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.
He said that about His while in His earthly flesh. Is the “real presence” of Jesus flesh and blood the same as His earthly flesh?
>>Again, what’s your point? Jesus was lying when He said that His body was true food and His blood true drink?<<
He also said He was a door, a Lamb, and several other things. Do you also take those literally?
>>I suppose if that was indeed what the Church taught, that could be considered heresy.<<
Well, maybe we should break it down. Let’s take the prayer of Prayer of Pope Pius XII. [http://catholicism.about.com/od/tothevirginmary/qt/Honor_Immacula.htm]
I’ll use just the bolded excerpts from the prayer.
we cast ourselves into your arms
1 Peter 5:7 Casting all your care upon him; for he careth for you. (When did we need to replace God with Mary?)
confident of finding in your most loving heart appeasement of our ardent desires, and a safe harbor from the tempests which beset us on every side.
Hebrews 4:15-16 For we do not have a High Priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but was in all points tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore come boldly to the throne of grace, that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need. (once again Catholics replacing Christ with Mary)
O crystal fountain of faith
Romans 12:3 according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. or "a measure of faith." (but Mary is the “fountain of faith” for Catholics)
Lily of all holiness
1 Samuel 2:2 There is none holy as the LORD: for there is none beside thee: neither is there any rock like our God. (for Catholics however, “all holiness” is given to Mary)
Conqueress of evil and death
Hosea 13:14 I will ransom them from the power of the grave; I will redeem them from death: O death, I will be thy plagues; O grave, I will be thy destruction: repentance shall be hid from mine eyes. (but Catholics claim it was Mary who conquered death)
Convert the wicked
John 16:7 Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. 8 And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment: 9 Of sin, because they believe not on me; (Catholics have even replaced the Holy Spirit with Mary)
Statement by catholic Bishop Liqouri “.......We often more quickly obtain what we ask by calling on the name of Mary than by invoking that of Jesus.....” She...is our Salvation, our Life, our Hope, our Counsel, our Refuge, our Help”
Need I go on? Catholics have replaced virtually every attribute and working of God and given that to Mary in their worship
Let that one sink in for a moment.
So the saint goes to God and checks His will for you, and then proceeds to either accept your request or deny your request..the saint is the middle man in negotiations between you and God.. is this right?
It must make sense to them somehow. It’s beyond me but there you have it. Then they make fun of us for claiming to have a personal relationship with Christ then come in and show that they claim to have a personal relationship. (sigh)
And the word for cousin is?
And how many Mary’s are mentioned in Scripture?
And Scripture does not say that James etc....are the sons of Mary. Does kin refer only to the immediate family, or does it include cousins?
And there is no word for “son-in-law”, so when Scripture says Joseph is the descendent of David in both lineages, it must be because there is no word for son-in-law and it’s Mary’s dad not Joseph’s.
Trying to have it both ways.
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?
That is not the question here...
Why do you insist on accepting/using writings that directly contradict what Scripture says to support a belief that is not clearly stated in Scripture?
Catholics have consistently been making fun of Protestants for claiming to have a personal relationship with Christ.
>> 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.<<
That’s exactly what’s been happening. You haven’t seen the Catholics making fun of the “buddy” relationship of Protestants with the cute yipeoo graphic.
CB, I have to go for now.
Will respond to this in the AM
Have a good night.
and that’s not idol worship either so don’t even go there.
and that’s not idol worship either so don’t even go there. Oh, I forgot. Don’t even go there…..girl!
Hey, I had not even realized that. A two-fer candle. For worship AND the lottery. What a system they have going.
Are you now claiming that there are no superstitious Protestants or "merely" claiming the Church endorses superstition?
LOL!
Is Matthew or Luke in error?
>>That is not the question here...<<
Yes, it is. You said they both lead to Joseph. The one says from Nathan, the other says from Solomon. You can’t have it both ways.
>>Why do you insist on accepting/using writings that directly contradict what Scripture says to support a belief that is not clearly stated in Scripture?<<
It completely supported scripture unless you assert that either Matthew or Luke are in error. You can’t have it both ways.
You speak as one who MAY have, at one time, buried a statue of Joseph in your yard, in order to sell your house..
Nope, but I have on more than one occasion contemplated sticking a big hat pin an a wax figure of a few of you.
CCC - 2138 Superstition is a departure from the worship that we give to the true God. It is manifested in idolatry, as well as in various forms of divination and magic.
Ah, voodoo. But of course you have contemplated it. Aren't you the one who attempted the internet exorcism not long ago?
Good thing the Protestants don’t claim that that nonsense is part of the doctrine of the church like the Rosary nonsense is part of the Catholic deal.
Whatever that post means, it’s for certain the opinion of a fallible man.
Sorry, but you set your rule: rejected.
If I lived next door to you I would bury the Statue of Liberty if it would help to sell my house quicker.....
I take it you don’t do the Rosary like Rod Parsley does the prayer cloth? Kooks aren’t they?
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.