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.
Very few teach that all the Bible, or anything else written, is to be taken completely literally.
But if you mean, for example, were Adam and Eve real, yes, the Church teaches this.
Contrary to the opinion of some outside the Church, She doesn’t have near the requirements for one particular interpretation for many parts of the Bible. Basically only those parts which are directly related to the points of faith and morals, the sacramental life, the creeds.
There’s a great deal of freedom allowed, and the discussions are wide ranging with disagreements and interesting arguments on several sides. That’s the point of the seminar.
Me too:
“But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control.” - Galatians 5:22)
An earlier point related to Genesis. I think parts of it is are good examples of Scripture that most likely orally transmitted and was not written down contemporaneously.
Let’s see if I can make that a bit more coherent;
Parts of Genesis are good examples of Scripture that most likely were orally transmitted for a long time, not written down contemporaneously.
I pray that we are all filled with the TRUTH of God’s Word. That is what unites. And if that truth is not believed, or denied, that is what divides. What is the most important truth in God’s Word? The gospel of your salvation. Do we all know and believe that gospel? Read the posts to see for yourself. If the gospel cannot unite, then everything else is beside the point. So, first you need to ask yourself: What is the gospel of my salvation? Do you know? Everyone can speak of Jesus, or doctrine, or the Holy Spirit, or the gospel. But are you aware there is another Jesus? And another gospel? and another spirit? Of deceit. And doctrines of demons. All masquerading as ministers of Christ. Just because someone says the name Jesus doesn’t mean that person KNOWS Jesus. This is what you are seeing on these threads. A false unity for unity sake is built on a lie. To ignore God’s Truth in order to get along is to let the lie remain. That is NOT what He called us to do. That’s why we are told to put on the whole armour of God. It is spiritual warfare, not tea with the Queen.
Well, thanks for few moments of relative peace anyway.
;)
God bless you, FF...
It hardly matters if you accept my testimony as credible. The "blind obedience" you deny is stated in many places within your group's documents. Perhaps you missed post #3264 from daniel1212. He included additional references besides the Canon212 from Vatican II:
►VEHEMENTER NOS, Encyclical of Pope Pius X promulgated on February 11, 1906:
It follows that the Church is essentially an unequal society, that is, a society comprising two categories of per sons, the Pastors and the flock, those who occupy a rank in the different degrees of the hierarchy and the multitude of the faithful. So distinct are these categories that with the pastoral body only rests the necessary right and authority for promoting the end of the society and directing all its members towards that end; the one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastor
► http://baltimore-catechism.com/lesson12.htm:
Q. 554. Could a person who denies only one article of our faith be a Catholic?
A. A person who denies even one article of our faith could not be a Catholic; for truth is one and we must accept it whole and entire or not at all.
►“Once he does so (joins the Catholic church), he has no further use for his reason. He enters the Church, an edifice illumined by the superior light of revelation and faith. He can leave reason like a lantern at the door.” (John H. Stapleton, Explanation of Catholic Morals, Chapter XIX, XXIII. the consistent believer (1904); Nihil Obstat. Remy Lafort, Censor Librorum. Imprimatur, John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York )
►“All that we do [as must be patent enough now] is to submit our judgment and conform our beliefs to the authority Almighty God has set up on earth to teach us; this, and nothing else.”
“...outside the pale of Rome there is not a scrap of additional truth of Revelation to be found.”
“He willingly submits his judgment on questions the most momentous that can occupy the mind of man-----questions of religion-----to an authority located in Rome.”
“Absolute, immediate, and unfaltering submission to the teaching of God's Church on matters of faith and morals-----this is what all must give..”
“The Vicar of Christ is the Vicar of God; to us the voice of the Pope is the voice of God. This, too, is why Catholics would never dream of calling in question the utterance of a priest in expounding Christian doctrine according to the teaching of the Church;”
“He is as sure of a truth when declared by the Catholic Church as he would be if he saw Jesus Christ standing before him and heard Him declaring it with His Own Divine lips.” - “Henry G. Graham, "What Faith Really Means", (Nihil Obstat:C. SCHUT, S. T.D., Censor Deputatus, Imprimatur: EDM. CANONICUS SURMONT, D.D.,Vicarius Generalis. WESTMONASTERII, Die 30 Septembris, 1914 )
Obey blindly , that is, without asking reasons. Be careful, then, never to examine the directions of your confessor....In a word, keep before your eyes this great rule, that in obeying your confessor you obey God. Force yourself then, to obey him in spite of all fears. And be persuaded that if you are not obedient to him it will be impossible for you to go on well; but if you obey him you are secure. But you say, if I am damned in consequence of obeying my confessor, who will rescue me from hell? What you say is impossible." St. Alphonsus De Liguori, True Spouse of Christ, p 352, Benziger Brothers, NY
►PRAECLARA GRATULATIONIS PUBLICAE, Apostolic Letter of Pope Leo XIII, June 20, 1894
But since We hold upon this earth the place of God Almighty, Who will have all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the Truth, and now that Our advanced age and the bitterness of anxious cares urge Us on towards the end common to every mortal, We feel drawn to follow the example of Our Redeemer and Master, Jesus Christ.. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Leo13/l13praec.htm
The leadership of the Apostolic See has always been active, and therefore because of its preeminent authority , the whole Church must agree with it." (On Faith And Religion), Encyclical promulgated on November 9, 1846, #11. http://www.papalencyclicals.net/Pius09/p9quiplu.htm
Nope, I am hardly imagining or fabricating anything at all and there is, as you should know, much more than these that prove the point.
