaround with insets of foreign language, because of course that foreign language is much more holy, which attempts somehow to disavow what was said in the original statement.
We get the same nonsense when quoting church fathers. What was clearly stated in there writing we are told is not what they meant but that if we read the entirety of their writing we will find that what they said in that original statement is not what they meant. When we read the entirety of their writing we find that nothing has changed what they meant in that original statement.
We see through the propaganda of the RCC. Their injection of mysticism and “extra biblical knowledge” through some secret orally handed down “truths” seems to impress many. The RCC is having the same problem the politicians today have. They don’t have the control over information they once had and truth is “getting out”. We can “search the scriptures to see if what they say is true” and we find much of it is not.
I think it means parts of it were good and parts not so much. Jesus was okay with nuance.
Still it would clearly obvious from the very fact that they had to “debate the matter” that there had been no clear consensus up until that time and debate or differing with the “decision” was not an option after that time for fear of reprimand or excommunication.
Examples please. Please provide links to the invectives that Protestants have used against Catholics which pale to being called haters and antis.
[laughs hysterically]
Even if all you say after "I think not" were true, I don't see how it touches on my contention about (for brevity less than accuracy) "Zero-sum theology".
In fact, it seems to me to support my suggestion.
with insets of foreign language, because of course that foreign language is much more holy,
You think that moves the ball? I think Latin and Greek have a certain dignity, yeah, but I think it almost meaningless to suggest that one language is holier than another -- except that we students of Hebrew used to razz the head of the NT department because Paul said that Jesus spoke to him "te Hebraidi dialekto" which, we argued, meant that they speak Hebrew in Heaven. (I don't think he was persuaded...)
through some secret orally handed down “truths” Same question here. The only secrecy involved is that of the purloined letter. If you want to play the theology game, at which I am a rank beginner, you have to steep yourself in prayer,worship, scripture, theologians,and philosophers. It is a blessing that the body has many different members with different functions. Not everyone has the gifts to play theology in the majors, nor should they. The body needs all the members.
But here, to allege "secret orally handed down" just sets up another straw man. These things were not done in a corner.
As far as I can see your post confirms rather than refutes the contention with which you disagree, with the overstating of "more holy language" and the "secret orally handed down" giving examples of truth-obscuring, either/or thought.
Yes. Just as for the Judaizers after Acts 15. That seems to be the way it works.
Straw man? If it’s a straw man then find for me from scripture the bodily assumption of Mary. Or for that matter from the writings of anyone prior to 200AD. It surely must have been “secret orally handed down” prior to that.
I don't think the clause after the 'or' follows from the clause before it.
Here’s some examples.
Calling people liers.
Actually my problem is with those who lie about actually having been in the Church and repeatedly portray the most outlandish lies as Catholic doctrine. I don't have to make the post about any individual Freepers. The liars know who they are as do those of us who really do know Catholic doctrine. [Tuesday, November 01, 2011 1:03:57 AM • 308 of 335]
Calling people bigots.
I did not address individual Freepers. I made my comments about the group of "Anti-Catholic" bigots. [Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:56:36 AM • 305 of 335]
What else would you expect from anti-catholic bigots? [Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:37:44 AM • 293 of 335]
Calling people dogs.
When we lay down with dogs we really can't complain when we get fleas. [Tuesday, November 01, 2011 12:37:44 AM • 293 of 335]
Oh, wait, those weren’t Protestants. Never mind.
Why do you insist on scriptural validation?
Accusing people of stealing others’ words and using them as their own. A continuing incident.
That no written text currently exist does not mean that there never were any.
That we have no record doesn’t mean something was intentionally kept secret.
So neither “secret” nor “orally” is shown by your argument; the ‘surely’ assumes facts not in evidence; the man is made of straw.
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.