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.
This isn’t in your canon?
Luke 11:27-28 27 And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked. 28 But he said, Nay rather, (Greek Menounge: nay surely, nay rather) blessed are they that hear the word of God, and keep it.
I guess when you are stumped to defend anything used.
Ephesians 3:17-18: Referring to the "inner man," Paul mentions that he prays "that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. (not in a cracker)
I John 3:24: "Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He has given us." (not by eating a cracker)
>> That some fall away into apostasy and error is not the same as the Holy Spirit leading the Church to error<<
The Holy Spirit leading to error? Are you kidding me? How blasphemous.
>> or abandoning His role in leading the Church to only truth.<<
When the RCC began to use Mary as the intermediary they surely ignored the Holy Spirit.
>> The words of Revelation are warnings to those who know the truth but tolerate deception and apostasy within the ranks.<<
Teaching the praying through Mary instead of believing that Jesus is the ONLY way is surely deception and causing apostasy.
That is your leap, not mine.
And a not too subtle attempt to distract from my questions and assertions.
I believe that the parents of Mary are Anne and Joachim as the Church teaches. Truth is that Scripture does not say anywhere who her parents were.
There is a document that names as her parents, Anne and Joachim, which is called the Protoevangelium of James, written about 150 AD, before the Jerusalem Talmud.
The Church makes no binding declaration on her members as to who Mary’s parents are and so we are free to believe in Anne and Joachim or Heli as her father, as you believe. The Church believes them to be Anne and Joachim and I have no problem with that belief and so accept it.
As for the differences in Luke and Matthew, I have no explanation. Just as I have no explanation for other apparent differences in the recounting of some stories by the Gospel writers. But, these slight differences have no bearing on my belief in God and in His Son, Jesus Christ.
I find it interesting though that you would hold up the fact that there is not word for “son-in-law” and thus, Heli, must be Mary’s father and Joseph’s “father-in-law”.
When Catholics use that same argument for why there are some in the NT called Jesus’ brothers who were really His cousins, we are roundly criticized and accused of “contorting” Scripture to support our belief that Mary bore no other children.
It matters not to me whether what you believe in this regard, I merely wanted to point out that in believing what you believe, you have relied on extra Biblical writings that contradict what Scripture clearly says.
Have you not been paying attention. Are you seriously saying that Catholics have not been claiming that the personal relationship that Protestants claim to have is false and don’t make sport of it? Seriously?
Hey metmom and smvoice. Seems we need another list.
Yes, it is there, we disagree on what it means.
>>No<<
Then the true church, the body of Christ, is not only the RCC?
"If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do." John 14:14
Please...do tell and SHOW where Paul taught anyone to pray to anyone OTHER than God Almighty, interceding for others....
Where does Paul or Peter, or Christ teach us to pray to anyone other than God?
Hoss
Isaiah 8:19 And when they shall say unto you, Seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and unto wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? 20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.
When you are in stress as those heathen you don’t pray through those who have died?
Clearly.
***Ephesians 3:17-18: Referring to the “inner man,” Paul mentions that he prays “that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith. (not in a cracker)***
And Jesus said, “This is My Body” and “This is My Blood”
What’s your point? Jesus, God can’t be with us in two different ways?
***I John 3:24: “Now he who keeps His commandments abides in Him, and He in him. And by this we know that He abides in us, by the Spirit which He has given us.” (not by eating a cracker)***
John 6:55-58
King James Version (KJV)
55For my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed.
56He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him.
57As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
58This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.
Some translations use live or abide instead of dwelleth.
Again, what’s your point? Jesus was lying when He said that His body was true food and His blood true drink?
***The Holy Spirit leading to error? Are you kidding me? How blasphemous.***
That one could think this is what I said is silly indeed. Reread what I wrote, slowly and carefully.
>> or abandoning His role in leading the Church to only truth.<<
****When the RCC began to use Mary as the intermediary they surely ignored the Holy Spirit.
>> The words of Revelation are warnings to those who know the truth but tolerate deception and apostasy within the ranks.<<
Teaching the praying through Mary instead of believing that Jesus is the ONLY way is surely deception and causing apostasy.****
I suppose if that was indeed what the Church taught, that could be considered heresy. However, since it’s is not, I have no fears that I am following error.
>>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.<<
To courtesy ping or not to courtesy ping........
