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.
The, um, technicality, is I do what Paul did, not what you are, somehow, conflating it with.
Do we really have to go ‘round again on intercessory prayer and Paul’s verse?
There is no support for any of the veneration or assumption of Mary. There is no support for praying to or through those who have left their earthly bodies. In fact regarding the veneration of Mary, Jesus renounced that and the references to contacting the dead are called an abomination by God. Just two examples.
**Wrong! It’s through the Holy Spirit we have come to trust.**
I anticipated this response and again ask, that as we both claim the Holy Spirit as our guide, by whose authority does either of us make the claim that our understanding and acceptance of exactly what is Scripture and how that Scripture is to be interpreted is correct?
It is equally as valid for me to accept the authority of the Church as it is for you to accept the authority of your own interpretation and understanding.
**Wrong! Without the CC we would still have God’s word in print. The Old Testament has been preserved by the Jews, all of the New Testament have been preserved by other people and even if not God would have used someone to get it to us. God’s will is not dependent on man.**
The contradictions in that statement speak for themselves.
The NT was preserved by what other people, space aliens?
And, who would be the “someone” God would have used to get it to us?
God’s will is not dependent on man? True enough. But there is no denying that God has used men throughout salvation history to make Himself known to us and bring us His word.
I did not make the choice of the Church to deliver the canon of Scripture to us, God did.
**Did or did not that exact thing happen to the Jews?**
Not exactly. God made His truth known and the Jews chose not to live by that truth and suffered the consequences for it. That is vastly different that God allowing His church to teach error that results in the eternal loss and damnation of souls.
**Jesus did not say the RCC or any other organized church on earth. He said those who believed on Him were the church, His body on earth. Believe it or not there are those who “believe on Him” who are not enrolled in the RCC. I can also assure you that there are those who are enrolled in the RCC who are NOT part of His church.**
There is clear evidence of organization in the NT, clear evidence of a hierarchy and clear evidence of a concerted effort to maintain unanimity of doctrine and theology.
Just as Scripture does not ever use the term Trinity to define the union of the Three Persons, God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, it also does not once try to explain exactly how the three are ONE.
The Bible is our blue print and never once does it claim to hold everything about God or Jesus or the Holy Spirit. In fact, John quite clearly says that not all that Jesus did or said is contained within the books about Jesus. Jesus also says that there are things He still must teach the Apostles, but that the time is not right and He must go so that the Spirit may come.
Jesus says He will build His church, the believers of which are the body of Christ. Paul says that we each add to the foundation which was set before us. But, neither ever gives the exact nature and boundaries of what will be built.
**The only contention I have seen made is about how the CC handles or deals with those pedophiles.**
Not wishing to bring arguments from other threads into this one in violation of the rules, I will simply say that you must not read carefully all of the threads about Catholicism. Invariably, someone will point to sinful leaders in the Church as a way to discount the good/truth in the Church.
All those words to basically say that you have come to this conclusion on extra Biblical writings, written hundreds of years after the fact.
Writings which directly contradict the actual words of Scripture which clearly says that Joseph, and only Joseph, is the descendent of David and says nothing about Mary in the genealogy tracing Jesus to the house/throne of David.
It all smells of contortions made to explain apparent contradictions or mistakes in the the different Gospels which non believers love to point to as a way to “prove” that Christianity is not true.
As it is said, “Those who live by the sword, die by the sword.”
Again, and I can’t say it enough, you can’t have it both ways.
it [Lord's Prayer] had everything to do with the post.
No. MD asked for scriptural support for SM's assertion:
"Those who have died cannot pray for others. No matter how much someone wants to believe, it simply is not true."
This, obviously, is intercessory prayer by the Saints in heaven, which is what I referred to in my post in reply. You then followed with your Lord's Prayer post to me. Not intercessory prayer, not Communion of Saints, not Saints in Heaven, nothing about 'those who have died cannot pray for others'.
Off topic.
On the actual topic of intercessory prayer by the Saints in Heaven, you have said:
"Maybe they are. Maybe they aren’t." and "Granted that the saints in heaven may be praying for us..."
So, on the actual topic, your disagreement seems to be more with SM than with MD or me.
The Holy Spirit does NOT lead in two different directions. Only one of us can be correct on this one.
>>you would have to deny that the Holy Spirit actually led me to that belief<<
Actually I would say the RCC has led many, many people away.
>>You concede God may have used the Church to preserve Scripture and define it, however incorrectly regarding the books rejected by protestants.<<
Check out the words to the different churches in the first few chapters of Revelation for examples.
>>Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the church, but not to all truth, just to some truth with the rest to be revealed at a later date, and then, stopped guiding the church altogether letting Christians everywhere fall into error until the “reformation”.<<
Pretty analogus to what happened to the Jews under the Pharisees and Sadducees isn’t it.