Revelation 2:2 I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars:
Acts 13:9 Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy Ghost, set his eyes on him. 10 And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to pervert the right ways of the Lord? 11 And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon thee, and thou shalt be blind, not seeing the sun for a season. And immediately there fell on him a mist and a darkness; and he went about seeking some to lead him by the hand.
Amen and Amen. Tolerance: The last and only virtue of the completely immoral society
ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FAITH AND REASON
JOHN PAUL II TO THE BISHOPS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH
Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.
Now, would you care to address this subject, or is there no answer other than further denigration of the posters?
“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. - John 13:34
Thank you. It’s not always easy to be patient and kind while reproving, rebuking and exhorting others over the truths of God from Scripture. But I don’t view anyone here as an “enemy”.
What was your previous screen name, if you don’t mind my asking?
What proof do you have that the Jewish people accepted the Apocryphal books as part of their Divinely inspired Scripture? None of those disputed books were written in Hebrew and they only show up in the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the OT) but the earliest manuscripts only date from the fourth century A.D. No earlier manuscripts are available which would prove conclusively that these books existed prior to then. Though there are allusions to a few of the texts, not one was quoted directly by Jesus or the Apostles nor is any quote stated as "it is written" or "thus says the Lord".
The different "canons" that you mention were disputed and the Pharisee was quite different from the Sadducee, but no "official" canon was declared until the first century A.D. From the site http://bible.org/article/how-many-books-are-bible:
What is more, these books have historical errors. It is claimed that Tobit was alive when the Assyrians conquered Israel in 722 B.C. and also when Jeroboam revolted against Judah in 931 B.C., which would make him at least 209 years old; yet according to the account, he died when he was only 158 years. The Book of Judith speaks of Nebuchadnezzar reigning in Nineveh instead of Babylon.
These inaccuracies are inconsistent with the doctrine of inspiration which teaches that when God inspires a book it is free from all errors.
Finally, and most important, we must remember that the Apocrypha was never part of the Old Testament Hebrew canon. When Christ was on earth, he frequently quoted from the Old Testament but never from the Apocryphal books because they were never a part of the Hebrew canon.
In Christ’s time, there were twenty-two books in the Old Testament, but the content was identical to the thirty-nine books in our present Old Testament (several of the books in the Hebrew Bible were combined, which accounts for the different figure). Genesis was the first book in the Hebrew canon and 2 Chronicles was the last. On at least one occasion, Christ referred specifically to the content of the Hebrew canon when he said:
Therefore, behold, I am sending you prophets and wise men and scribes; some of them you will kill and crucify, and some of them you will scourge in your synagogues, and persecute from city to city, that upon you may fall the guilt of all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of righteous Abel to the blood of Zechariah, the son of Berechiah, whom you murdered between the temple and the altar (Matt. 23:34-35)
In the Hebrew canon, the first book of the Bible was Genesis, where the death of Abel is recorded, and the last book was 2 Chronicles where near the end of the book the murder of Zechariah is described (24:21). In between these two events lay the entire content of the Old Testament. He assumed it ended with the Hebrew Scriptures and not the Apocrypha.
The Apocryphal books were written in Greek after the close of the Old Testament canon. Jewish scholars agree that chronologically Malachi was the last book of the Old Testament canon. The books of the Apocrypha were evidently written about 200 B.C. and occur only in Greek manuscripts of the Old Testament. Since Christ accepted only the books we have in our Old Testament today, we have no reason to add to their number.
Thank you!
I agree. The Jews sure didn't accept them as the "oracles of God". Many of the Roman Catholic Church's "fathers" also rejected them. Jerome, for one, had to have his arm twisted behind his back to agree to translate them into Latin when he did the Vulgate. He did not include them with the other books but put them in a separate section. It wasn't until Trent - which was convened especially to counteract the Reformation - that they decided to mandate their inclusion as Holy Scripture. When they did that, to me, they relinquished all claim they had to authority or as protectors of the faith and Holy Scripture. It seems like they did it out of spite, as if to degrade the reliability of Scripture and to pronounced only themselves as infallible. God's word, they insisted, could no longer be the authority. We see here, even now, that their "faithful" show the same disregard and trust of the Bible. To some, trusting in God's word is akin to worshiping the Bible. As if!
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.