My brain hurts just trying to wrap it around that kind of convoluted reasoning. What’s the purpose of praying to saints if not for personal gain? Aren’t the prayers always asking favors of them? Or are they asking the saints for privation and hardship?
***shakes head in disbelief***
See what protestants do?
First you claimed surprise that a Catholic would express a personal, intimate relationship with God, saying that Catholics don’t believe in a personal, intimate relationship.
I challenged that saying that you have heard that from non Catholics not Catholics, ABOUT CATHOLICS.
Catholics most certainly believe in a personal relationship with God and I don’t believe that any Catholic has said differently.
Next thing I know, the argument has been changed to say that Catholics claim that the Protestant’s claim of a personal relationship with God is false and make sport of it.
I guess your mistake is that I was talking about Catholics and you missed that, or I missed that you were talking about Protestants.
Selective memory. Selective Scripture. Selective knowledge of their own church history. The Church of “Depends”. But one thing they don’t seem to be all that “selective” about..their “saints”. Catherine of Sienna and Padre Pio come to mind, to name only two, who, instead of being declared heretics for their outrageous claims, are venerated. Can you imagine what this RCC “All Saints Day” must look like, in truth?
There is a diametric difference between Luke and Matthew’s lineage. One of them must be lying or not inspired by the Holy Spirit. Which one is it?
>>I find it interesting though that you would hold up the fact that there is not word for “son-in-law” and thus, Heli, must be Mary’s father and Joseph’s “father-in-law”.<<
Heli is Mary’s father and Joseph’s father-in-law.
>>When Catholics use that same argument for why there are some in the NT called Jesus’ brothers who were really His cousins, we are roundly criticized and accused of “contorting” Scripture to support our belief that Mary bore no other children.<<
Mark 6:3 Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of James, and Joses, and of Juda, and Simon? and are not his sisters here with us?
Matt 13:55 Is not this the carpenter's son? is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? 56 And his sisters, are they not all with us?
Mark 6:4 But Jesus, said unto them, A prophet is not without honour, but in his own country, and among his own kin, and in his own house. The same word (adelphos) is used in many other passages. We know that Simon Peter was Andrew’s brother; (Matt 4:18) that John was the brother of James; (Matt 4:21) that Herod had a brother, Philip; (Matt 14:3) that Judas (not Iscariot) was the brother of another James; (Luke 6:16) that Lazarus was the brother of Mary and Martha; (John 11:2) that Jesus had four brothers and at least two sisters. (Matt 13:55; Mark 6:3)
No, it’s not for personal gain, at ALL. Burying a statue of Joseph in your yard in order to sell your house is not “personal gain”...only in the world of buying Mary lottery candles could that be called “not for personal gain”...lol!
The fullness of Truth as revealed by God to the Jews and by Jesus to the first believers and by the Holy Spirit to the Church is proclaimed, preserved and defended by the Catholic Church.
All who are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are members of the Church, though some not may be in perfect communion with her.
One note here....
When I say belong, I mean one who attends Mass and accepts the teachings. So, while one may “belong” in spirit through baptism, one may not “belong” in practice.
When you are in stress as those heathen you don’t pray through those who have died?
Sorry, I have no idea what this question even means, much less how to answer.
Catholics do not call up the spirits of the dead for knowledge of the future nor to circumvent or contradict God’s Holy Will.
In case you don’t already know this, the intercession we seek from them is with God and only according to His will.
We would never ask a saint for something that was contrary to God’s will for us.
Hi Hoss,
Have you been round the intercessory prayer discussion before?
This particular branch (the one you replied to) concerns the assertion:
“Those who have died cannot pray for others,” which involves two questions: intercessory prayer and the Communion of Saints.
The intercessory part of it is about Christians praying for others, not about whom one prays to; as in who is God. Pray also means ask. I can pray to you to pray for me. This would be asking for your intercession.
In this discussion it was posited that the Lord’s Prayer is the only prayer for Christians, i replied with the reference to intercessory prayer and St. Paul.
Specifically my question: “Are you unfamiliar with St. Paul and his words on intercessions?”
Those who are recall that St. Paul often asked others for their prayers for him (and for others). And that he urges supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all, saying this is pleasing to God. These would be prayers other than the Lord’s Prayer which was the point of my reply to which you replied.
And here we are, hopefully back on line now on the point of discussion concerning intercessions, intercessory prayer and asking others for theirs.
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.