That is a matter of your opinion which is based on a canon and tradition that differs than mine.
By what authority do you claim to determine the only relevant truth that God wishes us to have?
You’re getting closer to Sola Scriptura already. Now if you could just ditch that guy in the pointy hat in Rome.
LOL!
I love it:)
Oh the dead knew something in the Old Testament. The poor guy just wanted a drop of water on his tongue and to warn those not yet dead, remember. Would you say that has also changed?
Say what? Catholics believe a personal relationship? Say it ain’t so. We have been told over and over that Catholics don’t believe in a personal relationship. What happened?
Good analogy.
St. Paul is in big trouble under the “One Prayer Only” rule, dozens of times in his letters. And his words to “pray constantly” if it follows this rule would then invoke the “Vain and Repetitious” clause, yikes!
Then there’s Jesus in Mark 11:24 and Matt. 5:44-45…
Reminder: I still follow your advice not to rely on the opinions of fallible man, as it applies to you here.
Same thing will happen to the RCC.
>>Just as Scripture does not ever use the term Trinity to define the union of the Three Persons<<
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
>>Jesus says He will build His church, the believers of which are the body of Christ.<<
Would you make the claim that those who have accepted Christ as savior but do not belong to the organization called the RCC are not part of the body of Christ, the church?
>>someone will point to sinful leaders in the Church as a way to discount the good/truth in the Church.<<
So you would say then that because someone who is not Catholic said it that it pertains to all non Catholics? Would that then mean that all who are Catholics are pedophiles because some Catholics are?
The Holy Spirit does NOT lead in two different directions. Only one of us can be correct on this one.
Actually I would say the RCC has led many, many people away.
And by whose authority do you get to say which of us is correct and that the Church has led people away. And away from what? Jesus? I find that quite arrogant since it is in the Church that Jesus in the Eucharist is found.
Check out the words to the different churches in the first few chapters of Revelation for examples.
That some fall away into apostasy and error is not the same as the Holy Spirit leading the Church to error or abandoning His role in leading the Church to only truth.
The words of Revelation are warnings to those who know the truth but tolerate deception and apostasy within the ranks.
Revelation reiterates that the truth has been spoken and that we are called to follow truth or suffer the consequences.
Revelations says that God will remove the lampstand from its place, which is meant that the church will cease to exist there as lampstand is understood to be a “church.”
But, the Church has not ceased to exist as a whole, because Jesus promised the church would teach truth and not error and it is not the church which teaches error, but believers who fall away from the truth to embrace error.
And you have been told that by non Catholics, not Catholics.
Same thing will happen to the RCC.
It has not yet happened in 2000 years. The Church still stands as the pillar and bulwark of Truth. Though there have been periods of hardship and persecution, the Church itself remains.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
The word Trinity is not used here, nor is it explained just as I said.
Would you make the claim that those who have accepted Christ as savior but do not belong to the organization called the RCC are not part of the body of Christ, the church?
No
So you would say then that because someone who is not Catholic said it that it pertains to all non Catholics? Would that then mean that all who are Catholics are pedophiles because some Catholics are?
What I said was in answer to your claim that you had not seen contentions that the Church cannot be true because of its past/present sinful leaders. You said you had only seen contentions regarding the way the scandal was handled.
I maintain that there have been those who have said that because some in the hierarchy are proven sinners the Church cannot be true.
>>Thus, the Holy Spirit guided the church, but not to all truth, just to some truth with the rest to be revealed at a later date, and then, stopped guiding the church altogether letting Christians everywhere fall into error until the “reformation”.<<
Pretty analogus to what happened to the Jews under the Pharisees and Sadducees isn’t it.
So, did the Jews have the Holy Spirit as their advocate, guide and comforter before Jesus died and rose and sent Him? And did the Spirit stop guiding them at the most important time in history, i.e. when Jesus was with them and they refused to believe.
So which would you say is lying Luke or Matthew?
To say that Jesus renounced the veneration of Mary because the woman said,....
“Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked.” KJV Or as other translations say, “Blessed is the woman who gave you birth and nursed you.”
....is to say that Jesus contradicted Scripture when Mary says that all generations will call her blessed after Elizabeth has called her blessed.
Jesus here is saying that Mary was blessed to carry and give birth and to suckle Him BECAUSE she heard the Word of God and obeyed. In the same way we do what Mary did, we too will be blessed.
And gee, once again, asking the saints who have passed through death into life with Jesus for intercession is not the same as contacting or calling up the spirits of the dead for knowledge of the future for earthly personal gain.
And gee, again, that you believe there is no Scriptural support for those doctrines is a matter of your opinion based on a tradition different than mine.
And again, by whose authority do you deny my beliefs and traditions?
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.